Search results

The question of how we know when censorship occurred has several sides. Problems of evidence of censorship do not only arise from practical obstacles, but also from its very nature as a knowledge-related phenomenon. Scarcity and abundance of information about censorship may be determined by the extent of the censors’ success or by uneven research efforts. These factors often make it complicated to demarcate censorship from similar restrictions and to identify patterns and trends in the relationship between power and freedom. The present chapter looks into this epistemological problem by mapping the set of concepts governing and surrounding censorship in the particular field of history. It draws up a mini-dictionary with definitions of 26 key concepts related to, larger than, and different from the censorship of history. As these definitions are interrelated, the set in its entirety forms a taxonomy.

Although the state of Israel is a democracy, military censorship has been in use since its establishment in 1948 and is still imposed. The chapter analyzes the theoretical and practical grounds for military censorship in Israel based on an agreement between relevant parties: the government, the army, the media, and the public. Analysis of Israeli military censorship reveals that military censorship is not necessarily the enemy of the media and the public's right to know. On the contrary and paradoxically, we show that in Israel's case, military censorship not only performs its task of preventing the publication of information that threatens the national security, at times it sustains the country's freedom of the press, freedom of information, and the public's right to know.

Purpose – It may be time to reformulate the rejection of censorship. Freedom is not the only opposite of, strategic resource against, or antidote to, censorship. Methodology/Approach – This chapter argues against censorship with a Kantian-normative approach (the deontological position of the categorical imperative), using conceptual analysis, constructivism, and international legal scholarship, from the standpoint of a humanity-wide duty to safeguard and promote cultural diversity and biodiversity. Increasingly visible weaknesses of the argument against censorship from the utilitarian standpoint of freedom, a negative argument, can be avoided in this way. Findings – Especially the neoliberal approach to freedom has no provisions against corporate and only little against copyright censorship, which are both becoming increasingly acute. Diversity, on the other hand, both biological and cultural, is argued to be instrumentally good, and intrinsically good, but the latter only if balanced by equality of basic rights. Originality/Value – The resulting moral and legal imperatives are to support, safeguard, and promote diversity, and thus to minimize both censorship in culture and selection/elimination in nature, but only to minimize them, simply because they cannot themselves be eliminated. It is impossible to eliminate elimination. This becomes clear when one considers self- and soft censorship. At least in the wide sense, censorship is inevitable – but sustainable development is impossible without strict minimization of censorship.

Purpose – Public debates about censorship laws largely focus on their desirability and the limits set on free speech. From a historical perspective, however, the logic and contradictions inherent in these laws’ implementation, as well as their evasion, also merit attention. This chapter places at the heart of its investigation the General Communist Notification (1932) in British India which prohibited specific kinds of Communist publications from import and circulation, even more so in a context of mass anti-colonial nationalism. Methodology/Approach – Using government and intelligence agencies’ archival records, intercepted documents of the Communist Party of India, legislative debates and memoirs, this chapter illustrates the censorship of Communist literature in India at two levels: one, it sketches a broad picture of the mode and extent of the censorship of Communist literature in late colonial India (c. 1925–1947). Two, by excavating debates and processes around the treatment to be accorded to books of two British Communist writers, John Strachey and R. P. Dutt, it reveals the constraints and dilemmas of censorship of Communist literature. While doing so, it brings both Indian and British voices to the fore. Findings – This investigation provides valuable insights into the operation of laws related to specific genres of publications, provides an assessment of the success of censorship measures, and highlights the repercussions of their failure. Originality/Value – By illustrating the limited success of censorship measures, as well as the dilemmas of censors and debates among them, this chapter urges for a more nuanced and multidimensional understanding of the operation of censorship, particularly in politically fraught contexts.

This chapter examines books written by foreign authors which were published in Brazil and censored by the military regime between 1964 and 1985. The study focuses on non-fiction books, using official period documentation, with the goal of conducting an extensive survey of these works as well as examining the reasons why they were censored by the regime. The results of the research lead us to a greater understanding of the reasoning of censorship from within the State and to a greater understanding of the Brazilian military dictatorship as a whole.

A lack of access to information due to censorship still exists in today’s society, one example being within our prison facilities. In 2018, Big House Books (BHB), a nonprofit organization that sends free books by request to prisoners in Mississippi correctional facilities, filed a lawsuit against the Mississippi Department of Corrections and the South Mississippi Correctional Institution located near Leakesville, Mississippi, when the institution started returning books to BHB and requesting they only send religious books instead. Later that same year, the Human Rights Defense Center, a nonprofit organization working for criminal justice reform, filed a suit on behalf of prisoners of the Forrest County Jail located in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, stating that all books and periodicals other than the Bible and occasionally other Christian publications had been banned from the facility.

The current study is an in-depth case study of these two cases of censorship in southern Mississippi correctional facilities. Through a series of qualitative interviews with individuals connected to the cases, the study seeks to better understand the current phenomenon of censorship in prisons. Participants included prison employees, lawyers, and others involved in the two cases. Whether it be through services such as an actual library or information center provided by the prison facility, or the facility allowing books and other materials to be sent to inmates, incarcerated individuals have the right to access information. This study seeks to enlighten and act as a catalyst for change regarding censorship that is occurring within prisons today.

Without knowledge of prison censorship restrictions and its impact on collection development, public and academic libraries may find initiating and continuing collaborative projects with prisons challenging. This chapter provides a background on the American Library Association’s correctional-facility guidelines, an introduction to prison censorship restrictions and collection policies, an introduction to what specific challenges collaborators may encounter, and a flowchart to show how to navigate such challenges.

In the midst of the pandemic, the American Library Association (ALA) Rainbow Round Table (RRT) celebrated the 50^th anniversary of the Stonewall Book Awards, which recognize books of exceptional merit relating to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and plus (LGBTQIA+) community experience. In tandem, the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) reported record numbers of book challenges, mostly based on texts written by or about members of the LGBTQIA+ community. This chapter considers these seemingly divergent issues within a broader social and historical context – and serves as a testament to the steadfast resolve of librarians to resist censorship and promote the freedom to read during turbulent times. The first section provides an overview of pandemic complexities. The second part of the chapter centers around professional milestones and some recent award-winning literary works. The middle section briefly reviews issues related to challenges over time. This is followed by an exploration of the recent surge in censorship with emphasis on LGBTQIA+ content in public libraries as well as aspects of resistance. The final section offers some ideas for moving forward.