The Publishing World Post #4: "Killing Voices--Literally"

I was at a loss as to what to investigate this month until my little brother called me to celebrate his latest college freshman triumph: news editor of the WPI student paper. We chatted briefly, but what struck him as the greatest detail of the situation was not that he was given such a great responsibility as an underclassman in his first semester, but that he would not have the restrictions on published material that were quite heavily placed on our high school newspaper. Since last week was the ALA’s Banned Books Week, I thought censorship a fitting subject, as well as one coming closer and closer to home. The ALA’s web site offers the fairly standard fare of “banned lists”—including the most challenged books of the 21^st century to the top ten from last year, with explanations like “homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group” (Richardson and Parnell’s And Tango Makes Three) and “sexual content and offensive language” (Naylor’s Alice). The Modesto Bee printed an opinion article entitled “Somebody would prefer that you didn’t read this” on October 2^nd, and in true small paper fashion, the letter backed the banned books, downed censorship, and made all the arguments any forward-thinking American would: that our First Amendment rights should be exercised for our own benefit and that banning books is just plain dumb. The article did, however, mention a few international episodes that remind readers that just because the US calls itself “censorship-free” doesn’t mean that our electronic presence on the global web isn’t threatened by forces outside the Constitution’s control. In light of recent events in Myanmar, censorship through brute force seems to be a burgeoning trend. Stateside news reporters had to keep their sources secret for fear of inadvertently alerting the Junta’s henchmen to protesters’ identities and ensuring their torture. According reporter Eric Silver, “The only manager of Gaza’s only Christian bookshop, who was abducted on Saturday by suspected Muslim extremists, was found dead yesterday” and “40 video cassette shops and internet cafes, identified with Western values, have been bombed [in Gaza] in the past year” (qtd in Seattle Pi). Wanting to hear that universal freedom of speech was on the rise, not the fall, I kept surfing till I happened upon the International Cities of Refuge Network, an affiliate of the global literacy and culture group International PEN. ICORN calls itself “an association of cities and regions around the world dedicated to the value of Freedom of Expression.” Their main purpose: aiding writers who “targets of politically motivated threats and persecution.” As of ICORN’s foundation in 2005, more than 1,000 writers were identified as in need of protection or asylum. Their seventy-three page long Case List is a terrifying read, especially when the last page lists the forty-four writers killed in 2005 and 2006, the 284 imprisoned writers, 30 disappearances, and dizzying statistics for harassment, abuse, detention, and persecution. If I lived in any of the countries listed as danger zones for independent thinkers, would I, too, be on this list? Would I be eligible for help if I were just a publisher? Writers aren’t the only persecuted bearers of the written word. The bookseller in Gaza was victim to the same horrors that authors the world over have been subjected to; publishers can’t be immune to the politics of the month, day or hour just because they didn’t write the material. Knowing that there are people in the world who put themselves on the line to make literature of all backgrounds and intents and philosophies available to the people at large makes me think hard about the work that I will one day endorse as an editor. Just because my name isn’t on the cover doesn’t mean it’s not mine, doesn’t mean that I’m not responsible for the contents, effects, and insinuations of every serif of every printed letter. With this in mind, “Howl’s” survival of the censorship bans fifty years ago this week means a lot, but the fact that WBAI didn’t read it on the airwaves for fear of an FCC fine means even more. This cannot be a safe direction for the nation that claims to be a bastion of freedom. The New York Times hit it on the nose when quoting Ginsberg: “Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture.” While I began this week snidely remembering student-written articles that had to focus on high school curriculum and couldn’t insult the janitorial staff, I’m now worried about the future of my work as a publisher, my passion as a writer, and my soul as a reader. Where to from here?