The undersigned
organizations, whose members represent a broad cross-section of the book
community in America, believe that concerns being expressed over portrayals of
violence in the media, including films, television, music, and video games, as
well as communication via the Internet, are generating demands for action that
threaten core First Amendment freedoms. The frenetic search for ways to deal
with this perceived problem has produced “solutions” that involve either direct
government regulation of content or offers to stay the government’s hand if the
media “clean up their act,” that is, engage in self-censorship or labeling
practices.
However legitimate the concerns, the proposed cures are worse than the illness.
They would extract an unacceptably high price in terms of eroding our
fundamental guarantees of free expression. The authors, publishers, booksellers,
and librarians who have joined in this statement have often faced criticism over
the allegedly harmful effects of the books that they write, publish and make
available- books that deal with all aspects of human experience. Our consistent
response has been to remind our critics – and interested legislators and judges
– of the fundamental precepts of free expression that must guide our society’s
judgments in these matters.
These first principles, which have allowed the book world to flourish, apply
equally to all media of expression. Among them:
1. Censorship is not the answer to violence in society.
The root causes of violence in society lie beyond violent portrayals by the
media. This being so, the search for solutions must go beyond facile censorship
initiatives, which inevitably compromise our fundamental freedom of expression,
and instead seek out and attack these root causes. The problem is complex; so,
too, are its solutions. There is no “quick fix,” and we deceive ourselves if we
embrace the view that stifling the media messenger will blot out the sometimes
disturbing messages it conveys.
2. The First Amendment protects the widest range of expression.
The First Amendment, whether embodied in the freedom to speak, to read, or
to communicate through electronic media, is grounded in the proposition that the
widest possible array of views and expression must be protected. The strength of
the First Amendment lies in the diversity it promotes – the freedom to speak
one’s mind, to read or watch what one pleases – however out-of-favor, offensive,
or irreverent it may be.
3. It is not properly the role of the government to evaluate the merits of
expression.
An underlying premise of free expression is the recognition that no individual
or group, let alone a governmental body, possesses the wisdom to separate “good”
from “bad” speech (violent or otherwise); to identify valid versus invalid
premises in the elusive search for truth; nor to gauge what speech will promote
a better body politic or enhance individual self-fulfillment. This enlightenment
is, instead, left to the outcome of a cacophony of speech, clashing – often
brilliantly, sometimes banally – in the “marketplace of ideas.” It is by
exposing, confronting, and addressing controversial speech, not by hiding it
beneath a veil of censorship, that the merits of that speech can be tested. In
the words of the great Justice Brandeis, the best antidote for false speech is
“more speech, not enforced silence.”
4. Evaluating the worth of expression is subjective.
The controversy over depictions of violence in the media underscores the
futility of attempting to define “acceptable” content. Few, if any, would argue
that portrayals of violence play no proper role in works of expression. Rather,
most critics take issue with certain portrayals of violence in certain works.
Every critic, however, has a unique parade of horrors; no two critics’ lists are
the same. Indeed, works that some critics deem to be the least “worthy” are
deemed by others to be of great value. Judgments as to what constitutes “good”
versus “bad” portrayals of violence often tell us more about the sensibilities
or politics of the critic than about the “intrinsic worth” of the expression.
Experience counsels, moreover, that public tastes and standards of
“acceptability” shift dramatically over time. Many books, plays and movies that
once were targets of censorship are today revered as classics. If
sure-footedness along the path of “desirable” and “undesirable” speech has
eluded us for more than 200 years, it is highly improbable that we are now
graced with clear vision as to what constitutes desirable and undesirable
expression in the form of media portrayals of violence.
5. Portrayals of violence in the media reflect a violent world.
Book authors, publishers, booksellers and librarians, along with those
engaged in creating and distributing other media, strive to enrich the quality
and diversity of thought and expression. But it is also evident that authors,
composers, and other creators draw centrally on both history and contemporary
culture as sources of inspiration. Before we too quickly condemn media
portrayals of violence, we must ask ourselves the degree to which they mirror
life experience. One need only turn on the nightly news to be reminded of the
pervasiveness of violence in our society. Nor are commentaries on and depictions
of violence a recent phenomenon. Throughout history, violence has been a matter
of public fascination and absorption, as the Bible, The Iliad, and the works of
Shakespeare attest. That today’s media continue to reflect this enduring aspect
of our culture is neither surprising nor a basis for condemnation.
6. Individuals, not
the government, bear responsibility for determining what materials are
appropriate for themselves and their children.
Parents must play the primary role in shaping their children’s media
choices, and they must prepare their children for the wide range of material and
information to which they will be exposed in a free society. The answer to
perceived gratuitous violence or demeaning portrayals in the media is not the
heavy hand of government censorship, but the conscious control of one’s (and
one’s children’s) consumption and choices. The freedom to read, watch, and
listen also entails the privilege not to do any of these and to discourage or
prohibit one’s children from reading, watching, or listening to particular
materials – at all or in excess. If the media misread the degree of public
interest in or tolerance for particular fare – violent or otherwise – surely the
swiftest way for the public to get that message across in our free-market
economy is at the box office, the book or record store, or via the channel
selector of a television set.
The foregoing principles apply with equal force to the Internet. Even in its
early development, the Internet offers unique promise as a communication medium.
The very novelty of the Internet affords breathtaking new speech vistas; at the
same time, its ubiquitousness has fueled rash censorship initiatives that would
severely limit, if not block from attainment altogether, those new speech
horizons. As with our treatment of the media that preceded it, the Internet must
be left to develop with an appreciation that concern for our children and
fundamental speech freedoms are not mutually exclusive, and that we do not have
to sacrifice one for the other, but can – and must – find ways to nurture both.
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
American Society of Journalists and Authors
Association of American Publishers, Inc.
Association of American University Presses
Authors Guild
Freedom to Read Foundation,
PEN American Center
|
