Intellectual freedom is fundamental for the development of society and democracy. It is well articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration states in Article 19 that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas though any media and regardless of frontiers.” Equally important and at times controversial is censorship, to a greater extend that limits, although purely restrict access to materials deemed inappropriate to societal, political and religious values. In that context the subject of censorship has come under spotlight in libraries, conferences, families and at national level debates. This work endeavours to discuss the relationship that exists between intellectual freedom and censorship citing relevant examples from the global perspective. However the terms intellectual freedom and censorship are to be defined. Issues to be discussed include intellectual freedom as the cornerstone of the library profession, its mechanism for socializing society and forging cultural and economic unity among other issues.
According to Cain (2006) “intellectual freedom is the right of individuals to express freely ideas and beliefs without restriction from government or other authorities. It includes the corresponding right of individuals to have unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used . . .” Bryne (1999) opine that intellectual freedom encompasses academic freedom but extend beyond the academy to the essential principles of freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression. ALA (2007) in Pooley (2007) attests intellectual freedom in the right to freedom of thought and of expression of thought. It further mentions that it is a human right. The basic definition given by IFLA (2002) in Fitzsimmons (1996) is that;
Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restrictions. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored . . . . Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas.”
Fitzsimmons (1996) corroborate that intellectual freedom is the fundamental right . . . to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity and to express their thoughts publicly. According to Draper (2001) intellectual freedom is understood to be the right of all individuals to formulate and articulate their own understanding of the character of the world and of society, and to have unrestricted access to the information necessary to develop this understanding.
The author deduce that intellectual freedom constantly describe the free access and publishing of intellectual material at will without any strings attached and is well articulated in various declarations and conventions as a basic human right.
Censorship on the hand is denoting, according to Fitzsimmons (1996);
. . . effort by a government, organisations, groups or individual to prevent people from reading, seeing or hearing what may be considered as dangerous to government or harmful to public. It further entails efforts to ban, prohibit, suppress, prosecute, remove, label or restrict materials.”
According to Staples (2001) censorship is the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. ALA (2004) attests that censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons – individuals, groups or government officials – find objectionable or dangerous. The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom refer censorship to the deletion or excision of parts of published materials but also efforts to ban, prohibit, suppress, proscribe, remove, label or restrict materials. Sens (2010) discuss censorship at length and coined that “in a democratic society it is not just removal of information, it is also an attitude that is counter to the notion of an open society, as it discourages informed participation, honest dialogue and criticism and results in conflict that for the short-term benefit of a false sense of security actually hampers the peace and happiness of individual and is counterproductive to their institutions. A more vivid understanding of censorship was discussed by Byrne (1998) who pointed out that censorship may be broadly be defined as any action that works against a climate of intellectual freedom. He went on to mention that censorship is both the process and the practice of excluding material that is deemed by someone to be objectionable. In the closing Byrne (1998) coined that censorship is the most powerful nonmilitary tool that is available to governments. Interesting contributions by Ristarp (2000) states that in modern thought, censorship is an effort by a government, private organisation, group, or individual to prevent people from reading, seeing, or hearing what may be considered as dangerous to government or harmful to public morality. Ristarp (2000) further attests that in a restricted sense censorship refers to the work of a person or agency with the authority to come between the producer to publish, and the consumer to acquire knowledge of, the censored materials.
From the above it can be deduced that censorship is both a process and practice that is suppress intellectual freedom through varied means, some perpetuate law and enforcement agency. It is considered to be a negative act which denies access to information.
Several authors (Pooley, 2007; Fitzsimmons, 1996; Cain, 2006; and Draper, 2007) share that in every society, in every age – from ancient Rome to modern American – the climate of intellectual freedom has been constantly threatened by acts of censorship. The threat referred to speaks volumes of the perspective that intellectual freedom and censorship are comparable to water and oil. In scientific terms water and oil do not share similar atom formation therefore they do not bond either by electron transfer or sharing.
The definitions given specified that censorship is diabolic as it denies access to intellectual imaginations that are crucial in society to institute development. Information by its nature is a crucial commodity critical in national political, economic, scientific and technological (PEST) growth. It is available through freedom of expression that is a key element as articulated in the e in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1950 that clearly states that;
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers (Ristarp, 2000).
There is widespread condemnation of censorship as a restrictive, undesirable practice that suppresses ideas and information to impose [the censors] view of what is truthful and appropriate (Pooley, 2007). It is the restrictions that spur the water and oil relationship as the other is trying to provide unlimited access as far as possible, and the other component is restricting and at some instances completely bans the item. The general public requires information for different purposes, of which in a democratic society it is functional requisite. Failure to have access to information is tantamount to authoritarian rule. Censorship has been used by several governments to restrict spread of information that seek to clarify the position of the political warfare in a nation. This is normally instigated through suppressing the media both electronic and print. The destructive results were penned by Bryne (2000) who stated that; “In a nation in which we cannot express an opinion for or against a government, ideology or dogma, we do not have the freedom to select a government, ideology or dogma.” It is the failure to democratically make a choice that is bemoaned at in censorship.
Information per se is imperative as a primary mechanism for socializing children and forging a sense of cultural unity in society. In this context Draper (2000) opined that libraries and schools play an instrumental function of inculcating in the society an understanding of the complexity of human systems and interaction to provide an environment in which critical thinking and effective problem solving skills (both moral and practical) can be effectively developed. Socialisation is possible to the fullest were intellectual freedom is not interfered with. The basis of societal growth and purveying of a culture pivot on freedom of expression of ideas that are transmitted from one generation to the next. ALA in Ristarp (2000) signify intellectual freedom is the basis of a democratic system that leads people to be self-governors but to do so citizenry must be well-informed. The significance of intellectual property has been outlined that is being threatened by censorship in the pretext that we are protecting soceity yet in actual fact they are disadvantaging the new generation. Most of the cultural materials are enshrined in books that are housed in libraries but are censored thereby pulling them off the shelves depriving the public what is fundamental. This clearly put forward the undesirability of censorship to deny what is right others. Instances in the United States of books banned and pulled off the shelves are tip of an iceberg of how censorship can be draconian. In Zimbabwe too books and musical recordings have been pulled-off air as they are considered insulting on moral, political and religious grounds. The album by Hosiah Chipanga “Xenophobia” was pulled of the air as well as other musical recordings of Thomas Mapfumo and Learnard Zhakata among others.
Ward (1990) articulated that censorship is wrong because it makes it less likely that truth will be discovered or preserved and it is wrong because it has destructive consequences for the intellectual character of those who live under it. The aspects that it separate people from the truth and information, censorship make it difficult for information reach to all people. Therefore it becomes an enemy to intellectual freedom, so to say. This further affirms to the notion that intellectual freedom and censorship are like water and oil. Staples (1996) testify that reading what she liked to read helped her learn whom she was and where she fit into the world. The testimony outlined how critical intellectual freedom is in shaping society and the individual in pursuing their goal. Censorship may be preemptive (preventing the publication or broadcast of undesirable information) or punitive (punishing those who publish or broadcast offending material) (Pooley, 2007). The identifies forms of censorship provoke the intellectual property rights, creating an unconducive environment to write, act and do theatre as whatever theme being portrayed in the scene is subject to censor. Censorship restricts creativity, imaginations, and largely suppresses academic freedom. Instances in Zimbabwe that have negatively affect academic freedom are when the political situation has fundamentally negative impact on academic freedom and has significantly reduced the scope of free inquiry (Moyo, 2009). The actions stifled academic development in universities as intellectual capital fled to exile as Moyo (2009) highlighted that the high levels of human rights abuses has put scholars at risk negatively affecting operations of universities.
Libraries are avenues that promote intellectual freedom through acquisitions of information sources to implement the IFLA and UNESCO manifestos on public and school libraries and the internet and multicultural manifesto. These efforts are met with resistance from government bodies and local activists who from time to time monitor what books, internet resources and discussions are held in public libraries. The librarians are faced with an ethical dilemma that eventually would be superseded by circumstances. To avoid confrontations with law enforcement agents and parents, librarians end up neglecting controversial books. Staples (1996) noted that by far the most common type of censorship involves books quietly disappearing from libraries and frequently a librarian removes the controversial book to safeguard their jobs. This is what Staples (1996) termed “stealth censorship.” Examples of books that have been banned due to moral and religious concerns are Satanic verses, Daddy’s roommate, Scary Stories to tell in the Dark and a local book by Edgar Tegere. Sens (2010) noted that censorship from the professional perspective of a library professional is not only a moral issue, it is also practical issue, because the practice of censorship puts a real constraint on the selection of materials . . . a librarian could decide to avoid acquiring materials that represent a risk. From Sens (2010) point of view library collections should contain materials representing a variety of perspectives on subjects that may be considered controversial. Censorship practice does not foster a sense of open dialogue and infantilizes patrons in direct contradiction with “critical thinking” expectations discussed Sens (2010).
In modern society there is widespread support for intellectual freedom. Malley (1990) in Pooley (2007) identified intellectual freedom as the essence of the profession of librarianship a view also shared by other authors, Bryne, (2000), Sens (2010), Fitzsimmons (1996) and Bryne (1999) noted that intellectual freedom is a responsibility for librarians. Despite the above assertion censorship may be practiced on political, religious, moral and legal ground making the offence one of treason, heresy, or obscenity, according to Rispat (2000). Thus censorship has little or no respect for intellectual freedom as noted by Bryne (2000) that China has an appalling record of intimidating activists for democracy and practice strong censorship. This has been substantiated by a recent event reported by CNN that China has blocked all social media and blogging website to slow down peoples communications. The event has demonstrated that true indeed, intellectual freedom and censorship are water and oil. Similar instance are happening Zimbabwe were journalists are arrested and criminalised for publishing stories that are considered degrading and likely to cause or facilitate efficiency of the Rwanda genocide wrote the News Day. News Day (2010) concluded that it is the freedom of the press and intellectual freedom on trial. The situations vividly portray the water and oil circumstances under scrutiny in the discussion.
The comments on censorship apparently state that it is an undesirable practice that restricts access to information thereby stifling development and impeding freedom of expression. The practice of censorship is still controversial in modern society as it was in the early years considering that declarations and covenants having been passed to promote intellectual freedom. The thought was expressed by Malon (2010) that the universal philosophical embrace of free expression is reflected in the many covenants and declarations that have been passed in support of freedom and human rights; these include the UN Charter (1945), the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), the Helsinki Final Act (1975), and the American (Western Hemisphere) Convention on Human Rights (1978). The internet, a tool designed to allow free flow of information is under threat from censorship and already terms such as “internet censorship” are finding their way into the censorship terminology. Bryne (1999) observed that censorship battles have shifted to the internet with propositions to erect barriers to the intellectual frontiers, filtering what people may access. According to Bryne (1999) such measures strike at the right to know, our right to freely access information and to openly express views . . . they strike at the core universities, at academic freedom itself. The water and oil is registered here as the impositions of internet censorship would limit access to information for research and study.
However, Malon (2010) also observed that despite its many disreputable uses, censorship also serves a more benign end. The argument is that many suggest that censorship is necessary for a healthy society and in some cases may be for the protection of the public highlighted Malon (2010). One such example is in the broadcasting of explicit material, be it violent or sexual in nature even it may be argued that broadcasters should be free to broadcast content, parents should also be free to have their children watch television without the fear that they will see inappropriate material. Another benign use of censorship is that of information that is secret for national security purposes. Malon (2010) maintains that governments should uphold a level of secrecy in regards to much pertaining to the national defense so as not to reveal weaknesses to any security risks.
The foregoing underpinned the standoff in modern literature concerning intellectual freedom and censorship. It emerged that censorship suppress intellectual freedom due to political, moral and religious pressure in the name of creating a habitable intellectual climate though punishing though giving birth to the controversy. Intellectual freedom has been identified as a necessity and a human right to foster development and create informed citizenry. Information has been identified as the avenue for sustainable development thus needs to be made available as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Right. The picture of water and oil referred to has been fashioned by the fact that censorship restricts and in some instances completed ban the circulation of intellectual property whilst intellectual freedom advocate for free and uninterrupted flow of information in any medium and form. The restrictions threaten media freedom, academic freedom and any other freedoms articulated in the declarations and covenants. It also emerged that censorship is a tool used by governments; however it is not as bad as it has been portrayed as it necessary for a healthy society.
Reference
American Libraries Association (2004) “Intellectual freedom and censorship Q and A.” Available at http://www.ala.org/. (Accessed 12/4/2011).
Byrne, Alex (1999) “See librarian.” Australian Academic and Research Libraries, vol. 30; no. 2. Available at http://archive.ifla.org/faife/papers/others/byrne2.htm (Accessed 5/4/2011).
Byrne, Alex (2000) “Promoting intellectual freedom globally through libraries: the role of IFLA.” Libri. Vol.50; no. 50, p. 57 – 65.
Cain, Charlene C. (2006) “Librarians and censorship: the ethical imperative.” Louisiana Libraries, p. 6 – 8.
Draper, Lincoln (2001) “Intellectual freedom, censorship and the schools: an American values conflict.” Available at http://pages.swep.com/~ldraper?slum/biblios/draper.html (Accessed 10/4/2011).
Fitzsimmons, Richard (1996) “Censorship, intellectual freedom, librarianship and the democratic state.” Paper presented at the international conference: “Libraries, Books, Ideology During the Second World War (1939 – 1945), National library of Latvia, Riga, Latvia. October 8 – 12. Available at http://archive.ifla.org/ (Accessed 5/4/2011).
Malon, T. (2010) “What is censorship?” Available at http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/. (Accessed 12/4/2011).
Moyo, Jabulani (2009) “Academic freedom and human rights in Zimbabwe.” Social Research. Available at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/. (Accessed at 14/4/2011).
News Day, 14 June 2010, Harare.
Pooley, Alexandra (2007) “Ethical training: censorshiop and intellectual freedom in public library.” A Master of Arts in Library Science, University of Sheffield. Available at http://idagda.shef.ac.uk/dissertations/2006-07/External/Pooley_Alexandra_MALib.pdf. (Accessed 15/4/2011).
Ristarp, Jan (2000) “Libraries and the intellectual freedom.” A Key note paper at the conference “Literature to Politics – Politics to Literature,” Copenhagen, 10 – 11 November. Available at http://archive.ifla.org/ (Accessed 5/4/2011).
Sens, Jean-Mark (2010) “Not I” said the pig: who detects intellectual freedom for librarians?” Library Philosophy and Practice. Available at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/. (Accessed 14/4/2011).
Staples, Suzanne-Fisher (1996) “What Johnny can’t read: censorship in American libraries.” The ALAN Review, vol. 23; no. 2.
Ward, David V. (1990) “Philosophical issues in censorship and intellectual freedom.” Library Trends, vol. 39; no. 1 and 2, p. 83 – 91.
No comments:
Post a Comment