User:Coldbrew831/Book censorship in the United States
This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Article Draft
[edit]Lead
[edit]Article body
[edit]Religious[edit]
[edit]In the United States, books have also been challenged for attacking or disagreeing with religious beliefs. Religion has been one of the most common motivators for book censorship throughout history[1]. Examples of topics that commonly prompt religious objectives include evolution, witchcraft, and obscenity. In 1559, Pope Paul IV published the first index of forbidden books. One of the most contentious eras in religious book censorship in the United States was the early 20th century during a period of particular tension between public libraries and the Roman Catholic Church.[1]
On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin has been challenged and suppressed since its publication in 1859 due to its theories on evolution, though not until 1925 in the US, when the Butler Act was enacted in Tennessee, banning the teaching of evolutionary theories statewide.[make sure to keep citations from original article] Evolution has been a contentious topic in the realm of public school education and book banning more recently as well; a 2017 Florida law (HB 909 Instructional Materials) came under fire for allowing any resident of a county to submit a challenge to any K-12 instructional materials. Opponents of the law claimed that this could disrupt the teachings of science and evolution in the classroom, because some groups in favor of the law had expressed concerns that science classes did not offer a discussion of the “Biblical explanation”. (Otto)
Works, such as the Harry Potter series, have also been challenged because they are perceived by some to promote witchcraft and the occult. The 2003 court case Counts v. Cedarville highlights the legal complexities behind the banning of Harry Potter and other books on religious grounds. After a parent complained that the Harry Potter series promoted the religion of witchcraft and the occult as well as disobedience, the Cedarville School District voted to require children to have parental permission to check out the books. In response, the parents of Dakota Counts, another student, brought forth a legal challenge, saying that the rule obstructed their child's First Amendment right to receive information. The courts ruled in the Counts’ favor, and the books were restored to the library shelves. This case received national attention, spurring the involvement of free speech and Christian groups. Children’s author and First Amendment advocate Judy Blume filed a brief supporting the plaintiffs.
In March 2023, amid an uptick in book censorship, a Utah parent submitted a complaint to their child's school district about the Bible. The complaint claimed that the Bible fit under the guidelines of a 2022 Utah law banning "pornographic or indecent" content, calling it "one of the most sex-ridden books around". In June 2023, the Davis School District officially decided to remove the Bible from elementary and middle school shelves, finding it to not be in violation of the 2022 law but determining that its presence should be limited to high school classrooms and libraries (Wilson). Later that month, in light of significant controversy, the decision was appealed and unanimously reversed(Flower).
References
[edit]- ^ a b c Steele, Jennifer Elaine (2020-11-12). "A History of Censorship in the United States". Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy. 5 (1): 6–19. doi:10.5860/jifp.v5i1.7208. ISSN 2474-7459.