Banning Books Can Be... Good?

When I first thinking about banning books, I was full out "free-the-books, words for everyone, let them read" attitude. However, after reading over a list, well, lists of banned books (it got a little obsessive) I actually began to realize that perhaps I could actually understand, and even support the banning of some books on the lists. I'm not all for holding information from people for hatred, or control people. However, when books will cause negative fallout for people or businesses or associations, I will flat out support the challenging of those books. Imagine that someone writes a book about you, talking about every bad thing you've done. It's all completely true, factual, and pretty-well researched. Now, any person with a little pride would openly oppose the book, saying that its degrading to them, that its causing people to act differently around them. It sounds like a pretty good reason for banning a book, right? The author will say, "Well its all factual, and people have a right to know this information." I don't think so. At the point that people are going to be affected negatively by the publishing of the book, I think that those people deserve the right to challenge the book, and maybe even have it banned.

I'll digress, now think of books that are written that negatively portray businesses and corporations. It's the same thing isn't it? If those businesses are going  to end up losing business, revenue, and dignity due to that book, I think that the same applies. After all, businesses are just people working together in the same employment, those people are trying to make a living too. For example, take the author John Steinbeck. His novels talk about the evil and dishonesty of companies during and after the Great Depression. Someone could argue that those businesses deserved the exposure, because of their unethical actions. You have to think of the big picture. Not only is John Steinbeck opposing the businesses, by not specifying any businesses, John Steinbeck is creating an overall anti-business feeling. Businesses that aren't participating in unethical actions may be experiencing negative fallout due to John Steinbeck's novels. That isn't exactly fair to them. For an example even farher away on the spectrum, consider Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neal-Hurston. Her book was banned because of the phoenetic misspellings of the words in her novels made her characters appear subliminal, and unintelligent. If people banning Neal-Hurston's book feel that her book will cause negative fallout for African Americans, I feel like it should be banned.

All of this has to be taken with a grain of salt. There are books that are creative, informative, and interesting which are being banned, and I will support the reinstatement of those books. Often, people seem to oppose books simply because they oppose the satirical concepts the book includes. Sometimes books are banned simply so that a group can get their voice out. It can be  more concept than action. I support that. I think that with the issue of banning books, we can't rush to attack the banning of books, or to full out support them. The banning of books can only appropriately operate on a case-to-case basis. And if it is taken case-by-case standard, banning books can be an extremely productive process.