:dubious: Of course the FCC has no jurisdiction. The point is that public school, like public airwaves belong to the people, and are regulated/funded by the government. The people in responsible for managing both the airwaves and the schools routinely censor things, regulate and prohibit obscenities, and determine what is acceptable. I don’t see how you can be okay with one form of this and not the other. Obviously this particular case is dependent on your opinion of the book in question. However, when people make it seem as though censorship is always wrong as a general rule, I would argue that that ship has already sailed.
But they are often censored by Walmart and many others. More importantly, your comparison is less apt because neither the publisher nor the school are preventing anyone from reading the book as written. A student can download the ebook, get it from the library, or order it from Amazon in its uncensored form. They are just saying that they, the publishing house (or their school) will not use the book as written. Just as the FCC doesn’t tell Ceelo Green he can’t record as song called, “Fuck You”. They just say radio stations using the public airwaves that they can’t play the record (as written) on the air. The question hinges more upon how much censorship should be allowed in arenas where tax payer money and public sentiment are involved, not if.
Few would be okay with children reading pornographic material or watching violent movies in school. Even something with artistic value like American History X, Pulp Fiction, or Schindler’s List would not be good viewing material for a 2nd grade class (for example). So we can all agree that things are often correctly “censored” by omission. What makes this case different is that a classic novel has had certain words expurgated. I can understand the visceral reaction that comes when you mess with celebrated work of art, but I think it’s kinda illogical to paint this as an aversion to censorship in general. I ask you this, if a public school directed its music teacher to only play clean versions of the rap songs they study in class, would you be against that?
The rewriting astounded me, so I am grateful for this response:
BTW, there’s a work far more famous and popular than Huckleberry Finn which has many instances of profanities like “God Almighty” and “Jesus Christ,” as well as talk of men laying with women. Hadn’t It better be revised as well, perhaps with the substitutions “Good Gosh”, “Gee Whiz” and the men just sending text messages to the girls?
But is he doing this? I haven’t seen the books, but I would assume that they would admit that they are the censored version. It’s no more deceptive than an adaptation or abridged version that is clearly labeled.
And, yes, my idea of blacking out the word was specifically to call attention to the use of the word without actually using it. I am of the mind that most people find the appearance of the word itself objective, not the concept that it was used. That’s why almost all modern censorship is so completely obvious.
I wasn’t joking, and I don’t need it explained to me. I must have misunderstood, because I thought we were talking about all the kids, and now it’s one shy kid. My mistake.
Well, the “one shy kid” was just an example. If it was, and is, one, than it wouldn’t be an issue as far as I’m concerned. I honestly don’t know. Like I said, I saw some responses on a news report by a few black kids who felt embarrassed. It’s quite possible the journalist selected for such responses.
If you weren’t joking, than yes, you do need it explained to you. Somehow though, I find it hard to believe that you really don’t see a difference between teenagers using the word “nigger” between each other in a social context and reading the word as used in the context of the antebellum south.
Perhaps my favorite Finn excerpt is the letter to Miss Watson:
Also the part about Jim’s children. The entire book is about, at least in part, Huck coming to see Jim not as Miss Watson’s funny stupid nigger but as a real fully rounded and sentient and intelligent man.
Gribben is not concerned only with the tenderest young readers; he’s been applying his personal revision for the benefit of adult audiences for years now.
Also, Sampiro mentioned Pap Finn; it’s worth pointing to a discussion of that passage, as it’s one of the clearest examples of how the edit doesn’t merely gentle the reading, but actively subverts the meaning. (I like the comment from the parent whose 11- and 14-year-old daughters seem to understand this just fine.)
Well, then I think Gribben is an idiot and this is a travesty.
Just to reiterate: the ONLY use I could ever support for such an edit is for group classroom reading at the HS level, and even then I would leave it up to the judgement of the teacher.
From my (foreign) perspective, this sort of censorship seems pretty odd for a country so passionate about freedom of speech.
Is the word “nigger” really so awful in America that people want the book to be censored? It’s only a word. I can’t think of any word that would offend me.
Many, many Americans support and fight for censorship. Some of these people even consider themselves super-patriots, which is funny considering they like to pretend the first amendment doesn’t exist. Example: On the dating site OkCupid there’s the question “Do you think flag burning should be illegal?” and a great many people respond in the affirmative.
Huck Finn is one of the most commonly found entries on schools’ lists of banned books along with Catcher in the Rye and so on.