Banned Books

      Suppose you were fond of books. 

     You liked their leather bindings, their fancy endpapers, the

way they speak to you of other times and places, the way they

feel in your hand. 

     You even liked the way they smell. 

     Naturally you were aware that books are dangerous. They give

people ideas. Over the long, sad course of history, they've

resulted in the slaughter of millions -- books like _Uncle Tom's

Cabin_, _Das Kapital_, _Mein Kampf_, even the Bible -- but you

had too much intelligence, too much regard for the right of other

people to read, write, _think_ whatever they please, to blame the

books themselves. 

     Now suppose somebody came along who agreed with you: books

are dangerous -- and something oughta be done about it! Nothing

you couldn't live with: numbers could be stamped inside them, a

different number, not just in each kind of book, each title or

edition -- but in each and every individual book. 

     "We can keep track of 'em better that way -- it'll help get

'em back if they're stolen."  

     But wait .... Isn't the right to freedom of expression, the

right to create, exchange, and collect books -- without a trace

of government harassment -- to read, write, and think whatever

you please, supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment to

the U.S. Constitution? No matter who thinks it's wrong? No matter

how "sensible" their arguments may sound for taking that right

away?

     You tried to defend your rights, but nobody listened. You

appealed to the media; they were even more dependent on the Bill

of Rights than you were, and American journalism always gloried

in its self-appointed role as watchdog over the rights of the

individual. But the sad truth was, that during its long, self-

congratulatory history, it was more like a cur caught bloody-

muzzled time after time, savaging the flocks it had been trusted

to protect. 

     You were alone. You insisted that books don't kill people,

people kill people. They laughed and told you that people who

read books kill people. 

     Time passed .... Still they weren't satisfied. They wanted

the serial numbers written down in record books. Then they wanted

your name written down beside the numbers, along with your

address, your driver's license number, your age, your race, your

sex: "'Cause we gotta right to know who's _reading_ all these

books!"  

     Soon they were demanding that bookstores be licensed. They

forbade you to buy books by mail or in another state and required

that your dealer report you if you bought more than one book in a

five day period. They forbade you to buy more than one book a

month. They demanded that you wait five days, a week, three weeks

before you could pick up a book you'd already paid for -- at a

store subject to unannounced warrantless inspections and punitive

closure by heavily-armed government agents. In Massachussetts and

New Jersey, the mere possession of a book meant an automatic year

in jail. At one point they offered to spend tax money to buy your

books: "You've got too many.  This is a purely voluntary measure

-- for the time being."  

     Now they want to confiscate any of your books they think are

_too long_: "No honest citizen needs a book with _that_ many

pages!"

     Your taxes will be spent to burn them, and somehow you have

a feeling that it's just the beginning, that some dark midnight,

no matter how peaceable or agreeable or law-abiding you are,

you're going to hear that knock on your door ... 

     Yes, books are dangerous. They start holy wars, revolutions,

and make people dissatisfied with their lives. 

     But this is ridiculous!  

     Is it a nightmare? Another Gulag horror story? A bloodsoaked

page from the history of fascism? No, it's just the commonplace

oppression people suffer every day when they feel about _guns_

the way you feel about _books_. 

     Okay, maybe that feeling's hard to understand. But just try

justifying your own love of books to a Reverand Donald Wildmon or

an Ayatollah Khomeini. The very requirement that you must, in

violation of your basic human rights, will make you inarticulate

with rage. 

     Gun owners laugh at the notion of human rights, because they

have none. 

     Guns _are_ dangerous. Like books. Like books, the right to

create, exchange, and collect them without a trace of government

harassment, is supposed to be guaranteed. No matter who thinks

it's wrong. No matter how "sensible" their arguments may sound

for taking your rights away. 

     So what makes you think your books are any safer than your

neighbor's guns? Whether you like books or guns, the issue's the

same: WHEN ANYBODY'S RIGHTS ARE THREATENED, EVERYBODY'S RIGHTS

ARE THREATENED.