What you should know about Banned Books Week, according to librarians
"Acts of censorship of any kind weaken our democracy."
It’s not every day that we think of librarians as heroes for democracy. But as they continue to show up on the frontlines against books bans—often at the risk of their own professional livelihood—the label is well earned.
Perhaps it should come as no surprise how passionately librarians are fighting to protect the free flow of information. They are, after all, natural “helpers in society,” says Cindy Hohl, president of the American Library Association (ALA), and a librarian herself for the past decade.
Hohl has seen firsthand how librarians have been essential advocates for literacy, access to accurate information and (especially now) anti-censorship. But those who have spoken up against book bans often get falsely accused of wrongdoing, which Hohl says is “harmful” for all Americans.
Photo courtesy of Cindy Hohl
“Americans have fought for and enjoy many freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment is for everyone, from children to adults,” she told Upworthy. “It is not appropriate for anyone to tell anyone else what they should read, watch, listen to, or even believe. We can trust our neighbors to make informed decisions for themselves and acts of censorship of any kind weaken our democracy. We are empowered to seek out accurate information and make decisions for ourselves and our families, but not for anyone else.”
Besides censorship violating a fundamental American right, Hohl notes that it only serves as a “dehumanizing distraction.”
“The U.S. Government already has a lot to regulate…We don’t need distractions when everyone has a right to hear the truth. Censorship is causing a division among us and that behavior needs to stop. No voices should be silenced in America.”
And it’s with this emboldened sentiment that the librarians of the ALA are looking to celebrate Banned Books Week, running from Sept 22-28.
Banned Books Week was originally launched in 1982 in response to a sudden surge in the number of challenges to books in libraries, bookstores, and schools. The annual event highlights the value of free and open access to information and brings together the entire book community — librarians, educators, authors, publishers, booksellers, and readers of all types — in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas.
However, with this year’s staggeringly high number of banned books—a large amount being LGBTQ titles—there is less cause for celebration, and more for urgent action. That’s why the ALA is spreading the word on what folks can do to keep books on the shelves.
First and foremost, they are urging people to join in on Freedom to Read Day on Oct 19th, when libraries, bookstores, readers, and other partners nationwide will be hosting rallies and community events to unite against book bans and demonstrate shared commitment to this fundamental freedom. Get information about a nearby event , or to host your own, here.
Second, you can share “book résumés,” which detail each title’s significance and educational value with administrators, book review committees, elected officials, and board members. Those can be found here.
And last, but certainly not least, Hohl urges everyone to support your local library and staff. Quite simply because “we need recognition of our good work.” Now, more than ever, that statement seems to ring true.
Reddit tried an experiment to curb hate speech. The results are fascinating.
In 2015, Reddit decided to run some of the haters out of town.
Image by Rebecca Eisenberg/Upworthy.
The "homepage of the Internet," known for its wholesale embrace of free debate, banned several of its most notorious forums, including r/coontown, a hub for white supremacist jokes and propaganda, and r/fatpeoplehate, a board on which users heaped abuse on photos of fat people.
Critics accused the site of axing the subreddits for the "wrong" reasons — demonizing unpalatable speech rather than incitement to violence. Others worried the ban would be ineffective. Wouldn't the trolls just spew their hate elsewhere on the site?
Thanks to a group of Georgia Tech researchers, we now have evidence that the ban worked.
Their paper, "You Can’t Stay Here: The Efficacy of Reddit’s 2015 Ban Examined Through Hate Speech," found that not only did banning the forums prompt a large portion of its most dedicated users to leave the site entirely, the redditors who did stay "drastically [decreased] their hate speech usage."
The researchers analyzed over 650 million submissions and comments posted to the site between January and December 2015. After arriving at a definition for "hate speech," which they determined by pulling memes and phrases common to the two shuttered forums, they observed an 80% drop in racist and fat-phobic speech from the users who migrated to other subreddits after the ban. 20-40% of accounts that frequently posted to either r/coontown or r/fatpeoplehate became inactive or were deleted in that same period.
"Through the banning of subreddits which engaged in racism and fat-shaming, Reddit was able to reduce the prevalence of such behavior on the site," the paper's authors concluded.
The researchers have a few theories about why the ban may have worked.
Those who migrated to other subreddits, they speculate, became beholden to existing community norms that restricted their ability to speak hate freely.
Reddit co-founder and executive chairman Alexis Ohanian. Photo by Jerod Harris/Getty Images.
They also cite Reddit's effective removal of copycat forums (r/fatpeoplehate2, r/wedislikefatpeople, etc.) before they could reach critical mass.
Creating secure online spaces is a difficult problem. This new research provides at least one possible solution.
Any attempt to moderate an open web forum, the researchers argue, will inevitably have to balance protecting free expression with the right of people to exist on the internet without fear of abuse. A June Pew research poll found that 1 in 4 black Americans reported having been harassed online because of their race, compared with 3% of white Americans.
"The empirical work in this paper suggests that when narrowly applied to small, specific groups, banning deviant hate groups can work to reduce and contain the behavior," the authors wrote.
For vulnerable people who, like most, are living increasingly online lives, it's a small measure of relief.
Correction 9/13/17: This story was updated to identify Alexis Ohanian as Reddit's co-founder and executive chairman, not CEO.