Censorship is in the eye of the beholder.
This reality isn't new, but the animosity that surrounds it these days seems to have reached unprecedented lows in incivility.
There are many reasons, including two that aren't commonly discussed. One, we (as a society) have a misguided notion that censorship is always bad. And two, we define censorship as an evil that only attacks the things we agree with or support.
Censorship, by definition, involves the active suppression or prohibition of ideas deemed offensive or dangerous. And there's no denying, at least from my point of view, that censorship can take disastrous forms. But that doesn't mean all censorship is bad.
Some forms of censorship are merely a form of editing. Someone creates art--written, video, verbal, paintings, sculptures, architecture, etc.--and in the process it is edited. The original artist edits during the creation, just as I have revised this essay along the way. Outsiders edit, ostensibly to make the work better, but sometimes to limit what is seen in whole or in part. In the editing process, stuff gets cut--it is suppressed or prohibited but typically in ways that the artist condones or at least accepts.
We tend to respond negatively toward the "limit what is seen" aspect of censorship, but it's not always bad. A good newspaper editor will delete obscenities from a family-oriented publication. And a good librarian won't stock the children's section with books that aren't age-appropriate.
Trouble brews, of course, when folks disagree about what materials should be allowed in the public domain, either for purchase (like a bookstore), for rent (at a public library), or for view (on television, the Internet, or at an art gallery).
Here's where that's landed us in the realm of books, although there are parallels to other art forms, as well:
Some groups want to keep books out of public school libraries because, for instance, they see what they consider agenda-driven, morally corrupt messages targeted at children.
When that happens, the groups that support the inclusion of these books in these libraries scream "censorship!" Meanwhile, those same groups often include folks who want to edit words out of or rewrite works that are generally considered "classic" literature. In their view, those works use terms the groups see as insensitive and thus should be censored. Or, they want the books banned altogether, as was the case for some books by Dr. Seuss.
Then there's the interesting case of books like "American Dirt," where factions within one group set out to discredit the author because they felt she had no right to tell the story she told. (Apparently, she wasn't "Mexican" enough.)
Each group sees its stance as responsible and the opposing groups as evil practitioners of censorship.
What troubles me most are efforts to silence authors--to cancel them, as the practice has become known. A vocal-but-often-minority group screams relentlessly until a publisher rejects an author or an author decides not to write rather than deal with the critics.
On the positive side, we live in an age when it's never been easier to publish or access a book. If you want to read it or want your children to read it, for the most part you can access it. And if you want to write something, you can post or self-publish to your heart's desire and the public can read or not read in self-censoring fashion.
The cancel-culture version of censorship, however, extends beyond books to every aspect of life. People in a corporate meetings stay quiet when they should speak up because they don't want to risk being labeled or canceled. Businesses and governments take public stands or avoid public stands because of political and cultural pressures, not based on what's actually the best and right thing to do.
One of the worst examples of such extreme censorship came in the United Kingdom recently when the government established Orwellian censorship zones where it seems even silent prayer is outlawed. In other words, the government isn't just censoring what's made public but privately held thoughts.
In an us-versus-them culture, the ends always seem to justify the means. Worse, there's a pull toward a destructive attitude and action that says, "If they are doing it, we should do it, too." In other words, if they (our opponents) are imposing limits and restrictions on our books, art, beliefs, and ideas, then we should to the same to theirs.
A more idealistic approach would seem to say, "We don't want others to restrict our expression, so we won't insist on restricting theirs." But that ideal has limits in a society grounded in laws and moral standards.
Somehow, we must restore freedom of thought and expression while respecting what communities define as standards around what we are asked or, in some cases, required to consume.
There's no easy path to this utopia, but I believe it begins with one word: Love. If we love one another, we can respectfully discuss and even disagree, which, in my experience, leads to common understanding and often to common ground. Mutual respect doesn't require mutual agreement, but it is the foundation for compromise in a civil society.
Stephen Caldwell of Fayetteville is founder and chief word architect of WordBuilders Inc. and a recovering newspaper journalist.