Articles

On this page you will be able to read articles on both side of the story, Pro and Anti.

We would like to thank elycia - www.elycia-webdesign.com for providing us with the lastes articles on our site.

The Communications Decency Act specifically was written with the Internet in mind, but the wording can be applied to children's literature. If one party deems the content of a piece of literature as "obscene" then the author, who knowingly published the books for people "under the age of 18," could be tried as a criminal. In June and July of 1996 a 3-judge federal panel and the U.S. Justice Department deemed that the Act was unconstitutional, and in March of 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed (LaMay 2).

While the 1996 Communications Decency Act was not enacted into law, a very similar 1873 law, known as the Comstock Law, is still on the books and is active. Anthony Comstock was one of the most formidable censors during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The term "comstockery" or the "strict censorships of materials considered obscene" is coined for him (LaMay 1). Comstock's crusade involved protecting the public from "obscene" material. Comstock targeted material sexual in nature, specifically information on abortions, birth control, and descriptions of sexual acts. Comstock openly denounced books such as Henry Fielding's Tom Jones, as well as works by Ovid, Boccaccio, Thomas Hardy, and George Bernard Shaw (LaMay 7, 10). While Comstock was not entirely concerned with censoring material from minors, his law sets legal precedent in banning material defined as "obscene."

In the case of Salvail v. Nashaua Board of Education (1979) a New Hampshire school used very similar rationale as Comstock in defining obscene material that should be removed from its school libraries. The local school board removed Ms. magazine from the High School for containing obscene and objectionable material. Specifically it
contained advertisements for 'vibrators,' contraceptives,
materials dealing with lesbianism and witchcraft, and
gay material. (Huffman 437) [italics mine]
This case defines "witchcraft" as obscene, virtually identical to the sentiment of parents who are against the Harry Potter books. This case was ultimately declared unconstitutional on the basis that the school continued to shelve magazines, such as Redbook, which contained identical advertisements.

However, in the very similar case of Zykam v. Warsaw Community Corporation (1980), the court ruled in favor of the school's decision to ban certain materials from its classrooms. In this case the court noted
It is in general permissible and appropriate for local boards to
make educational decisions based upon their personal, social,
political, and moral views…The Constitution neither disparages
the application of social, political, or moral tastes to secondary
school educational decisions nor specifies that such criteria are
irrelevant or alien to the legitimate exercise or educational choice.
(Huffman 438)

The censorship debate in the U.S. often calls upon the "separation of church and state" argument. The banning of books in schools is almost entirely based on religious and moral beliefs. Public schools argue that those types of moral judgments have no place in the public system, and yet both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence have repeated uses of the word "God." The ruling in this case states that schools do indeed have the right to use their own spiritual and moral beliefs to make judgments on the material their children are exposed to.

Many parents who object to the Harry Potter books base their objections on the teaching of the Christian church (Draper B1). The only school worldwide to ban Harry Potter so far, St. Mary's Island Church of England Primary School in the United Kingdom, used Christian rationale to denounce the book. Headmistress of the school Carol Rookwood said in her press release,
Our ethos on teaching comes from the Bible. The Bible is
clear about issues such as witchcraft, demons, devils, and the
occult. It says clearly and consistently from Genesis to Revelation
that they are real, powerful, and dangerous. Throughout it insists
that God's people should have nothing to do with them.
(Urquhart "Home News")

She goes onto say that the books are "as dangerous to children as a child molester" (Sapsted 4). Many parents in both the U.K. and U.S. agree with Rookwood. Formal attempts to ban the books have been made in New York and Michigan, as well as grassroots attempts in individual schools such as Lakeville, MN (Draper B1).

Check out the other side of the story

This site is in no way connected to Scholastic, Bloomsbury or TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.. All material related to the books by J.K. Rowling is © 2000-2002 Scholastic Books (US), and Bloomsbury Publishing (UK). Any reference to the fictional character Harry Potter acknowledges the Harry Potter trademark owned by TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, L.P.. HARRY POTTER, characters, names and related indicia are trademarks of Warner Bros. TM & © 2002.
Harry Potter Publishing Rights © J.K.R