censorship


A brief history of book banning

It’s Banned Books Week, so let’s look at the history of book bans in Europe and America. Here I’m sticking to actual bans by legal force. I hope to show that while not all banned books are praiseworthy, stopping their message by prohibition seldom has good results and often opens the way for broader bans.

The first book printed in Europe with movable type was the Gutenberg Bible, issued in the 1450s. Before that, there was censorship, but the technology to mass-produce books didn’t exist. In spite of some legends, Gutenberg’s edition was never banned; it used an accepted translation of the Bible, predating the Protestant Reformation’s competing translations. However, the Church soon began prohibiting books. François Rabelais and Niccolò Machiavelli were among the first targets of Rome’s wrath. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum, first issued in 1560 and revised many times, made the practice more systematic. The Church held legal power at the time, and distributing a prohibited book could result not only in eternal damnation but in confiscation and destruction of the books as well as other penalties.

William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English (ca. 1526) was banned under Henry VIII and burned. Tyndale was executed in 1536 for heresy.

Some books were permitted if offending parts were “expurgated” by blacking out or tearing out. Sometimes just the author’s name was removed, because it was the author and not the contents that had offended the Church.

Banning led to the licensing of books. In effect, books were banned by default, and only authorized ones could be printed. England’s Parliament adopted this practice in the 17th century. John Milton wrote the essay “Areopagitica” in 1644 to oppose the legislation. He argued that people need to be exposed to ideas they disagree with if they’re going to have any confidence in their own views. “I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary.” His arguments will look familiar to today’s liberal opponents of prohibition and censorship.

Milton didn’t meet with much success. The Licensing of the Press Act of 1662, designed to stop “seditious” material, banned the printing of books without a license and severely restricted imports. The printer John Twyn was executed for treason in 1664. The law lapsed in 1694.

In France in the late 16th through 18th centuries, the publication of a book required royal approval. In practice, the authority was delegated. By the 18th century, many books were printed without explicit authorization. Spain may have had the strictest book censorship of any European country. The Inquisition kept a close watch on printers and booksellers, prohibiting works that promoted non-Catholic religious ideas.

In 1637, Thomas Morton published New English Canaan in the Netherlands, which had fairly liberal laws; the copies he had brought to London were seized. It was also outlawed in Massachusetts, and it’s often said to be the first book banned in England’s American colonies.

In 1873 in the United States, the Comstock Act prohibited a broad range of “obscene” books. That included not just books that mentioned sex, but information on birth control and abortion. A series of court decisions over the next century struck down nearly all its prohibitions.

In 1973, Daniel Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to multiple news outlets; the document was eventually published as a book. He was prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, but all charges against him were dismissed.

The Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s and 40s practiced heavy censorship, especially of any works with Jewish connections. Books were burned in public. Modern Germany still bans some kinds of books, including pro-Nazi and Holocaust denial material.

Russia had heavy book prohibition under the Communists and has returned to those levels under Putin.

In spite of all that has happened in recent years, the United States has one of the highest levels of press freedom in world history. Attempts to exclude broad categories of books from libraries are a matter of concern, but they’re small potatoes compared to what we have experienced in the past and could experience again.

This article is the product of just a couple of hours of work. Apologies for any errors.


Sloppy rhetoric kills credibility 5

The ACLU of New Hampshire has taken a position against New Hampshire SB 434, which it characterizes as “a bill to create avenues to ban books in New Hampshire.” As the word “ban” is normally understood in the legal sense, it means to categorically prohibit. A banned book is one that it’s illegal to own or distribute. The bill may be a bad one, but that’s not what it would do.
Bluesky screenshot from ACLU of New Hampshire

Governor Ayotte has vetoed the bill, so the issue is effectively dead for now. An override is possible but unlikely. What I’m writing about here is how the NH ACLU framed the issue.

The bill would have created a mechanism by which parents or guardians can challenge a book that’s available in a public school as “obscene and harmful to minors.” Successfully challenged books would not be “banned in New Hampshire”; anyone could still get them through the usual markets. Arguably it makes it too easy to challenge books based on little or no knowledge of their content, but schools already can and do exclude books. In most cases, it’s just that they can’t get every book that’s in print, but sometimes it’s because the books are badly written garbage. If intentionally excluding a book is “banning,” then every school already “bans” books.

There’s legitimate concern that making challenges easier would lead to the exclusion of books that have real value. But the point is not that schools should indiscriminately carry any and all books, or that any policy that excludes some books “bans” them.

In her veto statement, Ayotte correctly framed the issue as one of policy: “As a parent, I understand and appreciate the concerns parents have about their children being exposed to age-inappropriate or objectionable materials in schools. At the same time, existing New Hampshire law already requires school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s determination that the material is objectionable.”

In its call for action, the NH ACLU claimed, “The right to free expression includes the freedom to read whatever we choose. Yet our state government is attempting to make it easier to ban books right here in New Hampshire.” You have the right to read whatever you choose, but not the right to get it for free. It isn’t “banning” to say you have to pay for something out of your own pocket.

How schools select books is an important issue. A challenge procedure that encourages moral panics could be very bad, pushing schools into carrying only the safest books. But it’s a policy issue, not a rights issue. The real threats to free expression are growing: intimidation and even arrests of people who criticize officials, groundless lawsuits against news sources backed by threats of executive action, proposals for Internet censorship. If people who are already skeptical see library policies called “book bans,” they won’t pay as much attention to the real dangers to liberty.

There has been real book banning in the United States. The Comstock Act criminalized mailing “obscene” material, such as information on birth control. It’s never been repealed, though court rulings have greatly narrowed it. The owners of a bookstore in San Francisco were arrested and prosecuted for carrying Howl and Other Poems by Allan Ginsberg, eventually winning a landmark case. Such prosecution is rare today, but it could come back.

It’s especially bad when a chapter of the ACLU trivializes the concept. When individuals, even well-known ones, abuse the language, it mostly reflects on them personally. When a civil liberties organization does it, it damages the cause of civil liberties.


The expropriation of creativity

Socialist Bernie Sanders has proposed that the federal government seize 50% of the stock of businesses that are heavily involved in AI. It’s the classic socialist line that all creation comes out of “the people” and not specific people. It aims to expropriate not just wealth but credit for achievements.

Artificial intelligence was not created out of thin air. The data and language used by generative A.I. tools didn’t just pop into Sam Altman’s head or Elon Musk’s imagination. A.I. is built on our collective intelligence: our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images and ideas spanning generations. That is not just the opinion of Bernie Sanders.

 
For the most part, tech oligarchs have fed this knowledge into their A.I. models without permission, without acknowledgment, without compensation. In other words, the creative work of millions of people — writers, artists, musicians, journalists, teachers, scientists and ordinary citizens — has essentially been stolen by some of the wealthiest people in the world. It’s time for us to reclaim it.

 
Since A.I. is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth it generates must benefit humanity.

Face of a Borg of Star TrekThe first sentence is definitely true. AI software wasn’t “created out of thin air.” Nor was it created by some Borg-like “collective intelligence.” AI code, like any other, is created by people putting in long hours to turn abstract algorithms and data flows into code.

The term “artificial intelligence” is a vague one. Any software that does things that we previously thought only a human mind can do counts as AI. But eventually we get used to things like speech recognition, grandmaster-level chess, and self-driving cars and forget to call them AI. The current fad is large language models (LLMs), a brute-force technique that ingests vast amounts of information and spews it back out in new combinations. It’s encountered hostility because it’s shoved in our faces so much and isn’t especially reliable. Companies brag that they put “AI first,” which means that users are second at best.

There are legitimate concerns about LLMs grabbing up people’s research and creative work without credit or compensation. Many lawsuits have been filed over the matter. But the work they’re grabbing up isn’t the product of the collective hive mind either. It’s specific creations by specific people. When Sanders says “us,” he means the federal government, the monster which Trump currently exercises broad control over. Having the US government splitting the take with the companies doesn’t compensate creators or grant them credit. It especially ignores creators outside the US border. Advocates of the collective-mind hypothesis often regard the government as its embodiment, but a quick look shows how absurd that claim is.

Maybe Sanders thinks AI wasn’t invented till last year, consists only of LLMs, and works by stirring large amounts of information in a cauldron. Even assuming all those things, the pieces which go into software like ChatGPT are the products of individual efforts, not of the mythical mass mind.

Oh, and does the Borg mind exist only within the United States? How does the US grabbing companies help authors and artists in Europe, Asia, or Africa? Sanders’ proposal is really about giving the government control of information in the US. A government with 50% control of a business won’t have trouble censoring anything it doesn’t like.

The collective-mind claim expropriates not only creative work but the credit for doing it. It lets people who haven’t done anything special feel special.


Quebec’s prayer ban

With Worldcon coming up in Montreal next year, fans who go there will have to be aware of Quebec’s anti-prayer law. It imposes serious restrictions on religious freedom. Group prayer in public requires government permission. People have had to choose between wearing religious symbols and quitting their jobs. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has condemned the law as an “attack on freedom of religion, freedom of expression, protest rights, and equality.”

The law is touted as promoting religious neutrality, but it’s no more neutral than a ban on all protests is.

The law has been challenged in Canada’s Supreme Court, so it might not be an issue when the convention comes around.

Some of its provisions will affect just people living and working in the province. I’ll focus here on the impact on visitors.

Scene from Faust, Mephistopheles commanding Marguerite not to prayA lot depends on the word “public.” What is a “public place”? The streets of Montreal are certainly public, but what about the Palais de Congrès, where the convention will take place? What about hotels where fans will stay? Will the convention be able to schedule religious gatherings? This is a question for lawyers, and I hope the con will have some answers for the public. I wrote to the convention’s address for asking questions, and so far I’ve gotten an acknowledgement but no other response. Probably they’re still working on it.

In practice, there’s a good chance only Muslims will be targeted for enforcement. As an atheist, I’m not directly affected by a prayer ban, but laws denying freedom of expression undermine the principle and have a chilling effect on all discourse. In 2025, Montreal slapped a church with a $2,500 fine for hosting a concert by a singer the government didn’t like. I think Sean Feucht is all wet (bonus pun for German speakers!), but that’s not the point. If the city can fine private organizations for hosting singers or speakers based on the ideas they support, it can silence anyone, and events such as fan conventions aren’t safe.


The crackdown on dissent

Suppression of criticism and dissent is a hallmark of tyranny. Two egregious instances have been in the news lately. One is the FCC’s call on eight TV stations, all owned by ABC, to seek early broadcast license renewal. The official reason is possible illegal discrimination, but everyone has noticed that it followed on Jimmy Kimmel making a joke about Melania Trump which Donald didn’t like.

The other is still worse. It’s the second indictment of James Comey on fabricated charges of threatening Donald Trump’s life.

These aren’t the only cases; Trump has shown a consistent pattern of going after critics with legal threats, frivolous lawsuits, and behind-the-scenes pressure. For this piece, I’ll focus on the Comey indictment.

Comey took a picture of some seashells arranged to spell “86 47” and added the caption “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” To “86” someone has long been slang for expelling or banishing someone. Many people use “86 47” as a short way to call for Trump’s removal from office. It’s used in restaurants to mean denying someone, such as a drunk, service. It’s the source of “Agent 86” in the TV spy comedy Get Smart. Maybe some people use it as a code for murder, but it’s not a common use.

Screenshot of Amazon page showing various "86 46" merchandiseIn any case, Comey didn’t arrange the shells himself; he just found them and posted a picture of them. There’s no way to interpret it as a threat. Amazon has lots of “8646” merchandise, calling for Biden’s removal as the 46th president. Several of the offerings clarify they’re calling for impeachment. There can’t be much of a current market for those items, but the people offering them haven’t gotten around to taking them down. None of them, as far as I know, have been prosecuted for offering the stuff.

A New York Post article reports that in 2025, FBI director Kash Patel took resources off child sex crimes and terrorism to “investigate” legal uses of “8647” protesting against Trump. Not only is he using the FBI to harass legitimate protesters, he’s ignoring dangerous people to do it. Congress should be 86-ing Patel, the worst FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover.

I’m sure Trump and Patel know there’s no hope of getting a conviction, and the case will probably be dismissed on the first day. The goal isn’t to lock Comey up but to scare everyone who criticizes Trump. And so I must declare: 8647. Or better yet: 86*.