Censorship Bad: Editorial Review

Scrolling through The New York Times page, I came upon an editorial about censorship of books and other material. Normally, articles like these are a dime a dozen, but this one is just different enough to warrant writing and reading, even if they only stand on top of the dead horse instead of beating it.

This editorial does a wonderful job of posting sources along with its talking points. It opens up with a variety of instances of attempted or successful censorship in the United States. From a school trying to revoke a teacher’s license because she gave out a QR code that led to library of banned books to referencing the recent news of a Nebraskan student journal being dismantled for writing about pride month, the sources provided are specific, recent, and impactful. The language used in the editorial is above the average article as well. Here is one example: “Acts of censorship are often tacit admissions of weakness masquerading as strength.” This is a great statement. It clearly states the opinion of the piece powerfully, without holding back. This makes it worth reading; taking just that little extra step to differentiate from the rest of the rhetoric surrounding censorship.

The array of claims that the editorial uses is diverse and succinct. It often references specific statistics, such as the definite 137 gag order introductions. This is an example of a factual claim. Later in the article, it references the closings of many libraries and the firings of library staff. This is linked to censorship, which is a substantial causal claim. Finally, of course, there is the policy claim, which culminates in the predictable but valid opinion of ‘censorship bad.’ It is a bit more eloquent than that; the editorial targets the act of censorship as a political weapon, stating that using it to gain political points is wholly undemocratic. This is a point that I agree with wholeheartedly. It is unfortunate that this same conversation must be repeated at nauseum for the few in the back that do not seem to hear nor care. Though at first this topic seemed one already beaten, the horse has come back to life. It truly is astonishing the hypocritical lengths some will go to stamp out ideas that they do not agree with. At the very least, they were able to get a solid editorial out of the stupidity of some people, so there is that consolation.