The Right to Read and Write Examined

Two aspects of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely, the Right to Read, and that of Freedom to Write, were considered at some depth by Mr James K. Baxter, poet and critic, at a meeting of the Otago page 288 branch of the Federation of University Women.

Mr Baxter examined many aspects of censorship when discussing the ‘Right to Read’, from the stupendous act of vandalism of the Muslim conqueror who burned the library at Alexandria many centuries ago – an historic act of religious censorship, to censorship of war news in our day.

‘Our Western community,’ Mr Baxter said, ‘is Christian by derivation, and this unconsciously conditions our attitude to purity, and in this we differ from other cultures.’

There were many aspects and levels of ‘pastoral censorship’ in their lives, which affected the ‘Right to Read’, from that exercised by the teacher, who decrees what will, or will not, go into a school library, and that of parents deciding what films should be seen by their children, to that prescribed at a higher level to prevent the sale of pornography.

Mr Baxter said he believed that this ‘pastoral censorship’ should not apply to adults, and, further, that censorship in the hands of Government was dangerous. It should come from non-Government groups. But the factor of free will to choose was more important than anything else. In exercising this, though, some form of self-censorship was needed. Measures which depended on other factors than free will had no worth. Totalitarianism was an example of this.

In answer to the query, ‘Why censor at all?’ Mr Baxter said he felt that some books might have a destructive influence at certain stages of development, and under certain human stresses. Further, the human race was being exploited for commercial reasons, by purveyors of ‘junk’. Mr Baxter said he doubted whether anybody could be destroyed by a book – but one’s true self could perhaps be stultified by the wrong sort of book.

‘Human dignity can suffer from it, and this is to be deplored – for example ghost and horror stories may include fear,’ he said. ‘Racial hatreds are sometimes exploited by the Press, and some war films, so far from being censored, are actually used as propaganda. Then there is the Press emphasis on sensational crimes which feeds boredom, and is irresponsible publishing. Despite all this, though, free will must be respected, though some people will be damaged in the process. It is the price we have to pay.

‘Turning to the aspect of “Freedom to Write”,’ Mr Baxter said, ‘we are faced with the issue of “decorum”. Some literary works may shock or disturb. If we leave out the “mulch” of the everyday street conversation of the ordinary man, which may seem coarse and offensive to decorum, we lose some literary value. This is manifest, for instance, when we compare the works of Shakespeare and of Dryden.’

Regarding the problem of pornography, Mr Baxter said he felt that it was difficult to think clearly on this subject. The need for love was basic. Sexual attitudes were often the expression of this, and the sexual situation was often painful to many sections of the community. The human heart was strange, page 289 and it behoved them to be charitable to expressions of human pain, even if they seemed like pornography. But if some books could ‘wound the spirit’ one should avoid them. Self-censorship was indeed the final answer. No one else could really do this for us in adult life. . . .

1967 (426)