Banning books is not only wrong – it's absolutely pointless. Here's why

In 1787, freedom of speech was written into the Constitution of the United States. Today, we’re fighting a war over free speech – what we’re free to say, read and think. Here in the US, librarians have found themselves holding the lines on one high-profile front. Book banners are pushing at our libraries’ defences, eager to yank all those Judy Blume novels and erotic cake cookbooks off the shelves. 

Yes, banning books is wrong. But little has been written about just how ridiculous it is. While these self righteous culture warriors are busy ‘saving’ young people from the titillating prose of Sarah J Maas, their little darlings are hopping on YouTube to sit at the feet of Andrew Tate. A quick Google search will serve up images too racy for the Kama Sutra. Wanna see a decapitation? One need only know how to spell it.

The idea that kids are having their minds corrupted at the public library is almost poignantly quaint. The last generations to experience an analogue world are aiming their bazookas at bricks and mortar while bigger battles are being waged online.   

Get the latest news and insight into how the Big Issue magazine is made by signing up for the Inside Big Issue newsletter

The internet is a toxic wasteland of disinformation, propaganda and hate. That may be the one statement with which everyone, left and right, would agree. In America, it’s putting our First Amendment to the test. The right to free speech was always meant to have limits: none of us have the right to threaten, defame or harass fellow citizens. Unfortunately, free speech and its limits are now interpreted as our new administration sees fit.

Elon Musk, social media oligarch and self-proclaimed champion of the First Amendment, allows X users to deploy racial epithets, but has banned his personal trigger: the prefix ‘cis’.  The same commentators who were outraged when conservative speakers were booed off college campuses now look on and cheer as students are deported for penning op-eds that support the ‘wrong’ causes. 

• How Afghan women and girls are defying the Taliban with secret schools: ‘We are not alone’
• Libraries give us power. The next government must trust libraries to continue delivering for communities
• ‘We get sick, Meta get rich’: Why the ‘guinea pig generation’ wants Labour to tax social media giants

Rather than argue about what types of speech are protected, perhaps we should be asking ourselves: who gets to judge? This is a question I’ve been pondering since I sat down to write my novel Lula Dean’s Little Library of Banned Books. I don’t have all the answers, but I believe I’ve identified a few groups who should have no say whatsoever in what the rest of us get to say, read or think. 

Let’s start with crusaders. A crusader might be a “concerned citizen” like my novel’s villain, Lula Dean, who wants libraries purged of “propaganda and pornography”; or a tech CEO who believes the “woke mind virus” is eating our brains. Their religious beliefs and personal convictions should determine their choices – but they should play no role in the decisions the rest of us make for ourselves and our families.

Then come the cowards. Whistleblowers are the one group that should remain anonymous. Everyone else should feel free to speak their minds under their own names – and be prepared to receive feedback from the rest of us. You want to express your opinion that women are inferior? As a woman, I wholeheartedly support your right to free speech. I would also like to know who you are so I can exercise my inalienable right to avoid you. 

Of course, the cowards wouldn’t flourish if not for the unaccountable. These are the digital media platforms that hide behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Years ago, before anyone realised the harm they could do, the US government decided these companies shouldn’t be liable for content posted by users.

When most platforms allowed their users to remain anonymous, it meant no one was accountable for the conspiracies, lies and propaganda that began to spread like wildfire. Section 230’s biggest beneficiaries? Bigots, dictators and… billionaires. 

The richest people in the world want to control what we read, say and think. Most have never held elected office. They look after their own interests – and they do not represent ours. Many have played personal roles in creating today’s internet, and they’ve profited from the destruction it’s wreaked. In the US, there is no longer any limit on billionaires’ political donations.

Not only can they silence criticism with lawsuits, they purchase entire platforms and tweak them to suit their political needs. Their lawyers are the reason Section 230 still stands.  

So, while the battle to save books is critical, it’s just a single front in the war for our brains. America’s liberties and libraries have never been in greater jeopardy than they are at this very moment.

Kirsten Miller is a US novelist and the creator of the Kiki Strike book series. Her latest novel, Lula Dean’s Little Library of Banned Books, is out now (HQ, £9.99). You can buy it from the Big Issue shop on bookshop.org, which helps to support Big Issue and independent bookshops.

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.