Harry Potter Article

In the article we read, I noticed that the primary groups who wanted the Harry Potter books censored were religious groups ‘as a result of their high visibility’ and ‘futuristic supernaturalism, telepathy, and the occult.’ Albeit their claims were ruled in different manners, I question trying to prevent a religious connotation, while at the same time implementing one (however unintentional). In other words how can someone say that these texts are ‘occult’ if they are not themselves holding them up to (in this case) Christian standards themselves? This type of reasoning was echoed in the later part of the article in which the motivations for a vote to restrict Harry Potter were overturned as ‘If the Harry Potter books promoted Christianity he would not object to them.’

Along these lines, I particularly took issue with the wording in some of the cases on both sides. In one case free speech can be restricted if that speech resulted in ‘a material and substantial disruption or that such disruption could be reasonably forecast.’ The issue here are the words ‘reasonably forecast.’ First and foremost the word ‘forecast’ insinuates that a prediction of the future is in order. This in itself can be taken as a ‘religious’ connotation - on some level a suggestion that religion can’t be fully exempt from the courts. Furthermore this is reflection at the heart of censorship in which ‘you read what you want’ into subjects - especially text.

In this same court ruling an issue that was brought up that pertains to wording is that the Harry Potter books “might”promote disobedience and disrespect for authority. To restrict in general begs the question of whether or not awareness makes these speculative turnouts more or less probable. For instance if we don’t discuss firearms at schools does that make these items more alluring - simply because it is ‘forbidden?’ Or does our experiences with these items teach us to respect them? I think this is one of the most unavoidable questions about censorship. A lot of this (an issue somewhat touched on in the article) has to deal with guardian responsibility - and what type of guardian trumps what. Do parents ultimately have the last say, school boards or the individual. At what age do we allow students to make their own decisions? Is their an age limit? Furthermore, with all of these decisions, with what type of mind are we looking at these issues? More a less it turns out to be an adult - because that’s what we read into it. However, do the concepts/issues some adults see with Harry Potter necessarily reflective with the ideas and concepts a juvenile or child might come away from reading this same material?

The last thing I want to quickly mention is that in the very end of the article it seemed as though Harry Potter - a fictional character - was being treated as a real person. What are the consequences of this action?