More Censorship Equals Less Learning

Censorship is to present-day society as "newspeak" is to 1984. Both exist for the purpose of improving society; however, both have proven detrimental to the intellect of society's inhabitants. "Thin Gruel" sums up the conflicts that have occurred regarding censorship (in literature especially), the reasons behind the conflicts, and it shows effectively just how harmful censorship can be when taken too far.
Censorship in literature, as discussed in the article, has been the result of right-wing arguments concerning religion and morality, and left-wing arguments concerning mostly sexism and racism. Those on the "right" side worked feverishly throughout the '70s and '80s to ban readings in school that were secular or that did not teach both sides, that promoted disobedience, and that discussed sexually immoral behavior. To help clarify the "right argument," the article states, "...parents criticized the books' treatment of profanity, sex, religion, race, or violence. On the "left side," individuals worked feverishly and analyzed texts in order to ensure that neither party was portrayed unfairly. For example, a text was "evaluated against a checklist that measured whether it was racist, sexist, elitist, materialist, ageist, conformist, escapist, or individualist."
Both arguments prompted text publishers to over-analyze their works in order that neither party was offended; overanalyzing ensured that a company stayed in business and that it would not be sued. Taking care not to offend a specific party is important, but how far is too far? Why should a piece about someone who lives in a location unfamiliar to the reader be censored? And what sort of person would be offended if he or she saw the word "gum" in a text?
All in all, censorship detracts from the reader's experience and does not give him or her a chance to explore controversy or the unknown. If publishers continue to whittle away at the texts, or to eliminate them completely, what will be left to learn? One must keep this in mind: Just because something is not in the text does not mean it is nonexistent. Yes, eliminate racism, etc. No, do not eliminate substance that prompts learning and enjoyment. As Holt editors observed, "...notes show that discussion of literary quality, pedagogical effectiveness, and interest level steadily diminished."
1984 and 2009 both struggle with censorship issues because they care about the wellbeing of their people. However, censorship halts the learning process so that all that is left for students to read is "thin gruel."