A Poisonous Book: Obscenity Law and the Mythos of Influence
Caeleb Goff, 2L
The Origin of the Fear of Obscene Works
Much of obscenity law branches from the fear of “influence,” a worry that if the deemed obscene work were to remain publicly accessible, that it would corrupt the otherwise innocent minds of those who came across it. What this fear ultimately represents, and what obscenity law stands for, is the operation of social control. The banning of ideas and different modes of living and sexuality are restricted not because they are obscene, but because they go against the ideology of those who have shaped laws and hold power. This takeaway is illustrated by tracing the history of obscenity laws and examining their application to the work and life of Oscar Wilde. This history, in turn, is helpful in contextualizing the recent increase in attacks against books regarding sexual, gender, and racial diversity, which shows how social control through obscenity law continues to be a common tactic.
Fear of the influence of obscene works is exemplified by R v Hicklin, 1868 (Hicklin),[1] [1] an English decision which interpreted the meaning of the word ‘obscene’ in the Obscene Publications Act of 1857. Hicklin determined that ‘obscenity’ is the potential of a work “to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” (p. 26). A contentious case at the time, it served as a point of satirical inspiration for one Oscar Wilde, who appears to have used the Hicklin test to give his titular character Dorian Grey a “set of operating instructions,” as Simon Stern posits in Wilde’s Obscenity Effect: Influence and Immorality in the Picture of Dorian Gray (para 769). Dorian Gray satirizes the idea that “anything might provoke an erotic reverie … if only it find the right ear, and hence this reaction becomes the touchstone for identifying obscene works” (Stern at 759). Wilde’s Dorian is a young man who, through various corrupting influences including a “poisonous book,” effectively makes a deal with the devil to allow a painting to wear his age and sins while he remains youthful. Increasing poor behaviour by Dorian leads the painting to be monstrous. The concept of a man’s portrait bearing his sins so that he remains youthful is just as fantastical as the notion from Hicklin that the influence of books or ideas has the capacity to be all-corrupting.
Obscenity Law’s Hold in Both History and the Modern World
The Western concept of obscenity law is ultimately based in primarily Christian religious ideology and weaponizes the misguided fear of corruption from works that do not match the ideals of the prescribed social norm. In the context of obscenity law, society in Wilde’s time and the current United States climate are actually quite similar. The connections to Christian ideology in censorship of homosexual elements of Dorian Gray are mirrored in the current deluge of United States book bans, many of which target books with LGBTQ+ representation. Both historically and today, obscenity laws have been used as pretext for the stifling of diversity in art, and for the promotion of far-right and conservative religious ideologies.
Obscenity Law as an Application of Christian Ideology
Law is often touted as disconnected from concepts such as morality, based instead in reason and legal tradition—yet the purported divisions between law, religion, and morality re-unite under obscenity law. Both Hicklin and the development of the law of obscenity in the United States reveal the deep connections between the concept of obscenity and traditionalist Christian ideology. In Hicklin, the appellant (the publisher of said “obscene works”) argued that law is based in the “established religion” of the country, and to attack said religion is to attack the law, as they are effectively one and the same. The Christian faith is the “form established by law, and is, therefore, [a] part of the constitution of the country” (Hicklin at p. 23). The appellant further argued that “the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that any person reviling, subverting, or ridiculing them, maybe prosecuted at common law.” Further demonstrating the circular connections between law, religion, and morality, in his decision in Hicklin, Cockburn J states the religious maxim, “‘you shall not do evil that good may come’ is applicable in law as well as morals” (p. 27).
Hicklin demonstrates how obscenity law uses religious ideology to shape the legal definition of morality, a connection that also spread through the development of obscenity law in other jurisdictions. In the United States, for example, the federal Act of Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use (1873), resulted from the lobbying of YMCA member, Anthony Comstock, to the extent that the Act is known as the ‘Comstock Act’. Comstock saw obscenity law and abstinence from “impure thoughts” as ways to avoid the temptations of the devil and pave the path to righteousness. Under the Act, just as under the Hicklin test, the meaning of ‘obscene’ is based on ‘community standards’ and social expectations.
What is Obscene?
Keeping in mind the flexible and vague standard of what is obscene in the eyes of the courts, Dorian Gray is a useful example of what the social standard for obscenity was in the late 19th century. Between initial publication (and speedy withdrawal from the shelves) in Lippincott’s Monthly magazine in 1890 and the 1891 publication, the edits (read: censorship), of Wilde’s work offer insight into what was deemed to be obscene. The majority of the edits centre around a supporting character, Basil’s dialogue either to or about Dorian, and do not contain any explicit sexual content. In the Lippincott edition Basil describes his “worship” of Dorian as follows:
It is quite true I have worshipped you with far more romance of feeling than a man should give to a friend. Somehow I have never loved a woman… I quite admit that I adored you madly, extravagantly, absurdly (page 56).
Another collection of edits removes details of Basil’s relationship to Dorian, omits a line that Basil “gives himself away” (i.e., that his romantic feelings about Dorian may be obvious), and removes details of their time together as Basil says he and Dorian “walk home together from the club arm in arm, or sit in the studio and talk of a thousand things” (p. 10). When examining these eliminated excerpts, it is clear that the censorship is not targeted at overtly sexual content but rather what contravened the religious ideology and laws of the time (i.e., impliedly homosexual conduct).
Obscenity in the Modern US Context
Recent trends in censorship suggest that the continued use, influence, and expansion of the definition and use of obscenity operate as a form of social control. The use of obscenity in justifying US book bans in both state schools and libraries demonstrates that this legal tradition continues to target what goes against the purported social norm. Book banning in the US is on the extreme rise, with over 1500 book bans in the past year, and 41% of said bans targeting books with LGBT+ themes, protagonists, or prominent secondary characters. References to obscenity are used to justify bans, yet are often used in absurd ways. For example, Marisa Shearer in “Banning Books or Banning BIPOC?” (2002 117 Nw UL Rev) notes that books about Critical Race Theory are often banned under the guise of obscenity, either through parental allegations to school board or state legislators seeking to criminalize distribution of obscene materials in schools and libraries. Books like And Tango Makes Three, a book about two male penguins raising a penguin chick, was labelled as “pornographic” and “obscene”, stretching the definition of obscenity beyond anything sexually explicit or deliberately evocative. Other obscene materials include books like Maus, a graphic novel which details the history of the holocaust.
State legislators have engaged obscenity law in various ways, from weighing charges against Wyoming librarians who allow LGBTQ+ books in their libraries, to Iowa and Florida lawmakers passing bills that control the availability of “obscene or harmful” materials to minors. The concept of obscenity is still wielded in the same ways as in Wilde’s time: to promote the ideology of religious, state-approved morality through social control, leveraging the possibility of the poisonous influence of contrary ideology on innocent youths. The mythos presented by Dorian’s sins, and the “mental and physical corruption of a fresh, fair, and golden youth” (London’s Daily Chronicle, 1890, p. 71), mirror the fears expressed today by parents and state legislators that ‘obscene books’ in schools and libraries may lead to the “skewing of a young child’s mind”.
The fallacy of protecting youths from ‘malicious’ ideas, and the mythical power of influence that animates the Hicklin decision, are exactly what Wilde uses his satirical brilliance to highlight, pinpointing the ridiculousness of the notion of influence. As parents and lawmakers echo the words of Dorian and extol the dangerous and “poisonous” nature of books, they should turn to the words of Wilde: “As for being poisoned by a book, there is no such thing as that. [Art] is superbly sterile. The books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame.”
[1] Edward W. Cox, 1809-1879 (Editor).; et al. Reports of Cases in Criminal Law, Argued and Determined in All the Courts in England and Ireland, citing R v Hicklin, 1868 (Hicklin).