I was wandering through our local bookstore when I came across a display of “banned books.” Looking through them, I noticed many of the books had inserts explaining why they had been banned.

The list included issues such as sexual content, LGBTQ+ themes, anti-Christian themes, cultic subjects, confusing fantasy with reality, racism and prejudicial points of view. When examined, one realizes that these reasons are subject to debate. The reasons are opinions, not absolutes.

An individual may dislike a particular book, see its content as inaccurate, or deem it harmful to the reader. Others may think it is important to bring a subject into the light and to become informed. Of course, some people would argue that banning any book is unacceptable, its appropriateness judged only by the individual reader or the parent of a child.

This experience in the bookstore reminds me of the controversy over free speech, best illustrated on college and university campuses. The free speech debate focuses on the responsibility of the speaker.

For example, President Trump seeks to end the free expression of ideas and exchange them for his particular stand on issues. He seeks to silence oral speech with which he disagrees by putting financial pressure on the institutions. However, one can take a book out of the library or refuse to read a book, but one cannot unhear spoken words. Trump’s solution to this dilemma is to remove the student or faculty protester from the school.

Those who reject Trump’s approach seek ways to evaluate the methods of the speaker. They ask such questions as, “How might particular words be perceived as offensive to the general public? Is the speaker meanspirited? Are the speaker’s words false or misleading? Does the speaker express prejudice toward a particular ethnic group, racial identity, gender or culture?”

Answering “yes” to these questions is a judgment upon the credibility of the speaker’s words and any harm they may cause. It is difficult to censor speech, but it can be evaluated for its appropriateness and be responded to according to its trustworthiness.

However, this is not enough. In the college and university scene, as well as in our communities, we are witnessing resistance to open free discourse in order to protect negative emotional effects upon some students and citizens.

Speaking out on issues and expressing opinions sometimes invokes anxiety, sadness, trauma, stress and fear. Difficult feelings include confusion, alienation, exclusion, shame. When articulated, these feelings may have the effect of leaving the talker speechless.

Embracing free speech again necessitates the need to understand those who may be disturbed by the words and the issues being spoken. For example, a person protested to me that a presentation I made felt like a personal judgment or a demand that she act in a certain way. In conversation, it came out that she had a different feeling and understanding of the meaning of a particular word that I had used.

Uncomfortable feelings may silence, minds may not change. However, getting to the root of feelings may ultimately contribute to the dynamics of the issue being discussed.

When all is said and done, open communications, free speech, must never be discouraged. President Trump is wrong.

Limiting our country to people who think and speak alike will use up the oxygen of dynamic living and lead to stagnation. Deporting people deemed disruptive and different will be like farmers neglecting all but a single crop to feed the whole country — free to eat corn or die.

Keeping communications open may be hard work. Understanding powerful feelings may require courage and care for neighbor. However, free access to literature and the spoken word are essential to the well-being of the writer and the reader, the speaker and the listener.

John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Folk Rocker in his Concord home, Minds Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com