The banning of literature.

[Derringer]

Should there be an international (or civic, state, whatever) law prohibiting the banning of books?

[Video Drone]

Books, no, I don't think they should ever be banned... but a ban of a ban, sounds weird.

[JBI]

Books, no, I don't think they should ever be banned... but a ban of a ban, sounds weird.
What about hate material? I think there is a line between art and hate. For instance, something that directly targets a minority, and is used to insult/spread hate towards a specific group for no other reason than bigotry should be banned. Whereas something that has explicit sexual content (assuming not portraying women in a demeaning manner) should not be banned, seeing as it is a form of expression.

Sure one could argue that something like the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie could fall into category one, but I would disagree. Perhaps he may be blaspheming to an extend according to radical Islamic standards, but the purpose of the book is not to directly rip on Muslims, with no real practical goal outside of that.

[PeterL]

What about hate material? I think there is a line between art and hate. For instance, something that directly targets a minority, and is used to insult/spread hate towards a specific group for no other reason than bigotry should be banned. Whereas something that has explicit sexual content (assuming not portraying women in a demeaning manner) should not be banned, seeing as it is a form of expression.

Sure one could argue that something like the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie could fall into category one, but I would disagree. Perhaps he may be blaspheming to an extend according to radical Islamic standards, but the purpose of the book is not to directly rip on Muslims, with no real practical goal outside of that.

Is offending someone a reason for banning something? I don't think so. What you perceive as hate might simply e an expression of the author's experience. If we anned books simply because they advocate hatred, then the bible would be at the top of the list. Any book contains only the ideas of the author; readers are free to accept, reject, or ignore those ideas. Why bother banning? If you don't like a book, then ignore it.

[Video Drone]

To JBI - it is hard to draw that line. It is the same as banning all books that contain something pornographic or highly violent - sometimes the book needs it. A lot of schools ban Catcher in the Rye just because of the cuss words, lol, that's ridiculous.

[Sephirothse]

Is offending someone a reason for banning something? I don't think so. What you perceive as hate might simply e an expression of the author's experience. If we anned books simply because they advocate hatred, then the bible would be at the top of the list. Any book contains only the ideas of the author; readers are free to accept, reject, or ignore those ideas. Why bother banning? If you don't like a book, then ignore it.

ok first of all, Hate material is not just offending someone, it can provoke a hate crime towards a specific gender, race, religion etc. so it would generally be hard for people to ignore something that can cause harm by other people

no matter how an author expresses something if it inflicts harm on someone else, don't you think thats wrong, lets say an author says that mentally challenged people are dumb and don't deserve to live, now that is not a right to say in a book that is published to other people, they should keep that too themselves if they hate someone,

if the bible was produced today and people felt it had that advocation of hatred im sure it would be banned but since it has been around for a long time and tons of people follow the bible it won't get banned because majority rules

To JBI:
I don't think you can go half-hearted into this issue, no matter if its purposeful of intending harm it is still harmful or offending to a group

[Aiculík]

No. I think some state or some organizations and institutions should have right to ban some books - for clearly stated reasons, of course.

Books promoting fascism or racism, for example.


Is offending someone a reason for banning something? I don't think so.
Try to go and offend someone in public. I mean say something racistic or fascistic. And you'll probably end up with lawsuit. Why should it be regarded as "art" if you put it down in some "literature"?
Offending someone is a reson for banning something, if it is the only reason it was created. For example, some book that would say that black people or Jews (or put there any other group that is looked down in your society) are not humans and it's ok to enslave them or kill them in concentration camps - such books SHOULD be banned. And I think in most countries they are banned.
If, on the other hand, someone is offended by some book, like e.g. Harry Potter, than that's his own problem.


If we anned books simply because they advocate hatred, then the bible would be at the top of the list.
Have you even read the Bible?


Any book contains only the ideas of the author; readers are free to accept, reject, or ignore those ideas. Why bother banning? If you don't like a book, then ignore it.
Because world is full of people with weak minds and morals, that are easily manipulated... while someone can read Mein Kampf just as sort of historic resource that helps him to understand the madness of WWII, there are still many people that would lactually like Hitler's ideas and would want to try to make it real once again.

[Wilhelm]

In my opinion, no book should ever be banned. Why? I'll take the example of 'hate' literature (e.g. promoting racism, fascism)
1. These books provide a way to get to know the hater's motives and reasoning, which will lead to better understanding of the ideology. There is nothing more important than to fully understand an ideology to fight it.
2. People that read/spread these books as a hate campaign will always be around. They will obtain the text in another way (e.g. illegal copies, internet)
3. Banning always leads to extra (public) attention for the book. The work will be more widespread than ever. If something is forbidden, it becomes appealing. Think about the recent banning of the so-called 'racist' Tintin book in Britain. Only days after, the book was a topseller on Amazon.
4. One book is not going to make someone a racist if he hasn't got the potential to become one. The fulfilment of this potential could be realised in many other ways e.g. through movies, television, conversations, the internet,...

Interesting discussion!

[Video Drone]

ok first of all, Hate material is not just offending someone, it can provoke a hate crime towards a specific gender, race, religion etc. so it would generally be hard for people to ignore something that can cause harm by other peopleHate material can provoke as much as non-hate material. Sometimes a book is deep and critics don't even notice the hate, and sometimes the book has hate on the surface and critics can ban it for that while the book is really not about hate. According to you, we should ban 1984, but I think that's a great book.


lets say an author says that mentally challenged people are dumb and don't deserve to liveMmmm, mentally challenged people are smart or something? If he has his opinion about the topic, he has full rights to express it. If his readers are influenced that deeply... well, we are talking NLP here. And when it comes to NLP, the first thing to be banned is commercials.
Try to go and offend someone in public. I mean say something racistic or fascistic. And you'll probably end up with lawsuit.I think that is one of America's greatest problems, the fact that you can't even say a word to these minorities without getting in a lawsuit, poor minorities, eh, all that Affirmative Action makes their situation only worse, now people actually remember "hey, they are minorities, don't offend them, you'll get in jail". Isn't the point to merge all minorities and majorities so that they like each other, not give special rights to minorities? Cause that is what it is, reverse bias. But, whatever, this is a whole other debate.


Why should it be regarded as "art" if you put it down in some "literature"?Because art is more complicated than that.


For example, some book that would say that black people or Jews (or put there any other group that is looked down in your society) are not humans and it's ok to enslave them or kill them in concentration camps - such books SHOULD be banned.How about a black guy writes a book about how white people should be enslaved and killed? I don't think it should be banned. I may not agree with the guy but it is still a work of art for me. Why are you pointing minorities out? This isn't about minorities. It's about people. We won't get to a non-racist society if people will go around giving special treatment to minorities.


And I think in most countries they are banned. I dunno, I always felt that censorship is something America came up with. Ukraine and Russia, Canada, don't censor stuff.


Because world is full of people with weak minds and morals, that are easily manipulated...As I said... if we are talking NLP here, books are not the thing to start with. Television, internet, are much more influencive than books. And many easily manipulated people don't read books, they watch TV instead.


there are still many people that would lactually like Hitler's ideas and would want to try to make it real once again.It's their right. Aren't we living in a democracy where each can have their own opinion about things? And if they try to do something real, they will be stopped by law.

[kilted exile]

Mmmm, mentally challenged people are smart or something?

Ok, got to take issue with this part. the term "mentally challenged" covers a large number of issues and is not solely limited to mental retardation. Just some examples of the mentally challenged include autistic savants and dyslexics are these people stupid?

Now to address the main point. Yes, there are some writings which deserve to be banned. This really relates to the freedom of speech/expresssion argument, and peoples deluded belief that they are entitled to say or express themselves in any way they like.

[Video Drone]

I thought that refers to mentally retarded only, that's what it sounds like. In any case, too generic a statement to actually attack a group. And I don't know what "autistic savants" and "dyslexics" are, not familiar with those terms.

It's not a deluded belief, it's a whole amendment which keeps being ignored. Just like firearms keep getting ignored.

[kilted exile]

I thought that refers to mentally retarded only, that's what it sounds like. In any case, too generic a statement to actually attack a group. And I don't know what "autistic savants" and "dyslexics" are, not familiar with those terms.

Yes, it is a far too large a term to make a statement regarding the entire group. However, you did that when you made your sarcastic comments earlier regarding them all being of limited intelligence.



It's not a deluded belief, it's a whole amendment which keeps being ignored. Just like firearms keep getting ignored.

No it is not full freedom of speech (also not dealing solely with US here) every country (or definitely most) have other legislation in place regarding discriminating, or use of language that is likely to incite or cause offence. This legislation usually stems from the UN charter on human rights. Therefore you already have restrictions on what you can legally say, the same legislation applies to writing. This legislation is vitally important to providing a civilised society, and is something, especially as an immigrant, you should be thankful for.

[Video Drone]

It is far too large a term to be taken as an offense. When a certain group is "offended", and contains small groups inside it, the offense is directed not necessary at all of them. The words "Mentally challenged" easily translate to "Intelligently challenged", and that is what dumb is. This does not refer to anyone but those mentally challenged who are intelligently challenged. In the worst case, the author doesn't know the difference, like in my case. Are you going to ban him for not knowing?

"This legislation is vitally important to providing a civilised society" - it's just politics. Same as the whole Affirmative Action thing. It's all politics, to get more votes. No one really cares about who is treated in what way, they do it for votes, and that is why I don't like it, just as I wouldn't want to see a book about this very question banned just because the government would be afraid of it.

"especially as an immigrant, you should be thankful for." - you don't know anything about immigrants, don't talk about what we should or shouldn't be thankful for, please. Don't even go there.

[Aiculík]

I think that is one of America's greatest problems, the fact that you can't even say a word to these minorities without getting in a lawsuit, poor minorities, eh, all that Affirmative Action makes their situation only worse, now people actually remember "hey, they are minorities, don't offend them, you'll get in jail". Isn't the point to merge all minorities and majorities so that they like each other, not give special rights to minorities? Cause that is what it is, reverse bias. But, whatever, this is a whole other debate.
And what would you suggest - to allow offending minorities? Do you think it would help if people could say offensive things? Do you think that if people could express their hate and disdain freely, it would help to merge all minorities and majority?
Sorry, but I think that's really naive.



Because art is more complicated than that.
Exactly. That's why it should not be called art, or literature. :) And one more thing - criticism is not the same as hate... Books criticisng something in the society, pointing out things that should be changed and hate material - that's not the same, they are in fact on the opposite sides.


How about a black guy writes a book about how white people should be enslaved and killed? I don't think it should be banned. I may not agree with the guy but it is still a work of art for me. Why are you pointing minorities out? This isn't about minorities. It's about people. We won't get to a non-racist society if people will go around giving special treatment to minorities.
NO MAN, no matter what colour his skin his, or what nationality or religion he has, has right to offend another man. Offence is not art. Offence is just that, an offence... as I said, if the book was written only to offend and humiliate other people, it should be banned. And the same goes for internet or TV. And altough you may not be aware of it, this kind of censorship does work in TV and internet...


I dunno, I always felt that censorship is something America came up with. Ukraine and Russia, Canada, don't censor stuff.
No, it's definitely not only America. In fact, when I wrote it I had in mind my own country, Slovakia. I can't say for sure about Ukraine or Russia (though I think fascistic materials are prohibited there as well), but in Slovakia, if you have fascistic books or any other materials, if you just as much as draw fascistic symbol, you're in serious trouble and can end in jail for quite a long time.


As I said... if we are talking NLP here, books are not the thing to start with. Television, internet, are much more influencive than books. And many easily manipulated people don't read books, they watch TV instead.
What does "NLP" exactly mean? Sorry as I said I'm not from USA.
But of course, all hate material promoting racism or fascism should be banned.


It's their right. Aren't we living in a democracy where each can have their own opinion about things? And if they try to do something real, they will be stopped by law.
Ah. And don't you think that publishing such books is the first step in making it real?

[kilted exile]

It is far too large a term to be taken as an offense. When a certain group is "offended", and contains small groups inside it, the offense is directed not necessary at all of them. The words "Mentally challenged" easily translate to "Intelligently challenged", and that is what dumb is. This does not refer to anyone but those mentally challenged who are intelligently challenged. In the worst case, the author doesn't know the difference, like in my case. Are you going to ban him for not knowing?

"This legislation is vitally important to providing a civilised society" - it's just politics. Same as the whole Affirmative Action thing. It's all politics, to get more votes. No one really cares about who is treated in what way, they do it for votes, and that is why I don't like it, just as I wouldn't want to see a book about this very question banned just because the government would be afraid of it.

"especially as an immigrant, you should be thankful for." - you don't know anything about immigrants, don't talk about what we should or shouldn't be thankful for, please. Don't even go there.

Addressing the last point first, I am an immigrant myself, so I actually know plenty about it.

Now the first point, yes ignorance is no excuse. If people are going to make statements they should know what the terms they are using refer to & what they fully mean.

As much as you would like to think it is "just politics" it is in fact so much deeper than that, and many societies throughout the years have shown that kind of legislation is very necessary

[PeterL]

No. I think some state or some organizations and institutions should have right to ban some books - for clearly stated reasons, of course.

Books promoting fascism or racism, for example.


Try to go and offend someone in public. I mean say something racistic or fascistic. And you'll probably end up with lawsuit. Why should it be regarded as "art" if you put it down in some "literature"?
Offending someone is a reson for banning something, if it is the only reason it was created. For example, some book that would say that black people or Jews (or put there any other group that is looked down in your society) are not humans and it's ok to enslave them or kill them in concentration camps - such books SHOULD be banned. And I think in most countries they are banned.
If, on the other hand, someone is offended by some book, like e.g. Harry Potter, than that's his own problem.

So you lie book burnings. If someone writes something that you don't lie, you think it is appropriate to burn the book? OK



Have you even read the Bible?

Yes


Because world is full of people with weak minds and morals, that are easily manipulated... while someone can read Mein Kampf just as sort of historic resource that helps him to understand the madness of WWII, there are still many people that would lactually like Hitler's ideas and would want to try to make it real once again.

I guess that you believe that you are better suited to decide what others should be able to read than those others are.

[PeterL]

ok first of all, Hate material is not just offending someone, it can provoke a hate crime towards a specific gender, race, religion etc. so it would generally be hard for people to ignore something that can cause harm by other people.

And what might a "hate crime" be? emotions are not crimes. Acting on emotions can be criminal. The so-called laws against "hate crimes" are not valid for that reason.


no matter how an author expresses something if it inflicts harm on someone else, don't you think thats wrong, lets say an author says that mentally challenged people are dumb and don't deserve to live, now that is not a right to say in a book that is published to other people, they should keep that too themselves if they hate someone.

Words do not, in and of themselves, harm anyone. If someone feels hurt by the words of another, that suggests that the person who feels hurt has a problem; although the person who expressed the words may also.

[PeterL]

In my opinion, no book should ever be banned. Why? I'll take the example of 'hate' literature (e.g. promoting racism, fascism)
1. These books provide a way to get to know the hater's motives and reasoning, which will lead to better understanding of the ideology. There is nothing more important than to fully understand an ideology to fight it.
2. People that read/spread these books as a hate campaign will always be around. They will obtain the text in another way (e.g. illegal copies, internet)
3. Banning always leads to extra (public) attention for the book. The work will be more widespread than ever. If something is forbidden, it becomes appealing. Think about the recent banning of the so-called 'racist' Tintin book in Britain. Only days after, the book was a topseller on Amazon.
4. One book is not going to make someone a racist if he hasn't got the potential to become one. The fulfilment of this potential could be realised in many other ways e.g. through movies, television, conversations, the internet,...

Interesting discussion!

Amen, It is good to be able to learn how one's enemy thinks.

[PeterL]

I am amazed that there are people who believe that expression should be restricted solely to save some people from having their feelings hurt. Personally I agree with Voltaire's comment:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Aiculík]

So you lie book burnings. If someone writes something that you don't lie, you think it is appropriate to burn the book?

In another thread, the book Malleus Maleficarum or The Hammer of Witches, was mentioned. It was written in 1486 by two Catholic priests and used by many "witch" hunters.

The Catholic Church banned the book in 1490 and put it at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Was the Church wrong to ban the book?

[Granny5]

In another thread, the book Malleus Maleficarum or The Hammer of Witches, was mentioned. It was written in 1486 by two Catholic priests and used by many "witch" hunters.

The Catholic Church banned the book in 1490 and put it at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Was the Church wrong to ban the book?

How do we learn from the past if we don't know what or why the past was?
To ban any book is wrong, just wrong. No one or no group has the ability to know what is good or bad for me to read. Where is the line drawn? Who draws the line? If we ban any book that offends any group or person, don't you think that just about every book would be banned? If the "N" word is used in a book, do we ban it? Wouldn't that elimate To Kill a Mockingbird? If we ban books that could lead someone to do harm to others, wouldn't that elimate Catcher in the Rye? Where would it stop? Who ever would be in charge of deciding what books to ban would surely want to ban any book that lead to free thought. Oh, then wouldn't they want to ban this forum because it leads to free thought and someone could post something that would be offensive to someone in the world. Once restrictions are in place, someone or some group steps over the line and takes is all a bit further. Don't read what offends you. Let everyone else decide for themselves if it is offensive to them.

[Aiculík]

How do we learn from the past if we don't know what or why the past was?
To ban any book is wrong, just wrong. No one or no group has the ability to know what is good or bad for me to read. Where is the line drawn? Who draws the line? If we ban any book that offends any group or person, don't you think that just about every book would be banned? If the "N" word is used in a book, do we ban it? Wouldn't that elimate To Kill a Mockingbird? If we ban books that could lead someone to do harm to others, wouldn't that elimate Catcher in the Rye? Where would it stop? Who ever would be in charge of deciding what books to ban would surely want to ban any book that lead to free thought. Oh, then wouldn't they want to ban this forum because it leads to free thought and someone could post something that would be offensive to someone in the world. Once restrictions are in place, someone or some group steps over the line and takes is all a bit further. Don't read what offends you. Let everyone else decide for themselves if it is offensive to them.

What is "N" word?

Did you read my other posts, too? I've never read To Kill a Mockingbird and didn't like Catcher in the Rye, but these books are not hate material. They were not written with the purpose to offend someone, and if somenone is offended by these books, it's his own problem. I am not supporting (never had and never will) banning of art.

So - are you saying that Church shouldn't have banned that book, even though it would mean the Church approves the book (it was written by priests) and encourages people to do as it says, because of "experience" that people living several centuries later could get from it?

But we learned from the past even though it was banned, didn't we?

[Granny5]

What is "N" word?

Did you read my other posts, too? I've never read To Kill a Mockingbird and didn't like Catcher in the Rye, but these books are not hate material. They were not written with the purpose to offend someone, and if somenone is offended by these books, it's his own problem. I am not supporting (never had and never will) banning of art.

So - are you saying that Church shouldn't have banned that book, even though it would mean the Church approves the book (it was written by priests) and encourages people to do as it says, because of "experience" that people living several centuries later could get from it?

But we learned from the past even though it was banned, didn't we?

The "N" is niggar, a very negative word that once was commonly used instead of black. A person who tried to kill our President Ragan was carrying a copy of Catcher in the Rye and claimed to be influnced by it. How would one know about what the Church did or didn't do if the books were not around? Who decides if a book is "art" or hate material? I wouldn't want to be the one. Unless one can know for certain what the writer was thinking or feeling, one doesn't have enough knowledge to make that decission. And just because something isn't banned doesn't mean it's approved of. I understand your concern, but where is the line drawn? Who has the abilities to decide what is good for the masses? I just don't know any person or group I'd trust with my freedoms. And I don't know that I'd trust myself with your freedoms.

[Aiculík]

I see your point, but try to imagine this:

I'd now write some very offensive message, something really harsh that I'd know would hurt you, full of vulgar words and swears (I'll leave concrete words to your imagination :D ).

I think moderators would come and delete it. They wouldn't let it stay so that some other user that would possibly register in a few years could learn about the past from it. And if I did such things often, moderators would ban me from the forum. And again, it would be right to do it.

But, according to what you say, if it wasn't enough for me to write just one nasty message to you, and wrote a book about it, then it would suddenly be different. Why?

But if you thought you found something offensive in any other message, like this one or any other by any user, you could contact moderators to delete it, but they'd most probably say it's just your interpretation and refuse to delete it (well I hope so :D at least that's what I'd do on my forum).

Of course, as everyone can interpret books as he wants, there will always be some lunatics, who'll find some encrypted message "go and kill the president" in the most normal and innocent book. And of course these books shouldn't be banned.

But, on the other side, there's very clear line between Cather in the Rye and, let's say, the book I'd write about you as I mentioned above. Isn't there? I think that the line between hate material and real art is very clear... or it will be clear if you ever read some hate material.

oh and thank you for explaining "N" word, by the way do you know what's the neutral term for "gipsy" in English?

[Logos]

I think moderators would come and delete it.
Thank you for self-modding :D

[Granny5]

I don't believe that being able to post on this forum is a "right". We are allowed to post by the moderators sort of as a gift. Everyone is obligated to be respectful and not use vulgar language or they have the "right" to kick us off their forum. It would be the same if someone came to my house and did something I didn't allow. I would have to ask them to leave. Now, if the powers that be, whoever is in charge of banning books or free thought,(which to me are the same thing) were the ones telling the moderators who could post and what could be said on their private forum then that would be censorship and it would violate our rights as well as the moderators rights. There are certain groups in this world who would ban all type of art, including the written word, if they were allowed to get away with it. Remember there is a book in just about every school library here in the United States that contains violence, incest, murder, and cuss words that could fall under someones idea of something that should be banned. It's the Bible.
As for gispy, the only other term I've heard is "wanderers" but I don't know many gyspies.

[Whifflingpin]

"what's the neutral term for "gipsy" in English?"

"Gypsy" is a neutral term, with positive connotations to those who like gypsies, and negative to those who don't.

"Romany" is a term for gypsy that carries positive connotations.

"Gippo," "Diddycoy" are two negative terms.

[AuntShecky]

We already have a law against banning books.
It's called the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution.
We might have forgotten it, given today's political
atmosphere. Freedom of the press is often "more honored in the breach than in the observance."
Some Supreme Court judge once said that freedom of the
Press belongs to anyone who can afford a printing press.
Of course, the publishing world often avoids writers like me. But the Internet has given us more freedom, do you think?

[PeterL]

In another thread, the book Malleus Maleficarum or The Hammer of Witches, was mentioned. It was written in 1486 by two Catholic priests and used by many "witch" hunters.

The Catholic Church banned the book in 1490 and put it at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Was the Church wrong to ban the book?

I disapprove of the banning of any books. Although a book may lead to great evil, as is true of The Bible, the Malleus Maleficarum, Mein Kampf, and many other books; it wasn't the book itself that led to evil, it was the reaction of some of the readers. If people had simply laughed at Malleus Maleficarum, would you be asking about the banning of it?

[Bakiryu]

oh and thank you for explaining "N" word, by the way do you know what's the neutral term for "gypsy" in English?

Romaní: Politically correct form. But it depends to what clan they belong :)

[Bakiryu]

I think the name Roma is also widely used.

[JBI]

I can't help but feel bewildered by the responses to this thread. According to the general consensus (from the way I see it) most of you are fine with publishing anything.

Of course the line is blurry, and it is impossible to really see what should be banned and what shouldn't, but if for instance someone wrote a book entitled "The answer to the pink problem" and went over means of exterminating all pink people, in order for the domination of the rest of the more "worthy" races, meanwhile gaining activist support, and spreading hostility towards the targeted group, should be seen as legitimate grounds for banning.

Whereas if someone writes a book criticizing the culture of one group, by which he means to help them fix that, or to speak out against it, that perhaps is not a problem.

[PeterL]

=

Of course the line is blurry, and it is impossible to really see what should be banned and what shouldn't, but if for instance someone wrote a book entitled "The answer to the pink problem" and went over means of exterminating all pink people, in order for the domination of the rest of the more "worthy" races, meanwhile gaining activist support, and spreading hostility towards the targeted group, should be seen as legitimate grounds for banning.


Why would that be a legitimate target for banning? If people want to express silly ideas, that's their problem; and it might be therapeutic.

[Logos]

If anyone is interested in further reading...there are a number of other topics here discussing controversial literature :)

"Is Huckleberry Finn a racist book?"/ "This book is racist":
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13022

Poll: What do you think about "Banning Books"?
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24377

Banned Books Week [September 29–October 6, 2007]:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1374

Lolita: "Anyone else read this? Any comments?":
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1059

Vladimir Nabokov: Lolita:"The novel's mixture of tragedy and subtle comic genius have led to it being widely considered one of the best fiction works of the 20th century:"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15297

Mein Kampf:...."should I buy the book Mein Kampf for my fifteen year old sister?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20826

Mein Kampf: "Anybody read this?"
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14430

[Video Drone]

Of course the line is blurry, and it is impossible to really see what should be banned and what shouldn't, but if for instance someone wrote a book entitled "The answer to the pink problem" and went over means of exterminating all pink people, in order for the domination of the rest of the more "worthy" races, meanwhile gaining activist support, and spreading hostility towards the targeted group, should be seen as legitimate grounds for banning.We can hardly do anything to the fact that most of the people are a crowd of cattle. And I will repeat, TV and government propaganda is worse. The majority of influencive people may not even read that much.

[Whifflingpin]

"We can hardly do anything to the fact that most of the people are a crowd of cattle."
Yow - should inflammatory statements like that be banned?

[kilted exile]

Just in reference to the points that have been raised re: influence of TV & other media. There are restrictions regarding what you can say/show on these mediums as well. Why should writing be any different?

[Video Drone]

Yow - should inflammatory statements like that be banned?JBI said that, not me. :D

[JBI]

Just out of curiosity, how many of you are minorities in your country/community/the world?

I know for a fact that if I wrote a novel deeply degrading women (deliberately), and commenting on how we should lock them up, and use them as sexual slaves, I would be probably silenced by a censor. The point is that everyone is fine about something until it targets them.

[Video Drone]

I live in the USA, so, I must say, a lot.

I'm fine with you writing a novel about us. :D A person like me would just read this and say "sheesh, this poor fellow met some truly horrible women". You see, this kind of stuff doesn't happen without a reason, either...

Same as I was fine with Orwell attacking USSR in 1984.

[Aiculík]

Why do you think Orwell attacked USSR in 1984?

[Granny5]

I can't help but feel bewildered by the responses to this thread. According to the general consensus (from the way I see it) most of you are fine with publishing anything.

Of course the line is blurry, and it is impossible to really see what should be banned and what shouldn't, but if for instance someone wrote a book entitled "The answer to the pink problem" and went over means of exterminating all pink people, in order for the domination of the rest of the more "worthy" races, meanwhile gaining activist support, and spreading hostility towards the targeted group, should be seen as legitimate grounds for banning.

Whereas if someone writes a book criticizing the culture of one group, by which he means to help them fix that, or to speak out against it, that perhaps is not a problem.
JBI, why would you want to give over to some unknown group or person your freedom to read anything? Or do you think that although you have the ability to decide what to read, not everyone is capable of that? That's what parents are for, isn't it? I am an adult and I sure don't want anyone telling me what to read. I know I have the intelligence to know what is worthy of reading and/or believing without any help. If I start something I don't like, I just put it down or give it to someone else. Would you really want your library to be filled with only the books that a Southern Baptist preacher thought was worthy or moral. Or the Kremlin? Or Dick Cheney?

[Redzeppelin]

JBI, why would you want to give over to some unknown group or person your freedom to read anything? Or do you think that although you have the ability to decide what to read, not everyone is capable of that? That's what parents are for, isn't it? I am an adult and I sure don't want anyone telling me what to read. I know I have the intelligence to know what is worthy of reading and/or believing without any help. If I start something I don't like, I just put it down or give it to someone else. Would you really want your library to be filled with only the books that a Southern Baptist preacher thought was worthy or moral. Or the Kremlin? Or Dick Cheney?

JBI's concerns are legitimate; part of the root of this discussion is the presence of postmodernism which essentially says that all forms of art and expression are equal; as such, pornography is now sold in bookstores, whereas in decades past, you had to go to a liqour store to find it. This cultural confusion means that people will now advocate the right of any written expression as somehow valid - or at least as equally valid as everything else. This is not so. JBI did not advocate books by preachers, political entites or figures: s/he is asking a question about what should legitimately be published. There is a difference in books that critique and examine ideas and those that argue repellent philosophy. I'm not advocating censorship as much as I'm pointing out the the kind of culture we have become makes it difficult for us to determine what is art and what is trash. If we could determine such, then publishers would know what not to publish because people wouldn't buy it: the problem nowadays is that we'll buy just about anything, and the internet has no publishing standards whatsoever.

[motherhubbard]

JBI's concerns are legitimate; part of the root of this discussion is the presence of postmodernism which essentially says that all forms of art and expression are equal; as such, pornography is now sold in bookstores, whereas in decades past, you had to go to a liqour store to find it. This cultural confusion means that people will now advocate the right of any written expression as somehow valid - or at least as equally valid as everything else. This is not so. JBI did not advocate books by preachers, political entites or figures: s/he is asking a question about what should legitimately be published. There is a difference in books that critique and examine ideas and those that argue repellent philosophy. I'm not advocating censorship as much as I'm pointing out the the kind of culture we have become makes it difficult for us to determine what is art and what is trash. If we could determine such, then publishers would know what not to publish because people wouldn't buy it: the problem nowadays is that we'll buy just about anything, and the internet has no publishing standards whatsoever.


I understand your concern, but if I want to read porn than as an adult that is my decision. If I don't want my kids to read porn then I monitor. That is for me to control and regulate not a publisher or government official. There are laws to protect children for exploitation. As a parent I realize that it takes vigilant effort besides the law, but I will gladly put forth the effort and maintain free speech. It is not the publishers place to determine what is good and valid expression, but to determine what will sell. It is for the writer and the buyer to determine validity of expression. Publishers would not publish what would not sell.

[Granny5]

JBI's concerns are legitimate; part of the root of this discussion is the presence of postmodernism which essentially says that all forms of art and expression are equal; as such, pornography is now sold in bookstores, whereas in decades past, you had to go to a liqour store to find it. This cultural confusion means that people will now advocate the right of any written expression as somehow valid - or at least as equally valid as everything else. This is not so. JBI did not advocate books by preachers, political entites or figures: s/he is asking a question about what should legitimately be published. There is a difference in books that critique and examine ideas and those that argue repellent philosophy. I'm not advocating censorship as much as I'm pointing out the the kind of culture we have become makes it difficult for us to determine what is art and what is trash. If we could determine such, then publishers would know what not to publish because people wouldn't buy it: the problem nowadays is that we'll buy just about anything, and the internet has no publishing standards whatsoever.

I understand your point about some trash being published. But you don't see much porn on any of the best sellers list. My point was that I wouldn't want preachers or political figures to decide what I could or could not read. I just can't comprehend anyone wanting someone/something else making decisions for them. To me that is the same as allowing me to see only one point of view. And most likely, that is what would happen. Power breads corruption. Suggestions, yes. But not decisions.

[aabbcc]

If we ban books that could lead someone to do harm to others, wouldn't that elimate Catcher in the Rye?
Oh, it would be amongst the first on the list, I suppose :D. As a matter of fact, the murder of certain John Lennons is what you get when certain Mark Chapmans take certain "Cather in the Rye"s and decide to see in those books the enrypted messages to kill certain "phonies", is it not?
And how come nobody brought up Qur'an yet, there could be quite a controverse about how certain people see in it precisely what they want...

I will try to organise my thoughts on the subject, as they tend to be a lot chaotic otherwise:

1) Anyone can see anything they wish in anything.
Not a long ago somebody posted a thread here about which books which deal with isolation they should read, and amongst my concrete suggestions of the books I could think of I told them that, if they wanted, they could see isolation in phone books. Though I told that in half-joking manner, I was serious. All, but I mean all, is a subject to interpretation, especially when written material is concerned.

If you want to, you can find whatever you want in anything else. You can write a serious thesis on such absurd concepts, for example, as "Russian fairy tales are racist" (after all, is not in many of the versions of fairy tales about Vasilisa Prekrasnaya explicitly noted that, despite having to work outside, she retained her beautiful light skin? oh, and you can certainly connect racism in Russia with having grown up on such fairy tales, can you not?), "Harry Potter books are encrypted works which speak of nacism" (after all, can you not draw connections between Voldemort and Hitler, Death Eaters and Gestapo, etc? And if you really want to, you can find perfect arguments why they promote nacism... you can even find it despite the ending *SPOILERS* which would not quite be in accordance with it, for example, in that epilogue when they see Draco on the station, it can be viewed as "nacism still had not died, despite our great leader did", come on, you can see anything you wish if you look well enough... :D), "Anna Karenina and how it is encrypted in the book that America shall fall" (:lol: Let us see about that one... hm... Anna is America, certainly; she throws herself in front of the train, train might represent, say, a mighty Russia which is to overcome the world, and if we really look well enough, we can see the auguries of that train coming over Anna, and let us see Anna as character, we can certainly find in her behaviour something which reflects the ideology of americanism... So we can compose a "new history" on that, and Tolstoj was a prophet :D), literally, anything. I am, of course, giving quite idiotic examples, but the point is, everything is by default "encrypted", "dangerous" and whatnot. And after all, does not Bible (http://www.commondreams.org/views/071300-106.htm) also encourage "socially inaccepted behaviour", to say so?

No work, in its essence, tells of only one thing. As my mother (who grew up and was schooled in communism) told me, "If you look deep enough, you can draw connections between workers' rights and any given topic in the world, even if the topic is about subatomic particles.":lol: And that is true about every thing in the world - it is all about your imagination and ability to interpret things.

Therefore, no books should be banned or else all should be banned, as anything potentially includes encrypted, "dangerous" information.

After all, what is culture? The 'unit' of culture is a symbol, everything around us are symbols, words themselves are not but symbols, every single thing does not exist if not interpreted as such, but let us not delve into philosophy here or else the discussion will take the wrong turn.

2) I am young and romantic so I like to believe that people are generally intelligent beings, of whose reading repertoire is unnecessary to cut things because they might "induce them to harm" or whatever of the kind. I like to think that people are intelligent enough to choose, and to recognise which materials are open about violence/hatred/etc (of course, everything is de facto encrypted with it, let us not forget :lol:).
Thank you, but despite being young, I do not need to be patronised by a Great Censor who is there on a noble duty to protect me from the influence of various ideas.

3) One way or another, those ideas will circle around. They will be printed illegally, exchanged online and in illegal meetings, and the more you forbid something - as somebody pointed out - the more attention you draw to it, as well as general interest.

Have you noticed how did "Da Vinci Code" become a bestseller? The Church with their 'whinings' about the book content was the one to give to it the best commercial it could wish. Whenever you have got something "controverse", the more attention you give to it, the more popular it shall become. Negative, maybe, but attention is still - attention, do not forget that.

If you want something to cease to be, the best you can do is to, ironically, let it be, but refuse to give attention to it in sense of forbidding it. If you want to silence an angry little child in mood fit, you do not threaten to him, you do not hit him, you do not give him a candy, for all those are still attention - you ignore them and by ignoring them show them that that is not the way to gain your attention (trust me, it works ;)).

Y'know what they say, keep your friends close, enemies closers. The only way to combat stereotypes and "harmful" ideas is through knowledge about those, not just trying to hush them.

4) Has somebody brought up Voltaire yet? I think so, but allow me to repeat it: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it."

Tolerance does not mean solely tolerating what you, in the principle, like. It means tolerating the presence of other ideas, no matter how "harmful" or "demonic" they seem to you. The presence of them, not the harms they do, but they shall always be present, legally or not.
By not allowing them to exist, no matter of how intolerant nature they are, you are lowering yourself to equally intolerant level of trying to prohibit them. That also means that your "free" world is not free at all, as it allows things to exist solely if in accordance with it...

5) I disgaree with censorship and banning books.

[Granny5]

You may be young but you are very sharp. Good arguements.

[metal134]

If we ban books that could lead someone to do harm to others, wouldn't that elimate Catcher in the Rye? Where would it stop? Who ever would be in charge of deciding what books to ban would surely want to ban any book that lead to free thought.
That's a good point. I recently watched the movie "Donnie Darko" and this issue was (sort of) illustrated in the movie (***POTENTIAL SPOILERS BELOW***)


In the movie, Darko's class reads the short story "The Destructors" in which a group of kids destroy a house by busting a water main. Without getting into the technical details of the plot (mostly because if you haven't seen the movie, it would be ridiculous to try to explain), Darko, in a hypnotic state, busts a water main, flooding the school. At a PTA meeting, one of the teachers blames the book and they subsequetly have it banned from the school and any student caught with it would be punished. It's a dangerous practice to follow.

[PeterL]

No work, in its essence, tells of only one thing. As my mother (who grew up and was schooled in communism) told me, "If you look deep enough, you can draw connections between workers' rights and any given topic in the world, even if the topic is about subatomic particles.":lol: And that is true about every thing in the world - it is all about your imagination and ability to interpret things.

Therefore, no books should be banned or else all should be banned, as anything potentially includes encrypted, "dangerous" information.

Yes, people will find the meaning or information wherever they can. even if all books were banned, the essence of those books would be reconstructed in a short time.



4) Has somebody brought up Voltaire yet? I think so, but allow me to repeat it: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it."

Yes, I cited that earlier in the discussion but in a slightly different form.

[Video Drone]

Why do you think Orwell attacked USSR in 1984?He referred a lot to things common in USSR, or, rather, things commonly thought about the USSR, and I had a feeling he never lived in the country and referenced the rumors. Such as those kids with the orange or red scarfs I forgot how to call them in English, the anti-sex league, and there were a lot of tiny things here and there, the way officials behaved and the way people talked and all that stuff about Big Brother who was so much like Stalin and people behaved with the Big Brother and the other guy (what was his name?) similar to how it was during the time Stalin overtook over Trotsky. I felt this book was, in a way, attack on communism.

[Aiculík]

He referred a lot to things common in USSR, or, rather, things commonly thought about the USSR, and I had a feeling he never lived in the country and referenced the rumors. Such as those kids with the orange or red scarfs I forgot how to call them in English, the anti-sex league, and there were a lot of tiny things here and there, the way officials behaved and the way people talked and all that stuff about Big Brother who was so much like Stalin and people behaved with the Big Brother and the other guy (what was his name?) similar to how it was during the time Stalin overtook over Trotsky. I felt this book was, in a way, attack on communism.

Yes, I also think that some things in that novel are inspired by USSR or Stalin. But then, it's Oceania that we follow, not Eurasia. And all of them, in fact equally bad - Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia (I hope I remember names right, it's quite some time I read the book), no matter what their ideologies are. That's why it seemed to me that it's against any totalitarianism...

It does not say that USSR is the main villain, or that Soviets should be eliminated... It just warns about some trends in the human society which could lead to the world of 1984.

If the novel was meant as hate material... then it's too well masked.
I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do it in such subtle way, you know. :D
(and btw... I'm not a guy... :p)

[Aiculík]

Tolerance does not mean solely tolerating what you, in the principle, like. It means tolerating the presence of other ideas, no matter how "harmful" or "demonic" they seem to you. The presence of them, not the harms they do, but they shall always be present, legally or not.
By not allowing them to exist, no matter of how intolerant nature they are, you are lowering yourself to equally intolerant level of trying to prohibit them. That also means that your "free" world is not free at all, as it allows things to exist solely if in accordance with it...

Well, I'm not that tolerant. My tolerance has certain limits. There are things that I don't tolerate and never will, thing against which I will always fight.

Tolerance isn't my highest ideal. I'm not going to tolerate evil, tolerate hurting innocent, manipulation and abuse of young (in any way)... I'm not going to stand there and say that people who are thoing that have also right to express their opinions... just to seem cool and tolerant, just to be ok with everyone, just not to mess it up. That's not for me, sorry.

[JBI]

Yes, there is also the concern about truth. I know of a case about a high school teacher teaching holocaust denial to his students, using anti-semetic literature providing "facts" that the holocaust never happened, and no Jews, or members of any group were slaughtered. Should this be allowed? Where can we draw the line? How can we know the truth if people are writing books to distort it? When can we say "these are lies you are telling your students." If we accept everything, than we support everything.

[Video Drone]

Yes, I also think that some things in that novel are inspired by USSR or Stalin. But then, it's Oceania that we follow, not Eurasia. And all of them, in fact equally bad - Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia (I hope I remember names right, it's quite some time I read the book), no matter what their ideologies are. That's why it seemed to me that it's against any totalitarianism...

It does not say that USSR is the main villain, or that Soviets should be eliminated... It just warns about some trends in the human society which could lead to the world of 1984.

If the novel was meant as hate material... then it's too well masked.
I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do it in such subtle way, you know. :D
(and btw... I'm not a guy... :p)
I'm not saying this book IS hate material. But a lot of people I know think it is. It's a matter of who thinks what... :D

Well, I don't remember refering to you as a guy, we don't have gender icons here, anyway.

[aabbcc]

Tolerance isn't my highest ideal. I'm not going to tolerate evil, tolerate hurting innocent, manipulation and abuse of young (in any way)... I'm not going to stand there and say that people who are thoing that have also right to express their opinions... just to seem cool and tolerant, just to be ok with everyone, just not to mess it up. That's not for me, sorry.
As I said, I am going to tolerate the presence of other ideas, not the practical harms they do - in that case, I am still for the good old "freedom of one man stops where the freedom of another man begins".

The problem is in attitude, not in concrete examples. The problem is that most of people a priori refuse to accept the existence of anything which does not form a part of their worldview - and I am not talking only about extreme examples such as pro-nacism works, but also of, for example, works that deal with homosexuality, abortion, eutanasia, whatnot, and the usual moral debates of our age. Then, people with different view of history, and the different interpretation of historical "truths" we are used to, such things are what I predominately had in mind.

Of course, the consequence of allowing the freedom of expression and ideas theoretically includes in se the freedom of expressing extreme ideas as well, but nobody is asking of you to accept them, or to even read that - just to accept the existence of such ideas.
I am perfectly fine with "Mein Kampf" or a work of the kind on the shelf in library (and I am Slav, for your reference). Book, as any other. What I am not fine with is such works put into practice - but that already leaves the realm of written material, which is what we discuss.

Also, keep in mind that if we are going to forbid everything which somebody at some time (ab)used to harm other people, we need to forbid a whole lot of things - starting from the Bible probably (from inquisition to cruscades, a plethora of times in history somebody abused it to support the harms they did). Then there is manifesto, in the modern day Qur'an... if you are going to forbid everything referring oneself to somebody committed some crimes, you are not going to be left with a lot of books in the world.

If you go by logic that "Mein Kampf" supports and promotes violence towards certain groups, you cannot not go by logic that Qur'an does the same thing (oh, I have read it, in its entirety, more than once, so it is not really that I speak of prejudices imposed to me by media... you do not even have to search between the lines to find verses which somebody might abuse for not-so-noble actions). And in its very essence, does not Bible also speak of "chosen nation" to whom it is adviced not to mix too much with other nations?

See my point? I was not being extremely tolerant in anarchistic sense of allowing every action. Rather, I simply believe that views must have the freedom to be expressed, but not supported by actions which go against the freedom of other people.

And the manipulation of the young you speak of is happening, only on another level, because everything is essentially manipulation. Ideas not have to be blatant to be manipulative, and often they are hidden. The best you can do for your children is to teach them how to recognise manipulation, rather than trying to create artificial world in which they are protected from the presence and potential influence of other ideas.

[aabbcc]

Yes, there is also the concern about truth. I know of a case about a high school teacher teaching holocaust denial to his students, using anti-semetic literature providing "facts" that the holocaust never happened, and no Jews, or members of any group were slaughtered. Should this be allowed? Where can we draw the line? How can we know the truth if people are writing books to distort it? When can we say "these are lies you are telling your students." If we accept everything, than we support everything.
No such thing as truth. You have got facts, and you have context - how are you going to interpret it, that creates one truth, from one point of view, which might differ greatly from another person's truth. There is no absolute truth, so everything you teach anyone are essentially your views and your truth.

If school system gives such an enormous freedom to professor to teach in high school history classes basically their own interpretation of historical events, without any concrete programme for that class imposed by the system itself, and if it is generally perfectly acceptable in the system that professors teach what they like - that is the problem of the system, and simply the case that somebody used that freedom for personal goals, so it is the system which needs to be reorganised and standardise its programmes.

You do not accept everything as such, you accept presence of other ideas and other views.

[Granny5]

My questions remain:
What will determine what would be banned?
Who would make that decission?
Who would you trust with YOUR freedom?

[Aiculík]

As I said, I am going to tolerate the presence of other ideas, not the practical harms they do - in that case, I am still for the good old "freedom of one man stops where the freedom of another man begins".

See my point? I was not being extremely tolerant in anarchistic sense of allowing every action. Rather, I simply believe that views must have the freedom to be expressed, but not supported by actions which go against the freedom of other people.

Sorry, but this is naive. Publishing hate materials is already first step in putting in reality, it already is supporting these ideas.
Anastasija, you have a poem of Serbian poet in your sign, so you probably understand Serbian. So tell me, what do you think of this "peace of art":

Slobodane, Slobodane,
šalji nam salate.
Bit će mesa, bit će mesa,
klat ćemo Hrvate.

(For those who don't understand, it says:
Slobodan, Slobodan,
send us some salad.
There'll be meat, there'll be meat,
we're going to slaughter Croats.

Please note that the word "klat" in the original, which I translated as slaughter is usually used for pigs).

Please, you're so good at interpretation, tell me, what other possible meanings do you see in it?
I'm trying hard, but I can't find any. And that's difference between it and 1984, the Bible, Catcher in the Rye, or whatever normal book was mentioned here.
Granny5, what can people learn from this song?

I think you're too young to remember this ****. But if you are Serbian, or live there, ask someone older about it... This is the song that hordes of cetniks were singing when they entered Vukovar. And for those who don't know, Vukovar is town in Croatia. And I am half Croat. Used to live in Croatia... until I had to run away.

(To make something clear: I don't have problem with Serbs. Not any more. It took my years to overcome it, but I did at the end. But I do have problem with **** like that. And with people who publish it, promote it, or support it, not matter what nationality they are.)

I used to be tolerant, you know. My cousin is half-Serb and used to live in Knin. During his visits, he told us about tell-tales and lies he and other kids were told by some adults (not everyone) about Croats, how they want to annihilate all Serbs... I remember I was disgusted but believed that nobody right in their head could believe it... and I was wrong. He showed us some printed materials - this song wasn't among them, but they were just as bad, some even worse.

And do you know what was the result of this tolerance? Death and destruction. I guess you didn't have to sleep fully dressed, with some basic things packed beside your bed, twitching at the slightest noise in case it's siren, or run in the shelter, sitting there in dark, glued to the radio praying you won't hear names of your relatives and friends among dead, you didn't have to fleed your country or live on others' mercy. And all that was the result of tolerance, of belief that people are intelligent enough not to be infuenced by stupid, prejudiced hate. I don't believe in that any more. Something should have been done to stop it, to prevent it happening. But politians were just closing their eyes, we all were, we didn't believe that it can be serious until it was too late.

And so, my dear Anastasija, I'm proud to say that if somebody sung that song in front of me, I'm intolerant enough to kick his teeth out. Would you defend his right to "express his view" and sing it?

[aabbcc]

So tell me, what do you think of this "peace of art"
Nonsense. Just as any Thompson's song I can think of, too. Such "pieces of art" are certainly not limited only to the Serbian side.


I think you're too young to remember this ****. But if you are Serbian, or live there, ask someone older about it... This is the song that hordes of cetniks were singing when they entered Vukovar. And for those who don't know, Vukovar is town in Croatia. And I am half Croat. Used to live in Croatia... until I had to run away.
You know, my friend, I am actually Croat myself (Croat/Russian actually, but in either case - by blood and by where I lived - I am certainly "more" Croat than Russian). Lived in Croatia most of my life (last school year I also finished there, it is only recently that I moved). I honestly do not think that I need to take lessons of my own history from you, because I have heard enough of that at schools anyway (in myriad of interpretations, of course), from my family which is partially destroyed by national issues, from a myriad of people. Not that you could know it because I never brought it up here on forums, but I sincerely hate when people automatically assume I know nothing about these things or take my age as an argument.

My father fought in that war, on Croatian side of course; and for your information I lost a home in war, was in exile, and all that you have probably gone through as well, only I was younger and cannot recall it all well. And yes, I still give the full right to other people to enjoy such "art", if it makes them happy in their pathetic little simple-minded worlds. I personally do not care about that nonsense, nor engage in such, nor feel "attacked" by that stupidity. I just ignore it, and refuse to participate in it in any way, on any side.


I used to be tolerant, you know. My cousin is half-Serb and used to live in Knin. During his visits, he told us about tell-tales and lies he and other kids were told by some adults (not everyone) about Croats, how they want to annihilate all Serbs...
When I lived in Croatia, the problem was that I was Russian, and Russia was Serbia's ally, so I was not "their". When I lived in Serbia (a notably short period of time), the problem was that I was Croat, so I was not "their" as well. Russia - oh, that Russia always hated! - was the only country which ever gave me the feeling of home, and where I was "their". Not Croatia in which I was born, for whom my father almost died, and where I spent most of my life, whose nationality and passport I hold - Russia was the only place where I could feel normal, away from all that that happened in ex-Yu.

Trust me, I have heard enough of nonsense of both sides of arguments about who wanted to annihilate whom, why the war was started at all, etc. The worst things I heard, I heard in Bosnia, where each nationality has its own version, and the best thing I have found so far was to simply stay out of that argument.


I guess you didn't have to sleep fully dressed, with some basic things packed beside your bed, twitching at the slightest noise in case it's siren, or run in the shelter, sitting there in dark, glued to the radio praying you won't hear names of your relatives and friends among dead, you didn't have to fleed your country or live on others' mercy.
Ad homined, of the worst kind, out of your prejudices about me.
I am sorry, Aiculik, but I will not talk to you this way. You have no right to make assumptions - which are blatantly wrong by the way - on anything I might have gone through or have not.

Oh, and we have gone off-topic.
Can we go back to LITERATURE now, and to whether LITERATURE should be forbidden? 'cause the things you bring up are not quite that, and please note that in my posts - except for the "Mein Kampf" and religious books - I spoke exclusively of literature and interpretations of literature.

[Aiculík]

Nonsense. Just as any Thompson's song I can think of, too. Such "pieces of art" are certainly not limited only to the Serbian side.
I never said that. And I don't like Thompson. I'm against all hate material, no matter about what nationality, religion or whatever they are. If it was other way round, if it was about Croats wanting to slaughter Serbs, I would be against it just as I am now, you know. I'm not nationalist.
My message wasn't "taking sides", or blaming Serbs. I thought I made that clear.
I never said Croats were innocent. In fact I think they were guilty - at least for ignorance, for not trying to prevent it, for not trying to overcome the hate.

I'm sorry if you felt I'm giving you lessons of your history, but my message wasn't just for you and I can't expect others to know about it.


And yes, I still give the full right to other people to enjoy such "art", if it makes them happy in their pathetic little simple-minded worlds. I personally do not care about that nonsense, nor engage in such, nor feel "attacked" by that stupidity. I just ignore it, and refuse to participate in it in any way, on any side.
Well, ignore it if you want... if you think that will help.
But I will never ignore hate and evil. Not again. Never. I'll do everything I can to fight against it. What you said here... it's as if I heard myself, before the war. I could sign this quotation as mine, anytime. But that changed. I don't think it's just stupid but harmless anymore. And I repeat - I'm against any such material, no matter at who it is aimed.


Ad homined, of the worst kind, out of your prejudices about me.
I don't have any prejudices against you.

All I've done is that I brought an example of hate material and what can it cause if ignored... how it can destroy people's lives. How it destroyed mine life.
If you find that offensive... and hate material ok, at the same time... well, we all are free to make our choices.

If you choose ignorance, then be it. It's your life. All I can hope is that the ignorance won't destroy it as it destroyed mine.

God bless you.

[Video Drone]

To Aiculik - you are too boiled up about those Serbians. Russians were in war with Germans, too, and we have bad songs about Germans, and I'm sure they had bad songs about us. There was a war. You cannot just crop such a big thing out of history and forget about it. And those songs are a part of that history. Those songs should remind everyone what nonsense a war is, when people are fighting against their brothers.

[Granny5]

To Aiculik - you are too boiled up about those Serbians. Russians were in war with Germans, too, and we have bad songs about Germans, and I'm sure they had bad songs about us. There was a war. You cannot just crop such a big thing out of history and forget about it. And those songs are a part of that history. Those songs should remind everyone what nonsense a war is, when people are fighting against their brothers.

Bravo, Video Drone!
If we don't remember history, both the good and the bad, what will keep us from repeating it? We should all have faith in mankind that the majority will be able to separate the good from the bad. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and that is bound to happen if we start banning whatever whoever thinks isn't acceptable.

[Aiculík]

To Aiculik - you are too boiled up about those Serbians. Russians were in war with Germans, too, and we have bad songs about Germans, and I'm sure they had bad songs about us. There was a war. You cannot just crop such a big thing out of history and forget about it. And those songs are a part of that history. Those songs should remind everyone what nonsense a war is, when people are fighting against their brothers.

I am not boiled up against Sebians. I am boiled against people who think that it is harmless, who ignorant of impacts it had and still has.

But tell me, do you really think that people will sing such songs to remind everyone that war is a nonsense?

Do you really think neonacists read these things to learn history?

Do you think these things can never happen again?

Remember what happened in France in 2005? Do you realize how close was Europe to the war just then? They were also ignoring hate that was slowly raising in the people. They were also pretending everything is fine. And once again, result was death and destruction.
They are guilty just as Croats were, for not trying to prevent it. For not trying to overcome the hate. If they tried to listen to those people - and, at the same time, stopped people who used the situation for their own sick goals - it didn't have to happen.

Tolerance, ha! Usually it's nothing but ignorance. And pretence that our world is too civilised for things like that. I was waken up from it in very hard and cruel way. And I'm not going to do the same mistake again.

[Aiculík]

Bravo, Video Drone!
If we don't remember history, both the good and the bad, what will keep us from repeating it? We should all have faith in mankind that the majority will be able to separate the good from the bad. We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and that is bound to happen if we start banning whatever whoever thinks isn't acceptable.

Oh yeah, people learn from their mistakes, right?

That's why 20th century was so peaceful, because we learned from past, right?
Oh, no, wait - there was WWI in the twentieth century... but I'm sure people learned from it and it was the last one.

Oh, it wasn't? There was another one, even more terrible, just few years later? How's that possible? But surelly that was the last war in the world, or at least in Europe?

What do you mean, it wasn't? Just few decades after that, there was war in 3 European countries - Slovenia (though only for a short time), Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina! Well, at least it wasn't world war. And surelly people finally learned that war is nonsense. Surely new century is just about love and peace and understanding...

What, there were commotions in France? But that wasn't war really, so we can ignore it and pretend it never happend, right?

Yeah... let's ignore it. Oh, no, that's not nice word. We're not ignorant, we're tolerant. Yes, that sounds much better.

I don't say banning hate material will solve it all. But ignoring it won't help, either. We must work on solving the problem and at the same time at preventing some people to increase hate - which includes preventing publication, promotion and supporting of hate material of any kind.

[aabbcc]

I don't say banning hate material will solve it all. But ignoring it won't help, either. We must work on solving the problem and at the same time at preventing some people to increase hate - which includes preventing publication, promotion and supporting of hate material of any kind.
I see your point, but it will always exist, in some form.

Are you pro banning works which speak openly of hatred?
Okay, I can perfectly understand that one. However, politically-based writings which speak openly about its purpose nor angry war songs which capture in se the madness of certain era are not quite "literature"... Alright, I get your opinions on that, but people, please, let us move onto literature, if you want to discuss politics there are more suitable forums around.

Tell me about those:
1) What about works which are not that obvious about hatred? Where are you going to draw the line between what is hate material and what is not? And, who is going to draw that line?
'cause, other than open hate material which in most cases falls out of the realm of literature, there are plethora of "potentially" dangerous ones, esp. in literature. What I am interested in is your opinion towards those, and who gets to say whether they are hate material or not.

2) What about authors who were controverse persons and openly supported nacism or a similar system, yet wrote works which did not deal with those? Would you forbid works based on who wrote them? How far does separation of author and work go?

[Aiculík]

Are you pro banning works which speak openly of hatred? Okay, I can perfectly understand that one. However, politically-based writings which speak openly about its purpose nor angry war songs which capture in se the madness of certain era are not quite "literature"... Alright, I get your opinions on that, but people, please, let us move onto literature, if you want to discuss politics there are more suitable forums around.
Yes, I know these are not literature. Glad we made that clear. That's what I'm saying from beginning, hate material of any kind is not art. It can abuse art and disguise itself as art, but it's not art.


Tell me about those:
1) What about works which are not that obvious about hatred? Where are you going to draw the line between what is hate material and what is not? And, who is going to draw that line?
'cause, other than open hate material which in most cases falls out of the realm of literature, there are plethora of "potentially" dangerous ones, esp. in literature. What I am interested in is your opinion towards those, and who gets to say whether they are hate material or not.

Not all hate material is as obvious as that song, that's true. But I still think normal people would recognize the hate material for what it really is. The difference is usually very clear.
While books like the Bible, Koran, 1984, Catcher in the Rye or Ana Karenina can be interpreted in thousands possible way, hate material usually can't. The Bible can - and it does - inspire people also to good. And also other books can ispire people for good things - creating other art, for example. Hate material doesn't have that effect. Not even if it pretends to be art. It can have briliant style and language, but the meaning is quite clear.
How is, for example, Malleus Maleficarum better that that song?
And what makes Mein Kampf art? Is that book "literature"?

And who shoud do it? Those to whom we gave our confidence that they'll do everything they can to make our society better. Of course I'm aware there's danger they'd abuse it. But that danger is there with everything, not just banning books.


2) What about authors who were controverse persons and openly supported nacism or a similar system, yet wrote works which did not deal with those? Would you forbid works based on who wrote them? How far does separation of author and work go?
No... if the man supported nacism, I'd ban him, not his work - I'd arrest him. Supporting things such as nacism is illegal and considered to be a criminal act in many countries.
Maybe, personally, I wouldn't buy the book - because I wouldn't want go give my hard-earned money to such person, I'd feel that I give him money to support such things - but I wouldn't ban the book if it was ok.

[kilted exile]

My questions remain:
What will determine what would be banned?
Who would make that decission?
Who would you trust with YOUR freedom?

1) If it is openly bigoted, racist, hate-filled or promotes acts of violence against any group or groups

2) The same people who decide what can be shown in cinemas or on TV/Radio

3) I trust other people with my freedoms every day, we all do.



2) What about authors who were controverse persons and openly supported nacism or a similar system, yet wrote works which did not deal with those? Would you forbid works based on who wrote them? How far does separation of author and work go?

The banning of texts would solely focus on what is portrayed in the text itself, not author's reputation.


Now on a related note, as many who have been a member of this site for a while will know I am a fan of Glasgow Rangers Football Club. Over many years this team has been the Protestant team & Celtic the Catholic team. For a large period of time Rangers had a quite openly understood (but never explicitly stated) policy of not signing players of the Catholic faith. At games I have been exposed to some of the most hate-filled vitriole you could ever experience being spewed forth in the form of songs and chants. To my great shame, when I was young & ignorant I used to join in with the singing. I still know too many of those songs all too well. Unfortunately, I feel it relevant to post a part of one of those songs here to illustrate my point (however, I am using one of the least hate filled ones here) The song is called The Night We Burned Ardoyne


I HAVE OFTEN THOUGHT AND WONDERED
WHAT THE OUTCOME MIGHT'VE BEEN
IF THE ARMY HADN'T CAME IN
TO PROTECT THE SCUM IN GREEN
WELL THEY SHOUTED ALL THEIR INSULTS ,THEY THREW THEIR PETROL BOMB N SHOUT
BUT ON THE SIXTEENTH NIGHT OF AUGUST WE SHOULD'VE SHOT THE LOT

NOW THEY CRIED OUT GOD PLEASE HELP US
PLEASE SEND THE ARMY IN
AND THEY GOT DOWN AND THEY PLEADED WITH A BISHOP CALLED PHILBIN
AND SO LISTEN ALL YOU FENIANS YOU REBELS TO THE CORE
WELL THE NEXT TIME YOU START TROUBLE THEN ARDOYNE WILL BE NO MORE

SO LOYALISTS I BEG YOU, PLEASE COME AND MAKE A STAND
AGAINST THIS FORCE OF EVIL, AGAINST THIS PAPISH BAND
FOR WE ARE ALL UNITED AND WILL NEVER BE BEAT DOWN
WITH ULSTER STANDARD FLYING HIGH THE RED HAND AND THE CROWN

Now whatever people may believe about these things not being all that bad or just stupid or not worth taking offence about, it is very real and it fosters and continues hatred. For that reason it must be banned. Anyone singing many of the songs in a street would get arrested, why should printing it be any different.

[Logos]

General Mod Note to All: Let's try to stay on topic and get away from the personal remarks and current political issues. Any further such posts will be removed.

[quasimodo1]

Does anybody remember the First Ammendment. I think the bookburning have been relegated to Medieval Europe and the national socialist movement. I would like to ban the comments of those who would presume to be grand inquisitor and decide what "negative works" should go. A few years ago, some southern school districts wanted to remove certain distasteful words from "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer". Now these alleged educators were what? unaware that Twain skillfully used all of that dialect for satirical and abolitiionist purposes. In a way, it's like a station you hate...Change channels. quasimodo1

[kilted exile]

Does anybody remember the First Ammendment. I think the bookburning have been relegated to Medieval Europe and the national socialist movement. I would like to ban the comments of those who would presume to be grand inquisitor and decide what "negative works" should go. A few years ago, some southern school districts wanted to remove certain distasteful words from "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer". Now these alleged educators were what? unaware that Twain skillfully used all of that dialect for satirical and abolitiionist purposes. In a way, it's like a station you hate...Change channels. quasimodo1

I dont think anyone here is suggesting that we should be banning things like Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer, I think all of us here recognise the satire contained therein. What is being suggested however is that openly hateful works should be banned.

btw, I dont know the first amendment, never learned it, dont live in a country where it has any effect.

[BlueSkyGB]

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." (German: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.")—Heinrich Heine, from his play Almansor (1821)

Check out this link:10 Most Challenged Books of 2006
Makes one wonder.........:bawling:
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=151926

Sometimes one has to laugh to keep from crying.:lol: and this link to a few classics that are challenged.
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=bbwlinks&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=136590

[Video Drone]

To Aiculík
I'm afraid you are too boiled up...

"But I still think normal people would recognize the hate material for what it really is." - there will be no normal people in the censorship department. This is Fahrenheit 451 situation. The moment we create an actual possibility of banning of books, the government can take full control of what we are reading. The government doesn't care about hate material, they care about material that damages them, and if they want to ban a book that discusses politics they will do so. And here we go into Fahrenheit 451 where books were fully banned.

You CANNOT trust the government in ANYTHING. Government is the enemy. It always have been, and that is the reason I'm against any form of censorship except age restriction, the less control government has, the better, if it starts to ban everything, we may end up with one of those utopias.

IMHO.

[PeterL]

Aiculík

Your comments have made a very strong argument for tolerance.

[BlueSkyGB]

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” — On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

[quasimodo1]

Have no problem with your treatise as stated by Mill. We used to say back there in seminary school...Error has no right to exist but I've had to modify what seemed like pure logic in the face of living complexity and contradiction. I do have a problem with those who would evangelize others; that is the height of arrogance...that you know the one true path and these other poor sheep are just lost and need to find a flock. As is said in a well known 12step program...live and let live. Do not proselytize...if you are so sure of your spiritual or religiious of whatever position...it smacks of basic lack of confidence in your surety. Sorry, I do go on. Mill is good and I never meant to deny debate although the one on book banning seemed over the top. Sure there are despicable books and hateful books but they just damn the writer of such evil paplum; yet if naive youth reads them...then things can take a nasty turn. Hitler could publish Mien Campf in the US right now and it couldn't be prevented by statute and ammendment. The mean spirited will always find a way to corrupt someone and besides Big Brother, I don't see how that can be prevented. quasimodo1

[manolia]

There are certain history books that i'd gladly see banned..for distorting history and spreading lies ;)..