Banned books

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adm

So it's ok to have porn on the net/video stores/magazines when it is detremental to society that WE ALL live in.

---

Who said anything about porn? We were discussing banning books on how to make explosives and drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adm

At what point in time did I say society?

---

You just did in the paragraph above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adm

How responsible are when you think that society is doing the job, what job are you doing?

---

I'm not personally responsible for the functioning of society. If you want to be, run for public office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adm

Live and let live got us the world we are in now. Are you happy, not content, but happy with what you see? If it begins with banning books, then so be it, however, it is I who dictates what MY children read, not you, not society, and not the government.

---

First you want laws to decide what all people are allowed to read, then you want to decide on your own what you and your family reads. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adm

Take charge of your life because it's your life, not mine. I've got enough troubles of my own that I don't need yours.

---

I am in charge of my own life and I want to keep it that way.

I can sort of go either way. I'm strongly against any book that spreads hate, like racism.

One of the most offensive aspects of banning is the implication that those imposing the ban are morally superior to others. (In some European countries there is provision for a total ban by a court in order to "maintain public morality". It's very seldom used but this goes way, way beyond anything like a ban from libraries or schools).

As for information on making bombs, producing one's own drugs and so on one can get that from a whole range of sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuKid

I can sort of go either way. I'm strongly against any book that spreads hate, like racism.

---

Yes, but what if the definition of "hate" becomes fluid? I can find people who'd consider a book recommending voting for a particular political party as "hateful".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Mikey

Yes, but what if the definition of "hate" becomes fluid? I can find people who'd consider a book recommending voting for a particular political party as "hateful".

---

Exactly. This is a point that is difficult to counter. It seems to me that what the discussion here so far has made clear is the inherent contradictions of any ideological position that claims to promote freedom while at the same time limiting it. Can no one see the irony of a discussion about freedom of expression where contributors are reminded that certain topics are not allowed? Such a position is, essentially, “I am against censorship, except for the things that I think should be censored.” As soon as you have to resort to such an approach, your own political agenda becomes apparent. There will be plenty of justifications of such a position – ‘it’s wrong to expose children to this’, ‘it’s wrong to allow people to promote that’ but this only serves to expose, not hide, the inherent contradictions. Why not simply be honest and say that you are not in favour of freedom and then explain why? Such a view does, of course, presuppose that ‘I know better than you’, which is not a view that holders of it find laudable in the abstract. It also serves to generate opposition and a challenge to its validity, which probably accounts for why we don’t see it happen that often.

Louis Althusser makes a useful distinction between what we might call state power and state control. State power is maintained by what Althusser terms repressive structures, which are institutions like the law courts, prisons, the police force, and the army, which operate, in the last analysis, by external force. But the power of the state is also maintained more subtly, by seeming to secure the internal consent of its citizens, using what Althusser calls ideological structures or State ideological apparatuses. These are such groupings as political parties, schools, the media, churches, the family, and art (including literature) which foster an ideology - a set of ideas and attitudes - which is sympathetic to the aims of the state and the political status quo. Thus, each of us feels that we are freely choosing what is in fact being imposed upon us.

This Althusserian distinction is closely related to the notion of hegemony, which was given prominence by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1934). Gramsci contrasts rule, which is direct political control, which uses force when necessary, and hegemony, which is (as defined by Raymond Williams) 'the whole lived social process as practically organised by specific and dominant meanings, values and beliefs of a kind which can be abstracted as a "world-view" or "class outlook"' (Williams, Marxism and Literature Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 101). Williams relates hegemony to culture in general and to ideology in particular. Hegemony is like an internalised form of social control which makes certain views seem 'natural' or invisible so that they hardly seem like views at all, just 'the way things are'.

The 'trick' whereby we are made to feel that we are choosing when really we have no choice is called by Althusser interpellation. Capitalism, says Althusser, thrives on this trick: it makes us feel like free agents ('You can have any colour you like...') while actually imposing things upon us ('... as long as it's black'). Thus, democracy makes us feel that we are choosing the kind of government we have, but in practice the differences between political parties, once in power, are far fewer than the rhetorical gulfs between them. Interpellation is Althusser's term for the way the individual is encouraged to see herself or himself as an entity free and independent of social forces. It accounts for the operation of control structures not maintained by physical force, and hence for the perpetuation of a social set-up which concentrates wealth and power in the hands of the few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unnamable

Exactly. This is a point that is difficult to counter. It seems to me that what the discussion here so far has made clear is the inherent contradictions of any ideological position that claims to promote freedom while at the same time limiting it. Can no one see the irony of a discussion about freedom of expression where contributors are reminded that certain topics are not allowed? Such a position is, essentially, “I am against censorship, except for the things that I think should be censored.” As soon as you have to resort to such an approach, your own political agenda becomes apparent. There will be plenty of justifications of such a position – ‘it’s wrong to expose children to this’, ‘it’s wrong to allow people to promote that’ but this only serves to expose, not hide, the inherent contradictions. Why not simply be honest and say that you are not in favour of freedom and then explain why? Such a view does, of course, presuppose that ‘I know better than you’, which is not a view that holders of it find laudable in the abstract. It also serves to generate opposition and a challenge to its validity, which probably accounts for why we don’t see it happen that often.

---

Unnamable, you're sensationalizing the forum rules again. The Moderators and the Admin are not censoring anyone who does not submit to being censored, they are not waging a war on liberty, and they are not making moral judgments on what should and shouldn't be showed to the children of the world beyond genuine debate--they are a group of authorities who know the kind of environment they are trying to foster and are trying to foster it among only those people who want the same kind of environment. These forums are not a library in which books are wantonly banned if they contain profanity or controversial issues; a more comparable analogy would be a set of bookshelves at home, where one may pick and choose which books to keep and which books to leave for others to read.

Robin,
why is it that you ignore all of the interesting, admittedly difficult, concepts in my posts and seek only to highlight any points which, in your eyes, could be construed as an attack? It seems that you are trying to police what I say, eager for any opportunity to convince others (preferably those with the means to ban me) that I am an undesirable subversive. I have no idea why you feel it necessary to do this but if by being ‘subversive’ I stimulate thought and provoke discussion, then I cannot see a problem. My points were meant to be taken in a much wider context than you suggest. Also, the fact that Althusser and his ilk refer to ideological apparatuses should alert us to the fact that such processes operate through many different institutions and contexts. To deny the significance of any one context, on whatever grounds, is simply to fail to see how his theory works. I have no desire to change any rules but if you are now saying that even discussing them in the abstract constitutes an offence, then I fail to see how that can be conducive to ‘genuine debate’.

You talk about ‘genuine debate’ but appear to have decided that this can only be achieved if views like mine are put in their proper place. Firstly, perhaps we define what is meant by ‘genuine debate’ very differently. Is it not permissible in such a debate to ask questions about the context in which that debate is being held, especially when such questions are relevant to the point I am making? Surely that gives a far better real world example than any discussion that deals solely in abstractions and hypothetical situations? Besides, and this is a key point for me, why not let people judge for themselves? Surely others can decide whether or not my points are valid? I made no comments about claims to moral superiority in the post to which you responded, attacked no one and simply gave my own considered opinion. In your definition of ‘genuine debate’ is that not allowed? I agree that the site owners “know the kind of environment they are trying to foster and are trying to foster it among only those people who want the same kind of environment.” That is their prerogative but that is not the same as saying that they wish to see open debate. This is not a criticism, merely an observation.

You might say that you are simply giving your considered opinion. However, by beginning with the assumption that I am simply criticising the site owners, I believe that you are intending that my views should be outlawed rather than merely challenged.

I said earlier that there would be justifications. In effect, it implies that a principle (which should surely be applicable to all situations, otherwise it's just an expedient) is not applicable in this situation. Who decides? I do not see this as indicative of hypocrisy or moral turpitude but as a clear example of precisely the kind of contradictory assumptions Althusser’s ‘interpellated’ individuals are bound to make. Your decision to demarcate according to context is simply an example of your ideological position. To me it makes no sense. The assumptions you make are not the same as the assumptions I make. That doesn't mean yours are right and mine are wrong.
Who is a freedom-fighter and who is a terrorist?

I ignore the greater/more difficult concepts because I consider myself unqualified and inadequately educated to address them. Satisfied?

The reason I took the position that I took was because, from my perspective, it appeared that the "irony" to which you referred was meant to be taken with regards to the Forums, the medium in which the post was made. If I am mistaken, then by all means, let me know, but do consider that misunderstandings can exist and may be the source of disagreement.

Earlier there was mention of banning books that deny the Holocaust. Some countries - including Germany, Austria and France - do in fact have such bans. I've always had the impression that in these countries such bans are mainly concerned with making a political statement about the kind of country that Germany, for example, is.

There was mention, too, of the possible effects of certain books on young minds - but NO mention at all that young people may encounter the same ideas in the playground, television and the internet ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

I ignore the greater/more difficult concepts because I consider myself unqualified and inadequately educated to address them. Satisfied?

The reason I took the position that I took was because, from my perspective, it appeared that the "irony" to which you referred was meant to be taken with regards to the Forums, the medium in which the post was made. If I am mistaken, then by all means, let me know, but do consider that misunderstandings can exist and may be the source of disagreement.

---

Okay – but is there no irony (not a particularly harsh word to use) in what I pointed out? It hardly amounts to denouncing everyone as a charlatan.

Personally, I believe that those who burn books will also burn people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaka

Earlier there was mention of banning books that deny the Holocaust. Some countries - including Germany, Austria and France - do in fact have such bans. I've always had the impression that in these countries such bans are mainly concerned with making a political statement about the kind of country that Germany, for example, is.

---

Although I fully understand why these countries do this, I would like the opportunity to consider the evidence for myself. Much as I despise the position of British historian, David Irving, I would not ban his books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaka

There was mention, too, of the possible effects of certain books on young minds - but NO mention at all that young people may encounter the same ideas in the playground, television and the internet ...

---

There is no mention either, that they are continually exposed to the propaganda of multi-national corporations.



An interesting dramatisation of some of the issues raised here can be found in David Mamet’s ‘Oleanna’.

Agreed. In Britain, for example, David Irving got his 'come-uppance' in a big way in a civil case. He chose to sue Deborah Lippstadt and Penguin Books for alleged defamation as they had called him a Holocaust denier, while he insisted that he was an entirely serious historian. As far as I know, it was the first time any English court had had to deal with a case of this kind. Anyway, Irving lost both the initial claim for damages and all subsquent appeals. Interestingly, the judges seemed to have an excellent grasp of the issues involved.

Not surprised by what the majority goes to in this poll.

Can anyone tell me why some communities ban books about hitler? It makes no sense... we should be opening the world to that kind of stuff to stop it from happening instead of closing the world from it...

Hi everyone,
recently I read an extract from the book "The Day They Came To Arrest The Book" by Nat Hentoff. It is about banning Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" from a high school library. After that I learned that there really is a list of banned books in the US, among them major works of literature such as JohnSteinbeck's "Of Mice and Men", J.D. Salinger's "A Catcher In The Rye" and Margaret Atwood's "A Handmaid's Tale". In other countries some of these books are compulsory or recommended reading for students aged 16 - 19.
I'd like to discuss the issue of banning books with you. What interests me most are the following questions:
1. Are you for or against banning certain books? Why?
2. Is there a list of banned books in your country?