Your absolutely right. would banning it be the right decision then? This is a tough call.
Printable View
Your absolutely right. would banning it be the right decision then? This is a tough call.
Mein Kampf should not be banned for a single reason: People need to know. An age-old saying applies here: "Those that dont know history are damned to repeat it." If we "forget" about Hitler and push the Holocaust away, we are creating an opportunity to happen again. Sometime in the far future, if a dictator rises up and is in danger of causing another holocaust, only those that know about Hitler could stop it. For the sake of humanity, history, and society, Mein Kampf should not be banned.
My country also has black history, where some of historical events were twisted and people were told to believe the lies...But history (I sometimes called it HIS-STORY) sometimes served as justification and the tool of power, and it's one of the main causes of banned books/media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darlin
For certain people, this book is an inspirational source, don't you think so?!Quote:
For the sake of humanity, history, and society, Mein Kampf should not be banned.
Yes I do, however I don't think the banning of the book would deter anybody from joining the party and might even stimulate enlistment in the neo-nazi party.Quote:
For certain people, this book is an inspirational source, don't you think so?!
actually, sometimes it may not be "blatant lies" but rather a, uh, different points of view. i would make an example a part of history according to the united states during the world war ii. forgive me for not being meticulous with details and dates, but some time before the war ended, methinks, the united states soldiers went to the philippines and supposedly "rescued" the people from japan? thus, according to an average american today, the philippines owed us. in the meantime, the filipinos really regarded the us soldiers as nuisances and didn't like them much to the point of hate even. again, forgive me for my shabby history knowledge; i could get some things wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darlin
There are other places where "banning" takes place besides libraries, etc. I took a book to work where the owners/management were all of a particular religion...I was asked to not bring it in and then when I refused and told them it was illegal for them to request such a thing, they asked that I cover it in brown paper...I did, but I wish I'd chosen to be braver.
It got much worse when I announced I was pregnant ( I was single).Oy va.
Indeed. People need to be aware that when they demand freedom, they need to accept all the consequences. After reading the book, there are people would condemn the acts, and there are also others who would be inspired by it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendigo_49
This seems to happen a lot. There is a famous "mental health care facility" where I live, and I know they have a list of books that are banned for the patients, one of them being "Girl Interrupted". Their rationalisation is that the book could possibly give ideas to patients who are suicidal. So I can understand that and respect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lhaeber
Quote:
Originally Posted by underground
True, true. Burma considered the English and American's as unwanted trespassers more or less during WWII even to the point of hate as well and I've never read that in a history book. The old history book my mother has from the 50's doesn't even mention the Holocaust and I was shocked at that.
Different points of views is what freedom of speech is all about I suppose but it can be harmful if not balanced with the facts. Unfortunately those who read books with a different pov might not realize that pov isn't the truth and then it could become a problem.
Freedom of speech means you can write anything about any subject whether harmful, disrespectful, immoral, cruel, or dishonest and not banning books means anyone can read these books. I think subterranean mentioned a few pages back that one has to realize the consequences of this freedom. Not banning books that may be detrimental as in the case of mental patients which Logos mentioned isn’t necessarily a good thing.
I totally agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
I agree with the idea of free speech/though etc on general principal, but would definitely not want my future hypothetical children to read/see everything!
At the moment, Britain is considering strict anti terrorism laws guarding against, for example, muslim clerics telling people that Jihad is great and all brits are infidels anyway, so can be killed with impunity (in fact, with the reward of going to heaven). I am all in favour of people not being able to recommend blowing me up to fanatics, but find the idea of this censorship disturbing. Where would it stop? A drunken conversation in a pub could end up landing someone in prison.
Complete freedom of speech is probably an impossibility, and in this day and age we seem much more likely to lose it.
Perhaps instead of banning books, people could consider an age guide on them as we have on films? Of course, then they'd have to employ someone to read everything... :S
Well in Canada now we have a ghastly thing called the "hate literature bill" which dis-allows anyone from publishing in any way anything that may be seen as a hate message towards a certain goup or culure. I'm sorry, i forgot we can't talk politics. But I thought that people should know that in this case (especiallt considering what was said earlier about Nazi propaganda lit) books are being banned before their even givin to the world.
Well, yeah thats the problem. Theres not a responsible person in charge in order to make that decision, but I like the idea. Tony Blair said he wanted to deport religious extremists, and, I think, the US should do the same. I wish we could, however, but the religious extremists have their puppet in charge.... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by el01ks
Define a religious extremist... and the religious leaders only have their puppet in charge on a few matters in even less (western) nations.
I would agree with you, to an extent, only if you define a "religious extremist" as someone willing to use violence in the name of their religion. I can tolerate your freedom of speech, but when you hurt someone else while hiding behind your religion, that, I cannot tolerate.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiSaNtHrOpE
There are many Christian fundamentalists who scare me, but I do not suspect them of violence. I do worry that they help make America fertile ground for possible violence, however, that possibility would not be enough for me to support deporting or imprisoning them.
Sorry to talk politics, sometimes it is difficult to bite one's tongue.
To get back on topic, I recently finished a wonderful book that has been banned in a couple of school systems. I read The Perks of Being a Wallflower so that I could make an informed decision as a parent, and absolutely loved it. I liked this books so well I can scarcely call my opinion unbiased. I would recommend this book for anyone fourteen years of age and up.
I know it's hard to avoid sometimes, but let's get back on topic please, politics, terrorism etc. are not allowed.
how about this:
the comparision between banning books, and censorship on TV.
Banning books is a short step away from burning books and dictatorship like the Nazi Third Reich. It's also the first step toward something even worse -- the Thought Police that Orwell predicted in his novel "1984."
Since this book was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, "Mein Kampf" by Hitler should not only not be banned, it should be required reading for high school or college students. The book gives a valuable insight into the workings of a very sick mind that conceived the idea of book burning in Germany before the real slaughter began.
i dont understand banned books. i dont think that there should be any banned books, i mean if you don't like the material.. you are NOT forced to read it. dont ruin it for someone who IS interested in it. i mean, now i think that makes sense.
Ages ago when I worked in a book store, this book was forbidden to be sold in stores. As someone being in the military, I am for banning such kind of books. The last thing I need is some nut out there telling people "extremests of various kinds" on how to build a bomb. Yes, I would band such books in a heart beat.
You know, we instantly go running to the Constitution. That's fine, but it also says "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happyness. If such books will endanger my life and the life of my country men, it's band.
However, you can't please everyone and with some folks common sence and good judgement are right out the window. We've put an age limit on cigarrettes, movies, magazines, and so I reckon we need to do it with books. I do it in my household.
Hi, Snislove. Yes, I agree with your point there. However, to some people, the issue is much deeper than just a matter of interest, like, or dislike. For example, to authorities, this issue strecht beyond that; it may involves the issues of social morality/stability or even national security. Reasons which to some of us may sound ridiculous.
Welcome on board, by the way :wave:
Quote:
Originally Posted by snivslove
Starting at age 14, I learned how to make explosives and rockets from books in my public library. It was something that fascinated me and it led to a mastery of chemistry in general long before I ever took the course in high school. Because I was considered a precocious genius in chemistry, I was offered a college scholarship to study chemical engineering when I graduated.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
I mention this to show that books and ideas are not dangerous in themselves, it's individuals who misuse them. I was no terrorist and I never harmed anyone with my experiments, but I gained something positive from being able to pursue my interests in books.
What you speak of is parental control, and I agree with that. I think that if parents truly want to be responsible for their children and do not want others (i.e. government) telling them how to parent, they must be willing to take the responsibilies that come with the rights. I agree with you on this point, however, I do not feel that the world should or can be child-proofed, and that includes trying to ban books to make it more difficult for children to get them.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
I disapprove of banning books because it is not ideas that are dangerous, it is some people who are, and those people will be a danger with or without guides for bomb making.
I am not really sure about this whole issue. Ideas can be dangerous, I believe. I don't think I would be OK with certain books easily circulating around. Do you want to see a book justifying/dignifying paedophilia sitting on the shelves of your local library? Or actions of KKK? How would you feel if your neighbour had these in their personal library? If those book were written in a way to imply that it would be OK to do certain things?
Now I am wondering if those who are against book bannings are all against banning of certain websites as well.
Good points, Sche. The promotion of criminal activity is a grey area.
Personally, I believe if a book is more of an instruction manual on how to successfully murder someone or rob a bank, there may be some merit to banning it. But, if the book has any other possible uses, like Starr pointed out about the bomb book, I would consider it redeemable.
The problem is, whose standards do we use?
Weel, ideas are from people. So, what then? Do we need to banned the writters? And I think it's very deterministic to say that someone will be a danger towards others with or withour an access to certain types of books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycheinaboat
85% of parents are irresponsible, misguided, and uninformed about what their children do, and want to let the government be the parent. I went to Best Buy yesterday, and an 8 year old kid was holding GTA: Vice City, and the mother was on the phone with her husband about the game, and I said to her: "I wouldnt let him play that." Maybe, like parents are involved with their children's sports, should be more aware of what videogames their kids play. This would not only bring a certain amount of responsibility into parenting, but the parents might also find enjoyment and bonding with their child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycheinaboat
I agree that many parents should be more involved, but I do not know where you got your 85% stat. so I cannot comment on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MiSaNtHrOpE
I do not see the need to ban an author who, say, writes a violent book. Thinking the ideas is not a crime, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
Hmmm, I tend to think people who are "unhinged" or disturbed do not get it from books, but rather from years of difficulties or from physical abnormalities like chemical imbalances.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
This reminds me of some of the murder cases in which rock music has been blamed for the actions of the killer. A healthy person does not kill because a song made violence sound cool, you had to be a little "touched" to begin with.
Hehe sometimes I'm just sooo glad that I don't live i that so-called "Home of the Free"... In Denmark they stopped banning books before I was even born. This also goes for the libraries.
Judging from the memoirs of Karen Blixen (Isak Dinesen), Denmark wasn't exactly the home of the free when she lived there. She moved all the way to Africa to enjoy more freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by mousemouse
Maybe mousemouse was born "recently".
I don't even have nbanned books, but the concept is disgusting...
Freedom is ideas. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Libraries need not stock publications deemed unseemly, evil, or whatever the criteria may be. Promoting access to such accused material need not happen. But ideas, ideas deemed 'bad', must also be free. A free people accept this inequity in order to preserve the very foundation of freedom. Some bad will always surface, but it is usually only the good that has any staying power other than as a curiosity......
Long live freedom brothers and sisters.........................art needs no shackles.....
Some people already alluded to it, or said it straight out. I'll just mindlessly repeat it in slightly different words :)
The reason for banning books is all about power and the fear of losing it. Books can change people's minds and cause revolutions, or so the banning authorities think. My view is: if you are an authority and you are so convinced that what you are saying and doing is the truth and the best for mankind, then nothing should be able to change that, especially not some eccentric author who only a small handful of people are going to read. If you fear losing your power, then it means that you never held the truth or the best for mankind to begin with, and that you should accept that sooner or later you will either lose your power, or something will have to change drastically, with or without an author.
Rather simplistic, I realize, but I believe that is what it all comes down to.
As for age restrictions on books for children that some people seem to favor, I say: if the book is written for an adult, then even the smartest child will not understand it. Hence, nothing to worry about. Give the book to your child and see them throw it away after the first sentence, saying: "BORING!". If your child does happen to understand the book as well as an adult, then I say: your child is ready for that book, just like you are. In other words: no need for banning, and no need for restrictions.
Some books just need to be banned. We don't need little kids running around reading books about how to make crystal meth now do we?
I can find the information on Crystal Meth right here on the internet. Banning a book will not bannish the idea inherent in any suspect book.
A federal minister here in Canada is trying to get the government to ban entry into this country by rap singer, 50 cent. the Minister believes the rapper has bad morals, glorifies crime, and generally disrupts lives with his sing-song messages. Years ago they tried to ban rock' n' roll because it made teenagers 'hysterical', governments around the world use demonization of an identifiable group as ammunition to quiet fresh ideas, to bury new ways of doing things. NOne of this is a good thing. In fact, when the government starts telling you what to read, think, express......you had better rebel.....or get buried under the thumb .......
Age restrictions are there because many people want to shelter their children from things they deem immoral, which are nevertheless an integral part of society in general and thus depicted freely in fiction.
Do I agree with it? I'll not go into that, but I sure do understand the reasoning behind them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
hmmm.....EAP..................long time since you shared your wonderful wisdom............still rational I see.....
I don't think any book should be banned. If someone wants to learn, we shouldn't stop them. And yes, there's the argument that there are a lot of books out there that the younger and more innocent minds would do better without seeing. But the same goes with TV, and magazines they pick up while Mom's looking for the newest Oprah issue, and of course there are always random people who swear, arrogant to the fact that there are virgin ears in the room. You can't protect youth from all the world's faults, because they will always be there. And it's better for them to learn to know how to deal with bad news, the guilty pleasure of gossip in tabloids, the wrong doings of society, and other sinful media that everyone is bound to be exposed to eventually. And I know it's not just the youth they are trying to "protect" from these books, but honestly, the world is a dangerous place, and if we can't simply handle our reactions to a book...there's no way we can hold our own in life.