Printable View
I really agree! It is true! Especially since the fact that we have freedom of press, freedom of speech, and the fact that someday we will hear SOMETHING bad... like, it's not like in high school you won't ever hear your peer say a swear. In high school, the TEACHER'S swear more than the STUDENTS do! So, it doesn't make sense to ban books? Right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrashCourse08
So, are you saying it's ok to learn how to make crystal meth and how to build a bomb big enough for a building like Oklahoma (book or internet)?
When does it stop people. When do we stand up and say child this book has bad language in it and you don't need to read (or hear) such words? Teachers (and people) when are you going to stand up and say that language is not necessary in public, keep it at home (if those are the values of your home)?
People, where is the accountability? Crashcourse08 states "the world is a dangerous place", and this is so true. Compare the value of books (their content not price) from 1900's, 1950, and today, to the morals in each of those eras. Crime has risen, swearing is now on TV and radio (yes, I know they didn't have TV in the 1900's), and disrespect from people are getting younger and younger. Children are not learning to respect their elders and they don't care of the consequenses of their actions. Why? Do mom and dad not care about their actions? Monkey see monkey do.
When do we take back our world?
IMO it's all right to publish books about making drugs and bombs because actually making them is already against the law. Outlawing knowledge of any kind is the first step toward totalitarianism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions like yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
It's the parents' responsibility to decide what their children read or see on TV. Parents shouldn't expect society to do their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
Who do you mean by "we"? Conservatives only? The world doesn't belong to one group. Live and let live.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
A group of parents in a local school district are trying to ban "This Boy's life" from the school curriculm. They cited fould language, violence and sexual content as the reasons. Have they turned on a TV lately?
So it's ok to have porn on the net/video stores/magazines when it is detremental to socity that WE ALL live in.Quote:
Originally Posted by starrwriter
At what point in time did I say society? How responsible are when you think that society is doing the job, what job are you doing? If so, then we need to take it back and, what is this Conservative stuff? CrashCourse08 was complaining about it being a dangerous world out there. Why aren't we doing something about it instead of complaining about it?Quote:
It's the parents' responsibility to decide what their children read or see on TV. Parents shouldn't expect society to do their job.
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. I will put in my library weapons of information for my children to make well informed decisions on any step that they may need to take. They will know the good and evil of books, intranet, TV, and radio and what ever else feeds info. into our house, because I am raising my children, your not. I want them to be armed with knowledge and not to be ignorant and accept things for as they are. I want them to challenge anything and everything. I want them to ask why and then figure it out and make changes if need be. People, do not be complaincent in this world. Make a difference. If you believe that a book should not be banded from a school, that's fine, but if they do ban it, quit fussing, get the book, read it, and then make your OWN decision and keep it in your house if you want. 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.Quote:
Who do you mean by "we"? Conservatives only? The world doesn't belong to one group. Live and let live.
Who said anything about porn? We were discussing banning books on how to make explosives and drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
You just did in the paragraph above.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
I'm not personally responsible for the functioning of society. If you want to be, run for public office.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
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
I am in charge of my own life and I want to keep it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by adm
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.
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 RyuKid
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mikey
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unnamable
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 ...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinHood3000
Personally, I believe that those who burn books will also burn people.
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 is no mention either, that they are continually exposed to the propaganda of multi-national corporations.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaka
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?
I don't think that any books should be banned, but many people think otherwise.
The ALA lists many books that have been banned or attacked. People have even tried to ban the Harry Potter books.
There is more information about fighting the banning of books at
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedboo...dbooksweek.htm
And here is the reason, via Book-a-Minute classics:Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
http://www.rinkworks.com/bookaminute...ng.stone.shtmlQuote:
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is not just about magic; it is magic, for this single book is mysteriously comprised of two separate texts: there is the printed text that is experienced when the book is read, and there is the secret, more sinister text that is experienced when it is not read.
...
Harry Potter
I thought I was a lowly child; instead, I'm a wizard.
J. K. Rowling
Now that I have your attention, my pretties, here is how you perform satanic rituals and become demons.
THE END
To be frank, I'm surprised that people aren't more up-in-arms about Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials, on the grounds that, unlike Rowling's opus, it really is heathen propoganda (the heathens, in this case, being atheists and not pagans).
As you may have gathered, I loathe censorship.
I am not for banning books in any public library. I like books. I read banned books. Still, I'm going to go out on a limb here (please don't throw things; it is hard enough to balance) and say that I do believe that there are some books that are better off not taught in middle schools and high schools. A Catcher in the Rye, for instance. Perhaps the author has a valid point (I believe he does), but it is perhaps the most missed point in all of young adult literature. Combine that with the sexuality, language, and the fact that teachers very often don't really know what they're teaching, and A Catcher in the Rye can be one mess, unproductive book. I do not blame any superintendant who bans the book.
The problem with banning books naturally comes because it is hard to draw a line. Ban The Catcher in the Rye, well, what about Of Mice and Men, George curses, too. And then, why not ban Fahrenheit 451? We don't want a bunch of kids fighting imaginary political enemies. In that case, The Chronicles of Narnia will have to go, too. Made-up things are bad business.
So...I think I may have shot holes in my own argument. I see both sides. I guess my sum is that I am acceptant only of schools banning books for explicit language, violence, and sexual content.
There's a difference between not teaching The Catcher in the Rye and not letting people read it. A big difference.
Banning books is a product of social retardation if you ask me. What happens to any tangible object that is banned? Demand increases. Unless the banning of books is a cunning plot to raise their sales, which would cause me to involentarily orgasm, it's a fart emitted by the incessant whining of people with a stick up their rear. (sorry about putting orgasm and fart so close together)
If i write a book, I hope it is banned in the US for a few years. It will sell more and I'll know I gave temporary meaning to some stagnant lives.
That said, is there another opinion out there? I want to know the reasoning behind people who believe books should be banned.
Hence the reason that I differentiated between a school ban and a public ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
A school can quite easily carry a book in its library without teaching it. Removing the book from the ciriculum is questionable, but removing it from the library is insanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orual
Haha...you know what is funny...alot of the books mentioned above my highschool librarian has encourage me too read...On my own I found Fahrenheit 451 and if you can understand it may just be one of the most profound books for me. I have an entire list of books I plan on readng currently I am reading the Communist Manifesto, Dantes Divine Comedy, and Utopia...Next will be not in any order but eventually: Fatherland, A Clock Work Orange, Battlefield Earth: Saga of the Year 300, Alice in Wonderland, The Prince, Seize the Day, Catch-22, The Catcher in the Rye, The Time Machine, The Republic, 15,000 Useful Phrases, Beowulf, Don Juan. I'm nearly 17 and it saddens me that most of the people in my grade could read these books multiple times and miss the point. They probably would never take the time to read one of these books if it wasn't assigned. I can credit my dad for my intrest in books that provoke thought. He is a very avid supporter of Socrates. Thanks Dad. Banning books, pointless as others stated it increases demand. Just don't legalize pot.
hello how can i teach literature to students?
Good day,
I am not sure who said it but: "Any book worth banning is a book worth reading." There are books that have messages that are detrimental to society- anything advocating hate crimes, for example. However, if one book is banned, for whatever reason, there is little legal distance to cover before any book can be banned.
In my opinion, it is better to let the court of public opinion sort out what is worth reading. If a book has any credence it will rise.
Cheery-Bye
There are no moral or immoral books, only good and bad books. Therefore, I am against bans.
In my country nothing is forbidden, we were reading (actually, they did) Catcher in the Rye at age of 14.
Hey, cuppajoe_9... I had a question about the banning of Harry Potter books...
Harry Potter
I thought I was a lowly child; instead, I'm a wizard.
J. K. Rowling
Now that I have your attention, my pretties, here is how you perform satanic rituals and become demons.
THE END
I'm sorry, I didn't get the point.
Why would that be the reason why we should ban Harry Potter?
I might be mistaken, but don't we have to provide an evidential proof to ban something (in this case, books)? The text above wasn't even in the book. How could we ban the book for the reason that wasn't even the content of the book?
Had someone ever thought that the text had been invented only to discredit Rowling? You know, invented by someone who obviously threatened (well, perhaps jealous is as more suitable word) by Rowling's success, or her popularity, or her fantasy, or her talent... Who knows?
Well, that's all...
It is not the book that should be banned - it is some people who should never read it. In my country the only banned book i can think of is "Mein Kampf". I understand why. But i still read it.
Writing is the magic. Writers are wizards. Any book that that describes something that isn't observable in the world that generally observed by others is a candidate for banning, especially if it is contrary to a particular set of beliefs. Some religions have banned books that didn't agree with their scriptures.
Yes, they have. But America is not the country of one religion. And even a ban on religious grounds is questionable, much more so in a country that considers itself "the land of the free" (national anthem). Is it no longer the country for people "yearning to breathe free" (Emma Lazarus, inscription on the Statue of Liberty)?Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
And there is something else I do not understand. While in a library it is comparatively easy for the librarian to keep children from books that are not suitable for their age (to me the only reason why a book should be kept from a child), there are many children watching TV oder surfing the internet without restrictions. Have a look at US serials and movies. There is such a lot of sex and crime which is actually watched even by young children that I wonder why parents go for comparatively harmless books. Can anyone explain?
PS: Somewhere I read statistics how many murders the average American child (and probably meanwhile the European child, too) watches a day. But I lost the statistics Can anyone help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonicaGabriella
In the United Kingdom religious figures, in particular the archbishop of canterbury, have called for a ban of the Harry Potter books for their glorification or witchcraft and wizardary and the abject fear that the texts will encourage readers to take an interest into the dark arts and satanism.
A few years back the first Harry Potter film was shown on a popular terrestrial channel at christmas time prompting the archbishop of canterbury, during his new years speech, to broadcast his digust of showing heathen activities on Christ's birthday.
The Catholic Church, and other religions, are extremely powerful and object very strongly to witchcraft and other such activities that oppose their religious messages. In my opinion i'm suprised that Harry Potter hasn't been successfully banned.
Its probably because 1) The Catholic Church doesn't control the government, and 2) The books are written by a British author. I have read the Harry Potter books, and I don't think they should be banned. If someone wants to read something, they should be able to read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by liesl
I certainly don't think that the HP books should be banned, and neither does the author of that summary, which was intended as a satire. Rowling's books were challenged because certain congenitally insane parents were concerned that they were promoting witchcraft or satanism or something equally ridiculous. It's an unfortunate truth that many people who seek to take books off the shelf are content to read them by title only.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonicaGabriella
If I had to guess, I would say that the parents who are letting their children watch TV unrestricted are not the same ones who are beating a trail to J.K. Rowling's door with pitch-forks and torches.Quote:
Originally Posted by barbara0207
That raises an interesting question about TV censorship, though. The sex and violence is certainly on the upswing but, at least the last time I watched TV, the violence was far more prominent than the sex. Sex was, at worst, alluded to in a sitcom in a way in which a young child would be unlikely to catch, whereas the homicides were just shown. Apparently there's a list of TV decency standards somehwere that looks like this:
Quote:
Things that are not harmful if a child sees them on television:
The willfull and sadistic destruction of one human being by another.
Things that are harmful if a child sees them on television:
Breasts.
As regards to the original question of the thread and the poll consequently..I believe that it'll be rather silly to ban books, just cuz they don't happen to fit in the 'standards'. I mean what ARE the standards of a book in order to be published? what's the point of writing, if your point of view and ideas are going to be banned. I, personally, ran into many books that really angered me, and made me throw the book away, but that will NEVER mean that I'd just ban them, cuz they happen to disagree with me. However, I believe there should be a certain 'red-line' when it comes to certain issues, such as religions and beliefs. I know that many here might (will probably) disagree with me, but I know first hand that religion to many people (including me and where I come from) is something that's considered the essense of thier being, the most important thing in thier lives, you insult or take away that, you'll be faced with waves of anger that might lead to unfortunate incidents, and it DID happen before actually.
About the N-words and likes of it, I don't believe any book should be banned for mentioning this words, as long as it's a classical book, meaning that, the N word no longer exsists, and it's only fair to say that it DID exsist strongly in previous ages and certuries, not now though, so it'll be very unfair not to enjoy certain great books, just cuz the writer happened to use a word, that was very much in use at that time.
Anyone who'd start reading such books, is believed to be grown up enough to decided for him/herself, if you don't like the book, don't buy it!