book-banning in the U.S.

[Virgil]

Oh yes, so what is the criteria to ban Twain? And why hasn't Duke been banned? Can you explain that?

What book by Twain is banned and by whom? I have no idea what you're talking about. I find it incredible to believe that there is any book by Twain that is even out of print.

[JBI]

What book by Twain is banned and by whom? I have no idea what you're talking about. I find it incredible to believe that there is any book by Twain that is even out of print.

He is one of the most contested, and the one who gets some of the biggest complaints - there is a list somewhere of books by complaints and attempts at banning.

[Virgil]

He is one of the most contested, and the one who gets some of the biggest complaints - there is a list somewhere of books by complaints and attempts at banning.

Are you talking about Huck Finn and the use of the word "nigger"? I supposed some schools and libraries have refused to use the book or stock it because of it (completely misguided) but I suppose schools and school libraries make decisions on books and the appropriateness of the language used. You guys are using the word "banning" inappropriately if you are referring to that. When people are referring to a society banning certain books they are referring to a complete excise from society or even being published. The only book ban that I have ever heard in contemporary life in a western country is I believe that Germany has gone to the extent of banning Hitler's Mein Kampf. How publishers make business decisions, how schools pick their books for the curriculumn, how small libraries decide what to stock the shelves for a given public is not banning.

[Babbalanja]

How publishers make business decisions, how schools pick their books for the curriculumn, how small libraries decide what to stock the shelves for a given public is not banning.

It's a matter of degree. I personally consider removing a book from library shelves so the public doesn't have access to it "banning" a book, regardless of whether it can be procured by other means.

I'm pretty sure your definition of "banning" (not allowing publication) doesn't apply to the vast majority of books that are considered "banned" books.

Regards,

Istvan

[mortalterror]

I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption. (And that's a hit. No normal network would develope such a show to begin with.) Look at the Golden Globe nominations that just came out. 3 out of 5 in the televised drama category are subscription only and seen by something like 1/15 of the audience their mediocre competitors have.

Anything with violence or graphic language is unlikely to be screened or is aired so late into the night that only insomniacs see it. I think I saw a Katt Williams performance on Comedy Central at about 2 AM once. Meanwhile, where's the Pryor, where's the Kinison, where's the Carlin, and Lenny Bruce? Why does Canada only produce toothless, unfunny garbage? Because they have laws about what kind of material is acceptable and unacceptable there. Satellite radio such as The Howard Stern Show is illegal there. But even he's been marginalized in the U.S. Slapped with repeated fines, and censored until his business was barely profitable, he moved to a subscription service, effectively cutting his audience to 1/20th the size.

As for movies like Clerks, I saw a fairly mangled version at about ten o'clock with half the words muted. When's the last time you saw A Clockwork Orange on television? This classic of cinema was banned in the United Kingdom until after the director's death in 2001. Initially, it was given an X rating by the U.S. board of censors so regular theaters and movie stores couldn't carry it.

Despite it's popularity, selling 60,000 copies, bookstores won't carry John Ross' Unintended Consequences. A friend of mine had to buy it at a gun show. There is censorship in the West.

[OrphanPip]

Howard Stern is not illegal in Canada and any Canadian shows that do get shown in the USA, like Degrassi, end up censored to remove references to abortion

Geez when I was growing up TQS, a French language basic cable channel, used to show soft-core porn at 11 on Saturdays. The English language channel Show Case had the decency to wait until after midnight.

Moreover, Sopranos and the Osbournes were shown uncensored by CTV, a public network.

[mortalterror]

Howard Stern is not illegal in Canada and any Canadian shows that do get shown in the USA, like Degrassi, end up censored to remove references to abortion

You're right. I was just checking Wikipedia to find out when that happened.

"After a delay and outcry from Canadian subscribers, Sirius Canada added Howard Stern's Channel 100 to their lineup in early 2006."

Do you also get the Opie and Anthony Show now too? I know Michael Savage is banned from even entering the UK; so I assume his program doesn't get any radio play there.

[OrphanPip]

I have no idea, I take public transit so I never listen to the radio.

[stlukesguild]

JBI- So when it comes down to it, you really have 6 or so American media giants deciding what is read and what is not read anyway, more or less. Whether banned or not barriers always construct themselves, and invisible workings really decide what is read or not.

Virgil- That's ridiculous. If businesses decide what to publish on the ability to provide returns, that's the way of the world and has nothing to do with banning. Why don't you provide me with your bank savings so I can publish my book?

While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning". As an artist I am largely free to create any form of art I desire (although I might suppose I should be the one complaining considering that as a result of my career in education I am actually subject to a degree of limitations of my access to "freedom of speech"... both in and outside of school... that is not applied to others). Again... I am free to create as I will; I am not assured the financial support of corporations, wealthy individuals, or the public for such work. Or are we to assume that the public... the wealthy individuals... and the corporations should be expected to support every work of art... no matter how antagonistic it may appear to their interests/beliefs/values... no matter how bad it may be...? Certainly, this is a form of self-justification for one's failure: "The publishers won't publish my books or the galleries won't show my paintings because my work is too daring... too cutting edge... it threatens the powers that be. Woe is me... poor oppressed artist that I am."

I might note that JBI has made it clear on more than one occasion that his leanings as a reader are toward literature that might be termed "elitist"... literature that is often quite demanding and as a consequence has a rather limited audience. Having said as much, why should we concern ourselves over the fact that the biggest publishers may not support certain forms of literature that they suspect will be less than financially successful... or with the fact that the audience for certain forms of literature may be limited by not having the support of such? I suspect that a great deal of the literature I have read from over the centuries had a rather limited audience in its time... and in many cases (Baudelaire, Zola, Verlaine, Voltaire, the whole of British theater during the Interregnum under the Puritans, etc...) was actually blacklisted or truly banned.

Again... my question is what would be the ideal? Certainly, relying upon the market system alone leads to a gross support of those works of art that meet the demands of the largest audience... but at the expense of more experimental, challenging... or even unpopular works. Of course the wealthy patrons are always free to support those works of art and artists that they deem "best"... and this is largely the system still dominant in the traditional visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc...) which explains the lack of concern among such artists for accessibility or the wants of the mass audience.
But what is the alternative? Support through public money of works of art that may not merely be less than popular but also antagonistic to the very populace paying the taxes? And who decides what works of art get this support and which ones do not? If we decide upon a committee of artists or writers to decide upon which works of art... which musical compositions... which theatrical productions... which works of literature are deserving of public support do we not face a situation just as biased and open to abuse and neglect of truly deserving works of art as we find in a pure market system... or under the patronage of the very rich?

[mortalterror]

While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning".

I'm not trying to say that unpopular speech should receive the same publicity as popular speech. What I object to is the government regulations that interfere with the market, and unfairly prejudice certain types of work, rendering potentially lucrative works unprofitable.

[Virgil]

It's a matter of degree. I personally consider removing a book from library shelves so the public doesn't have access to it "banning" a book, regardless of whether it can be procured by other means.

I'm pretty sure your definition of "banning" (not allowing publication) doesn't apply to the vast majority of books that are considered "banned" books.

Regards,

Istvan

That's right, because books aren't banned. I would agree with you if every single library in the country excluded a book for political reasons but that is not the case. If you think any book is banned, just look it up on Amazon and I bet you can buy it. No book is banned in the US today.

While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning".

Thank you StLukes.

I might note that JBI has made it clear on more than one occasion that his leanings as a reader are toward literature that might be termed "elitist"...

Haha!!! Yes, if anyone is a book banner her on lit net it's JBI!!!!

JBI, when are you going to start that bonfire for the Twilight books!!!

[sixsmith]

I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption. (And that's a hit. No normal network would develope such a show to begin with.) Look at the Golden Globe nominations that just came out. 3 out of 5 in the televised drama category are subscription only and seen by something like 1/15 of the audience their mediocre competitors have.

Anything with violence or graphic language is unlikely to be screened or is aired so late into the night that only insomniacs see it. I think I saw a Katt Williams performance on Comedy Central at about 2 AM once. Meanwhile, where's the Pryor, where's the Kinison, where's the Carlin, and Lenny Bruce? Why does Canada only produce toothless, unfunny garbage? Because they have laws about what kind of material is acceptable and unacceptable there. Satellite radio such as The Howard Stern Show is illegal there. But even he's been marginalized in the U.S. Slapped with repeated fines, and censored until his business was barely profitable, he moved to a subscription service, effectively cutting his audience to 1/20th the size.

As for movies like Clerks, I saw a fairly mangled version at about ten o'clock with half the words muted. When's the last time you saw A Clockwork Orange on television? This classic of cinema was banned in the United Kingdom until after the director's death in 2001. Initially, it was given an X rating by the U.S. board of censors so regular theaters and movie stores couldn't carry it.

I'm not so sure Mortal. If one of the major television networks felt they could make money of shows like 'Deadwood' or 'The Sopranos' they would have no hesitation in pushing them into prime time, language and violence be damned. They don't because people, by and large, are too soft-headed to appreciate quality art. People desire the tawdry denouements of 'Law and Order' or the excessive forensic bull**** of 'CSI': they have neither the ability nor the inclination to absorb the meandering beauty of a show like 'The Wire'. Russell Brand has his own show. Sam Kinison (RIP) is still largely unknown. We live in the age of morons.

Of course, the schlock that gets served up year in year out plays a significant role in promoting the need for superficial gratification and thereby keeping quality art and programming out of the mainstream. But at the end of the day, money is king.

[BienvenuJDC]

I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption.

Actually, your premise couldn't be further from the truth. It is based on personal preference. It is my personal opinion that the programming on HBO couldn't be much worse than it is...and if I wanted to see the same movie over and over 15 times, I'd just buy it.

[Virgil]

Actually, your premise couldn't be further from the truth. It is based on personal preference. It is my personal opinion that the programming on HBO couldn't be much worse than it is...and if I wanted to see the same movie over and over 15 times, I'd just buy it.

Completely agree with you Bien. There are decency standards on the public airwaves.

[Drkshadow03]

List of the 100 most challenged Books between 1991 - 2000 for those who were curious.