Censorship

[Kitty]

Specifically, I'm talking about book bannings, though I suppose any kind of talk about censorship in general would be appropriate here.

So, recently I've been reading the His Dark Materials series by Philip Pullman, and if anyone's read these three books, they'd know that they are heavily anti-Christian (though really, I think the arguments could be used against any religion). I can just imagine how many people would read these and get pissed off. But there are countless examples of books being protested against (here's a list of some of the most common in the US: here).

Do you think it is right for groups to try to have these sorts of books removed from school/local libraries, to try and have bookstores refuse to stock them, to even burn them?

Personally, though I may end up arguing both sides of the argument, just for the hell of it, I am against keeping books from the people who want to read them. Some of the books on the list are just ridiculous, and are, in my opinion, the result of uptight parents wanting to coddle their children far longer than necessary. Seriously, Bridge To Terabithia? I'm 24 years old, still reread this, and it still never fails to make me cry my eyes out. A book like this would be a perfect opportunity for a parent to sit down and actually interact with their child, and have a meaningful discussion about death. And as for the books banned for being anti-religious, well, I don't think it is wrong to question things, and if the religion is so sure it is the right one, the religious figure in the reader's life should be able to find answers to the questions or concerns that are being brought up, instead of just getting offended.

Really, I think it depends on the person's maturity, but I think that should be a decision an individual person (or his or her parent, in the case of a young child) should be allowed to make.

Any thoughts?

[Requiem]

I've read Farenheit 451, so my opinion is heavily influenced by it.

If one book is banned officially by a government, that paves the way for more books to be banned, until we hit the point where creativity is nonexistent.

If somebody doesn't want their child to read something, then by all means, they should have THAT right. After all, childern (in general) do not have the capability to make smart decisions on their own. However, I don't think that anybody should have the right to take that away from fully mature adults.

[Desert Warrior]

I don't believe books should be banned. Of course, I'm leaning more towards less censorship with just about everything. Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example of what happens when books get banned and whatnot. People just need to learn how to stop being a crybaby. We will never get to a point where everybody is happy, so people need to deal with being offended. It is the person's choice to read the book.

[Kitty]

A lot of times, too, I think keeping a book from someone for what I consider a stupid reason (i.e. banning The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it says "nigger" a lot) means that person misses out on the overall benefit of the story, whatever it may be.

I've always been one to read whatever I could get my hands on (and not always books that were perhaps appropriate to my chronological age at the time, but more to my reading level), and I think my outlook on a lot of things would be a lot different if I hadn't had the experience of reading all that.

And besides, I don't believe than banning books even works, really. Making something forbidden just makes it that much more irresistible, and more people would end up looking into it.

If one book is banned officially by a government, that paves the way for more books to be banned, until we hit the point where creativity is nonexistent.

This is a good point, too.

[Destiny]

I personally find it stupid that they wouldn't be able to sell their book, this is the U.S. and the one admendment of the constitution states freedom of speech, we also have freedom of press. So no these books should be ok and be allowed to be sold in bookstores and be in libraries. However in public schools and private schools(which are religious christian schools), I do not believe the books should be allowed.

For public, schools, such religious books are not allowed to be in the school library, the rule should carry on over to such books going against religions. In private schools, most are christian religious schools so probably best they're kept out, but I believe this would be optional, and probably wouldn't be located in those school libraries.

[Desert Warrior]

Originally Posted by Toph

A lot of times, too, I think keeping a book from someone for what I consider a stupid reason (i.e. banning The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it says "nigger" a lot) means that person misses out on the overall benefit of the story, whatever it may be.

Which is one of the things I like about my high school english teacher. She'd read books to us during class, Huckleberry Finn being one of them. And she wouldn't change any word. She'd read it as it was printed.

Originally Posted by Dawn

I personally find it stupid that they wouldn't be able to sell their book, this is the U.S. and the one admendment of the constitution states freedom of speech, we also have freedom of press. So no these books should be ok and be allowed to be sold in bookstores and be in libraries. However in public schools and private schools(which are religious christian schools), I do not believe the books should be allowed.

For public, schools, such religious books are not allowed to be in the school library, the rule should carry on over to such books going against religions. In private schools, most are christian religious schools so probably best they're kept out, but I believe this would be optional, and probably wouldn't be located in those school libraries.

If anything, schools are the one place where books shouldn't be banned. Schools should have a multitude of books, ranging from simple fiction stories to religious text. Having a wider variety of books would encourage more learning.

[Kitty]

For public, schools, such religious books are not allowed to be in the school library, the rule should carry on over to such books going against religions.

Rather than keeping all religious text out of public schools, I think school libraries should make an effort to include books which touch on topics concerning all religions. Throw in some anti-Christian books, but throw in some pro-Christian ones, too. In my small town, there is not a lot of diversity, and this is especially true for religion. I think an overwhelming majority are Christian, or would say they are. A book in a library might be some of these kids' only exposure to any other religion or the idea that their religion might not have all the answers. As for private religious schools, well, I don't think they should keep children from learning about any other religion or from learning about the not-so-nice aspects of their own, either, though what they ultimately decide to do is up to them and the people who pay the tuition.

Which is one of the things I like about my high school english teacher. She'd read books to us during class, Huckleberry Finn being one of them. And she wouldn't change any word. She'd read it as it was printed.

My english teachers, especially when I started taking Advanced Placement classes, were the same way. And I liked that they didn't talk down to us and skip over the cussing, violence, or sex scenes in the literature we were assigned to read.

[Figure.09]

It's never wrong to question things. Burning books is just another way to shape people and refuse them the resources of an intellectual.

Censorship is nonsense, in my opinion. Why censor something they'll inevitably find out about anyway? It's called the internet; derp

[Azula]

Books are a way for a person to express oneself. The world has a vast expanse of different minds and ways of thinking. I personally believe that banning a book will not necessarily work. Just because you take away a source of doubt doesn't mean you can completely take away doubt from people.

I am not afraid of books being banned, I'm afraid of people not caring if it happens. If books get banned then it is more the fault of the people who didn't speak against it than those who banned it.

There have been several times when a book would get banned at a school because parents didn't want their kids exposed to something they thought innapropriate. I say let students learn anything they want. If you don't learn from different perspectives of life then you won't gain open-mindedness. It seems close-mindedness has always been common and along with greed was the source of most conflict.

Then there have been people who wanted books to be banned because they taught bad morals and such. A book can only have a dangerous effect on the weak-minded. You always have a choice and you can choose to follow a teaching. People who want a book banned are in a way promoting the society that books such as 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are warning against.

"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them."
-Ray Bradbury

[Mike]

Everyone seems to be anti-censorship...but let's face it, deep inside we all long for structure and order, each to our own varying degrees.

While I'm not going to lie, many books are censored for stupid reasons, there is an underlying theme: Is the book appropriate? Who should and should not be reading them? The biggest example is children...should they be reading about gender, race, or social issues? Politics? Arguably, they shouldn't be (and if you're reading this going "why can't they read about politics?" then think of a more extreme example...I'm sure a convincing enough one exists).

Knowledge is power, critical thinking is key, but only to an extent. By the reasoning of most people in this thread, I should be able to publish a book situated around a racist, homophobic, misogenystic white male's drug use (and how using drugs leads to the most amazing experiences, and why orgies/sex with minors is great, etc.) and no one would have the right to tell me "This is inappropriate for children." What about books glamourizing gang violence? "That's not inappropriate?" Well...it is. Anything that could potentially (even in the most minute of circumstances) impact a child's safety is inappropriate. We err on the side of caution: We don't get into a car every day expecting to get into a car accident, however we do get into a car and buckle our seatbelt every day, just because there's a slight possibility.

Conversely, someone looking for such a book has the right to read it...but for all intents and purposes, if such an individual had such specific tastes in literature, they should know where to get it (ie. not at their nephew's elementary school library).

It seems to me that the 'perfect solution' is actually a compromise in this case. No person should truly have what is 'appropriate' decided for them...unless they're unfit to make such a decision (ie. a minor).