Banned Books

[Arathorn]

18 is a nice number to default to when you can't think of anything else. For most countries, it's the age you get to vote, get a driver's license, allowed to drink, etc.

If a government had the resources and political will, it could do a color coding scheme for classifying reading and audio video material and you need to apply for a reader's license for certain restricted material. Then probably you need to qualify through psych tests and interviews every few years. For example, green means anybody can read, red means you need a license, yellow means you can read it with the permission/supervision of a red license-holder.

Just some musing I had over the weekend...

[Laurelyn]

Well, you do have a point that 18 is kind of a default number. And if it were all set at 18, I'd have 6 years to keep reading, "Willy the wabbit went for a walk."
Because if we did something like this, people would try to put all the nonsense that's currently banned on the restricted shelf. And then "Willy the Wabbit went for a Walk" would be all that was left. Essentially, we'd have a lot of th same problems.

[jerseydevil]

I agree - why 18? I have the same problem with the stupid drinking age. You can vote and everything - but your too young if your 18 to drink.

And why should books be banned? Who determines what is banned and what isn't? What happens if what I think should be banned - you think is acceptable? What about political ideas? or religious ideas?

A lot of books that are just about racism or contain racism (Huckleberry Fiinn) are banned. I personally do not want anyone telling me what I can or can not watch or read. By controlling that they control free thought.

Ideas are not bad - it's what people do with them. If people feel dancing is wrong and will lead to sex - then that that's their feeling, if they think if someone reads a book about racism that they'll be racist - then that's their problem. What it boils down to is how a child is raised.

Instead of the government being in everyone's life - maybe parents should pay more attention to their children. And those people that want to dictate to others should worry about their own lives and the life of their families.

[Arathorn]

Of course, in an ideal world, I'd picture that all parent's are responsible enough to properly teach and instill in their kids the basic values they deem are appropriate.

You can give those kids all the trash in the world and after reading them they'll just go <shrug> that's shallow. I don't think so.

[Laurelyn]

I agree pretty much with you, Jerseydevil, except for that I don't think that it's how a child is raised. There are plenty of kids who are ignored and are really sweet kids, and plenty of kids who are well-taken care of, and they're just plain . . . uh, can't think of a nice word for them.

And the drinking age baloney: mostly, by the time folks are 21 they're mature enough to drink. Some, however, would be able to figure when they'd drunk enough and whatnot much younger. And some over 21 drink- and drive - and get themselves killed. Brilliant, that, eh? Oh, but they were 21, so they should've been able to drink responsibly.

If someone reads a book with a certain content or idea in it, and then that person somehow decides that the idea that was in the book is a good one, then it could be a problem. But then should a book about a black kid's experiences be banned because it deals with rascism? I don't think so, b/c it's not nesscessarily glorifing it (Warrior's don't cry comes to my mind right here).

However, if it is glorifing something that it's not a good idea to glorify, then our possible problem gets worse. Here is where I'm not sure what a good idea would be. I disagree with saying that "so-and-so can't read this book," but then if the people who are gullible or have violent tendencies read it, then they could take up that idea, and possibly start some modern Ku Klux Klan. And that wouldn't be good.

[jerseydevil]

Well then - if we talk about protecting children from their inept parents - then why don't we just have a parenting license? Why should responsible parents, who have different beliefs than the ones "in charge of banning", have their freedoms of raising their children the way they want be taken away?

If a a school library carries Harry Potter and one parent disapproves - should it be banned from the 100's or 1000's of other students that go there?

New Jersey libraries recently said that censorware on library computers prevent freedom of speech and will not be installed. And if you want to see some of the things that are censored - including political thought by those programs look at -http://www.peacefire.org

[Laurelyn]

Whoa, it's amazing how insecure some people are if they're blocking and censoring so much stuff : Oh, I don't like that site/book's political views and whatnot, so it'll get censored . . . Ack!

[Arathorn]

I guess these censors are all just frustrated directors who want to say "CUT!"

[Imladris]

You forget that books have been banned for other reasons too; Salman Rushdie's books were bannned as they were very anti-Muslim etc.

[webwizard333]

That's why people should discuss the books they read with others and read other books about the same topic. We shouldn't hide people from things such as racism, sexism, realistic portrayals of past, and the fact that some poeple strongly believe the Holocaust never happened. If we do, the shock for the people who don't know about these issues will be so much the greate when they confront them in real life.

[AACHOO]

Who decides what gets banned? Who do you want deciding for you what to read? Look at what has been banned thru history and who did the banning.

[mirrille]

Here's a partial list of books that people like to ban.

http://title.forbiddenlibrary.com/

I find this very interesting. On a personal note, interesting that this particular list also includes "Clan of the Cave Bear". This particular books bears the distinction of being my first exposure to graphic sex scenes in print. How lucky for me that it happened to be a rather disturbing rape scene! I think I was about 10 or 11 and it seems that my parents had thus far been rather neglectful of educating me about sex. Just goes to show you that if parents try to be too protecting, they will not be doing their kids any service.
Having said that, I found the book to be completely absorbing, highly creative, impressively well-researched and well worth reading. And even at 11, I could tell that the rape scenes were very important to the plot and character development; once I figured out what was going on, that is. Yes, they were disturbing, but that was the point.
I find the examples of people trying to ban books depicting racism as highly confusing. Books like "To Kill a Mockingbird", or "Huckleberry Finn" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin", to name a few, are always being criticized for containing racist phrases. Are people stupid? Typically these books are criticisms of racist behaviour or societies. But in order to educate people about the evils of discrimination, obviously one has to depict it.

[Claenoic]

Book banning, in my opinion, is pointless. Why would you ban a book? Frankly, movies are worse. I've heard conversations in the hallways of First Colony Middle School (FCMS) about the new Austin Powers Movie (pointlessness and stupidity in it's raw form) or Blade 2 (Violent. Period.) We are 6th graders. THINK!

I know some books are just... wrong (porno, rascism, sex imagery, etc.), but kids know that they shouldn't be reading that stuff. And adults should know that they shouldn't be on shelves in the first place. And if they don't.... maybe we should put them back on Where is Spot. Honestly.

On the HP ban, I don't think much of it. I personally think it's a nice little series. Heck, my 5 grade English/Reading/ELA/Spelling teacher Mrs. Browning kept a shelf of HP books for anyone to read in their spare time. And even if it was banned we would still bring it to school. I remember classic Gel Pen ban. Stupid.

I've been to a VERY bad part of New Orleans. At night. You never want to do that. Besides the fortune tellers and the shirt with half naked women on it (ugh), the thing I clearly remember is the sheer amount of drunk slums in the street. Noooo, they weren't 30 something, these were people just out of college, if not still in college. They were throwing up everywhere, and you constantly had to dodge large pools of unidentifiable white stuff that you never wanted to identify anyway. Drawing to a conclusion (besides the point that I've had enough of New Orleans for a lifetime), we should have a new law that states that we should be allowed to drink when we're deemed responsible enough.

Some titles that my sister and I had a giggle out of:

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl
The Call of the Wild
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Don Quixote
The Egypt Game
Gone with the Wind (Quote: because it uses the word "nigger.")
Gulliver's Travels
James and the Giant Peach
A Light in the Attic (Quote: because the book "enourages children to break dishes so they won't have to dry them.")
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Little House in the Big Woods
Little House on the Prairie
The Odyssey
Where the Sidewalk Ends
Where's Waldo (Quote: because there is a tiny drawing of a woman lying on the beach wearing a bikini bottom but no top. Yes, but did they find Waldo?)
A Wrinkle In Time
Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings (Quote: because "this book details the teachings of the religion of Buddhism in such a way that the reader could very likely embrace its teachings and choose this as his religion." The last thing we need are a bunch of peaceful Buddhists running around. The horror.)

Sorry for taking up so much space.

[IronParrot]

Reading Claenoic's list made me physically ill.

[durin's bane]

I think banning a book is a stupid thing to do. It's not like an "inappropriate" book is going to explode or something when a kid's holding it. A lot of parents are downright careless on what their kids read or watch, so they leave it up to the government to decide what's best for their kids. The problem with banning a book is that the government bans the harmless ones because there's some over-religious dolt who thinks that, like, every book with a subtitle is devil's work. And the stuff that shouldn't be open to others (like the Cosmopolitan magazine) goes untouched. Quite frankly, letting the government control what literature is available to you is senseless, because usually, the goverment is full of stuck-up idiots who read a book they don't like, so they forbid anyone else reading it.

And that, my fellow 'Mooters, is a rare serious post made by durin's bane.

[Elf Girl]

"this book details the teachings of the religion of Buddhism in such a way that the reader could very likely embrace its teachings and choose this as his religion."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that.

...For that matter I don't know whether to laugh or cry at all of Claenoic's list.

Some of it is only a few notches beyond reasonable, but banning things like a Wrinkle in Time that are good literature is really stupid!

[Elf Girl]

Farenheit 451

Oh, the bitter irony.

[Agalayth]

I too believe that book banning is stupid. It's not like it's going to completely change your view on the world if you read one major sex scene in a book or something like that. I read my first major graphic sex scenes last year, when I was 12, in 6th grade. It was the book The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley. And it was my English teacher's copy too!

[Anglorfin]

What I don't get is how people can ban books and the like, yet there are barely any restrictions to movie content, musical content, or internet content. Those three are WAAAAAY more dangerous than a book will ever be IMO. Why all the fuss about books? I'd like to see what they'd do if they were told they couldn't listen to a certain type of music. Or maybe we should establish a rating system for literature like we have with movies. Yet I think that defeats the purpose. Most books (that are non-propaganda oriented) usually come up with a spectacular moral at the end that makes up for whatever content the book may have had. It would be unfair to say that things in the book are too graphic and to have kids or whomever miss out on perhaps a valuable lesson or at least a thrilling experience.

[GrayMouser]

Okay, here's a problematic case with a very famous book:

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

This book is a supposedly true account of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and enslave all non-Jews.

It was actually written by the Russian Czar's secret service in order to smear people wishing to reform the Czarist regime as agents of this sinister conspiracy.

It has had a tremendous reception since it's appearance, strongly aided anti-Semites everywhere, was instrumental in the rise of the Nazis, is widely circulated in Arab states (Egyptian TV has devoted an entire mini-series to it), and even caused a controversy on Amazon.com: anti-Semites were posting rave reviews of it!

Because of it's effect this book is an important historical document, yet it is totally bogus- should it just be stuck on a library shelf with no restrictions or explanations?