Banned Book Week: a Pox on Censorship!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:01 am

Did you know that September 27-October 4 2008 is Banned Books Week?

Sniff around at this website for lists of banned books, banned authors and some interesting info.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:39 am

What got thomas paine banned in the US was a book (the age of reason) critical if christian fundamentalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

Funny how the same arguments keep cropping up.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:44 am

Sarah Palin is all for banning books not considered good enough according to her religion.

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:53 am

And now folks, we have the book "If I Did It" by OJ coming out today. The thing is he won't benefit from the money.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:59 am

You cannot be serious.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor". Does that sound fair?

The censor of books, in modern day life, is most often the courtroom. I could list you at least six broad topics where you'd find it hard to criticize sending the author and possessor to jail for writing or possessing written words covered by those topics. I don't particularly want to name them.

Or are you telling me "a pox on censorship" and that I'm wrong, there are no such broad topics?

Post by **jones jones** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:21 am

what a damn cheek!

thought we were living in the 21st century?

i honestly didn't know that books were still being banned anywhere in the

world ...

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:31 am

jones jones;984537 wrote: i honestly didn't know that books were still being banned anywhere in the world ...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/0 ... rism.books

The Terrorism Act 2006, Part 1 (Section 2): Prohibits the dissemination of a publication which is either (a) likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging terrorism, or (b) includes information which is likely to be understood as being useful in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism. The maximum penalty is seven years' imprisonment.

There's nothing at all in it about intent, merely authoring, distributing or possessing. It covers, among other things, novels and poetry.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 12:29 pm

You cannot be serious.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor". Does that sound fair?

I am very serious.

No it doesn't sound fair to me- who knows better than I what I should be "allowed" to read? Who is this almighty censor? Just another person or entity as far as I'm concerned, no better than I.

Have you ever heard of Loompanics? They sell books that otherwise no one would see. How to lose one's identity, how to build bombs (yes I know) extreme radical survivalism, very interesting stuff. But...I'm not skipping to Switzerland, not blowing anything/one up and not pulling a Waco either. I just find these topics of interest as many others do. The last thing I want is for some yahoo to decide that it is in my best interest for me not to be able to read books such as those. I know the argument, tht some crackpot can get hold of one and build a bomb or whatever. But...that same crackpot need only talk around to the right people and find out that same information.

I feel if you're going to have freedom to read, it's not freedom if there is any kind of disallowance attached to it. So yes I am very serious.

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:24 pm

RedGlitter;984579 wrote: I feel if you're going to have freedom to read, it's not freedom if there is any kind of disallowance attached to it. So yes I am very serious.So, terrorism doesn't ring your bells. I'll design a novel for the thread which stands more of a chance, then, and you tell me whether the author should be prosecuted for writing it and whether distribution should be legal or not.

Someone writes a fictional novel - we can even guarantee it's fictional because he sets it on Mars. The vocabulary is designed for reading by an age range of 6 to 8 year olds. The plot demonstrates various ways in which the fictional children in that age group both initiate and respond to sexual excitement in other children and in adults of their acquaintance and portrays the outcome of these encounters as invariably pleasurable for the children concerned. Reading the book is quite likely, in the opinion of experts in child psychology, to affect the thinking and behaviour of a child of that age. There's no suggestion or evidence that the author has ever practised what he's written about.

Should anyone be taken to court? Should the novel be distributed?

What if the vocabulary were aimed at 12-14 year olds and the encounters described were with dogs?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:28 pm

Thomas Paine is still a good book to read, for political thought during the Age of Enlightenment. Are we enlightened anymore? I remember getting banned books in the late 60s, they came in brown paper wrappers-no, they were not adult content, just very leftist views of what was the current political thought. It didn't hurt me to read them, but made me feel funny that they had to be obtained in that way.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:17 pm

I just lost four paragraphs! Arrgh!

Those kinds of books already exist on the literary underground.

No, I don't think anyone should go to court for the simple reason we can't all agree on what is obscene. If we ban the bestiality/kid books then what's next? That book on how to commit suicide? ee cummings' poems? Bukowski? A book speaking ill of my president or your queen?

While I wouldn't want kids to read them (or adults either) I would hope those kids have parents who can handle that. I dont need to.

It's not that I support disgusting mentally defective smut, it's that I don't support others doing my thinking for me. I can decide for myself what is acceptable to read and what isn't, not anyone else.

Voltaire always gets credit for his famous saying but it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who summed up his sentiment in the paraphrase "I disapprove of what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I agree with this.

Accountable's signature is "I take freedom warts and all." That's how I feel about this issue. In order to protect your and my right to read anything we please, we have to protect all- even the ones that sicken us.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:28 pm

chonsigirl;984809 wrote: Thomas Paine is still a good book to read, for political thought during the Age of Enlightenment. Are we enlightened anymore? I remember getting banned books in the late 60s, they came in brown paper wrappers-no, they were not adult content, just very leftist views of what was the current political thought. It didn't hurt me to read them, but made me feel funny that they had to be obtained in that way.

That makes me think of something Chonsi. If those books were banned in the 60s for being leftist, something that was considered inappropriate then, could Bush's current anti-terrorism clause be considered in the same vein? As an example of what I mean (and not to turn this into an animal rigths thread) BushCo considers animal liberationists and whatever they consider (see there's that danger zone again- whatever they consider) "radical activism" to be "terrorism." Which is punishable under that clause. What if they also decided that reading books about building bombs is terrorism. I had a book that went into some instruction on how it's done (watch govt agents show up at my door now) and it also talked about how they'd been made through the years. For instance did you know that prisoners used to scrape the red pigment off playing cards because when mixed with something else it would make an explosive? I thought that was pretty interesting but I've no desire to build bombs or blow someone up with the Queen of Hearts. I just owned a book on how to do it. But I'm rambling- I was also going to say what if they also decided that peaceful demonstration against the government was a form of terrorism or dissimilation? That might be another thread though?

Post by **spot** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:15 pm

Authoring or distributing any of the category of books I've described could result in jail time in England, there's something of a dissonance between your view of unimpaired liberty and the Western knee-jerk tabloid reactions which have led to these assorted acts of Parliament.

"I would hope those kids have parents who can handle that" is obviously inadequate. The material I described deliberately advocates the sexualization of children directly to children, the first a parent knows about what's been done is after it's been done. You'd leave parents to cope with the damage rather than criminalize the distributor. One policy allows the damage to be done legally, the other doesn't. This isn't a matter of books you'd prefer not to read but defend another's right to, it's about tools designed to be given to children to modify their behaviour. It has nothing to do with "bestiality/kid books" or books on how to commit suicide or ee cummings' poems or Bukowski, none of that falls into the category I describe and you have absolutely no justification for saying that criminalizing the one could even possibly lead to criminalizing the other.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:30 am

Oh but I believe I do. One person's idea of obscenity is another person's idea of acceptability. Take a look at the art world for reference.There are a number of things that can alter a child's behavior that go on today. I'm not willing to endanger the right to write and read what one wants to because somebody's kid might see it.Those same kids will grow up soon enough and I'd like them to live in a world free of literary censoring.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:53 am

Red's right. My gov't has no right telling me what I can or cannot read; therefore it has no right telling any citizen what they can or cannot read.

See, here's the neat thing about books in the US.

They are written by private citizens, who can choose not to write about a subject they find offensive.

They are published by private companies, who are not obligated to publish anything they find offensive or that they think will not sell well.

They are distributed by private companies, who are not obligated to distribute anything they find offensive or that they think will not sell well.

They are sold by privately owned and run book stores, who choose what to offer to their customers and who would never jeopardize their profits by angering or alienating them.

Finally, they are provided to the public by public libraries, who, while required to provide as wide a variety of books as possible, cannot display books that have not been published or distributed. Also, they categorize books and place them in separate parts of the library, so that children will be less likely to pick up a book on the sexual exploits of martians.

The natural filter is in place. No additional bureaucratic nanny needed, thank you.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:46 am

chonsigirl;984809 wrote: Thomas Paine is still a good book to read, for political thought during the Age of Enlightenment. Are we enlightened anymore? I remember getting banned books in the late 60s, they came in brown paper wrappers-no, they were not adult content, just very leftist views of what was the current political thought. It didn't hurt me to read them, but made me feel funny that they had to be obtained in that way.

What books were they? if you don't mind my asking.

TheNewDG · Post by **TheNewDG** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:10 pm

qsducks;984463 wrote: Sarah Palin is all for banning books not considered good enough according to her religion.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

False.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:44 pm

gmc;985573 wrote: What books were they? if you don't mind my asking.
Not sure about Chonsi's books, but this might spark your interest:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:59 pm

RedGlitter;984969 wrote: Oh but I believe I do. One person's idea of obscenity is another person's idea of acceptability. Take a look at the art world for reference.There are a number of things that can alter a child's behavior that go on today. I'm not willing to endanger the right to write and read what one wants to because somebody's kid might see it.Those same kids will grow up soon enough and I'd like them to live in a world free of literary censoring.

This is all in a pattern of intransigence, it's not a discussion in the slightest. Every single conversation has the format "I think X", well what about A then? "I think X", and how does B influence that decision, "I think X", and has C any impact? "I think X" where X has stayed unchanged from start to finish leaving A, B and C uncriticized and unexplored. What's worse, you probably think it's a sign of strength. What it's informing me about is the propagandist glorification of The State, the impossibility of there being anything debatable in the Bill of Rights, the conviction that the US political system is the best on the planet and I've heard it a hundred times in a hundred ways since I started posting here.

Let me ratchet the thread a little tighter.

An anti-war protester writes and publishes a book-length non-fiction analysis of the underpinning of morale among the armed forces. It's based, he concludes, on the safety and prosperity of the Homeland compared to the landfill lives of the people they've been sent out to quell and intimidate. As a demonstration, he includes a data CD inside the book's cover containing 100,000 addresses (no names, no personal data, just addresses) at each of which resides the mother of a serving member of the armed forces. There you are, he says in his final chapter. If you don't like war put a shot through the lit windows of each of those addresses you pass and see how quickly morale drains.

"Pot a Mom for Peace" activism takes off in a big way with 400 mothers buried in the first three months. What really annoys the hell out of the troops, though, is that the average sale price of the properties listed on the CD drops $10,000 compared to other similar properties and stays depressed. That's a billion dollars of uninsured family equity destroyed.

My initial post here claimed that "The censor of books, in modern day life, is most often the courtroom. I could list you at least six broad topics where you'd find it hard to criticize sending the author and possessor to jail for writing or possessing written words covered by those topics" and again, in England that book I've described would result in jail time for the author, distributor and possessor of the book.. Would you have censored publication that way too?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:15 am

Accountable;985829 wrote: Not sure about Chonsi's books, but this might spark your interest:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html

It does thanks. But I was curious to see what books were considered left wing in the sixties in america. You still seem to have an on going conflict with religious groups trying to ban access to some types of book. (is it true they tried to ban harry potter) is thomas pane the age of reason still banned and as for the fuss over tinkie winkie in the teletubbies! That kept our newsreaders amused for a whole week.

Once upon a time advocating one man one vote was a radical idea.

posted by spot

My initial post here claimed that "The censor of books, in modern day life, is most often the courtroom. I could list you at least six broad topics where you'd find it hard to criticize sending the author and possessor to jail for writing or possessing written words covered by those topics." and again, in England that book I've described would result in jail time for the author, distributor and possessor of the book.. Would you have censored publication that way too?

We've developed a court system over the years to act as a check on those who would impose their ill on others. At least it goes to court and the matter gets discussed in the open. We still have obscenity laws and blasphemy laws they just can't ran it down out throats, attitudes change wearing a mini skirt would have got you arrested in victorian times, on the other hand beating your wife wouldn't.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:05 am

gmc;986083 wrote: It does thanks. But I was curious to see what books were considered left wing in the sixties in america. You still seem to have an on going conflict with religious groups trying to ban access to some types of book. (is it true they tried to ban harry potter) is thomas pane the age of reason still banned and as for the fuss over tinkie winkie in the teletubbies! That kept our newsreaders amused for a whole week.

Once upon a time advocating one man one vote was a radical idea.I'm not telling you anything you don't know when I point out that a thing doesn't have to be widespread or popular to get widespread cover in the popular media. It only has to be odd. We were having a great time laughing about the teletubbies "scandal" ourselves.

gmc wrote: We've developed a court system over the years to act as a check on those who would impose their ill on others. Freudian typo?

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:40 am

Accountable;986104 wrote: I'm not telling you anything you don't know when I point out that a thing doesn't have to be widespread or popular to get widespread cover in the popular media. It only has to be odd. We were having a great time laughing about the teletubbies "scandal" ourselves.

Freudian typo?

so true. I wish more people would remember that!

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:06 pm

Summary so far: authors of books designed to glorify terrorism among religious fundamentalists weren't considered criminal enough to prosecute, authors of books designed to persuade children to initiate sexual encounters weren't considered criminal enough to prosecute, we didn't get an answer on the Pot a Mom for Peace author's protection from censorship and I've three more areas which need "no, the Bill of Rights protects these authors from prosecution and that's a good thing" echoing to them.

Any explanation of why these authors should be protected from prosecution on the grounds that they've an unfettered right to exercise free speech would be gratefully received. In each case so far, the people damaged by publication have no means of redress against the author. None of them can individually prove beyond reasonable doubt that their loss was a direct consequence of the author's publication. There's nevertheless harm resulted from the author publishing. The immunity to cause such harm to other people worries me. The harm in each of these scenarios is real, not notional.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:06 am

spot;986943 wrote: Summary so far: authors of books designed to glorify terrorism among religious fundamentalists weren't considered criminal enough to prosecute, authors of books designed to persuade children to initiate sexual encounters weren't considered criminal enough to prosecute, we didn't get an answer on the Pot a Mom for Peace author's protection from censorship and I've three more areas which need "no, the Bill of Rights protects these authors from prosecution and that's a good thing" echoing to them.

Any explanation of why these authors should be protected from prosecution on the grounds that they've an unfettered right to exercise free speech would be gratefully received. In each case so far, the people damaged by publication have no means of redress against the author. None of them can individually prove beyond reasonable doubt that their loss was a direct consequence of the author's publication. There's nevertheless harm resulted from the author publishing. The immunity to cause such harm to other people worries me. The harm in each of these scenarios is real, not notional.
You can censor whomever you wish in your country. We choose not to in ours. The freedom itself is justification for that. It's that important to us. It's sad that it's not that important to you, but it's a big world and we can both have our way.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:56 am

Accountable;987005 wrote: You can censor whomever you wish in your country. We choose not to in ours. The freedom itself is justification for that. It's that important to us. It's sad that it's not that important to you, but it's a big world and we can both have our way.

Oh yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... by_country

According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, the United States is currently ranked 48th in the world in terms of press freedom.[1] Certain forms of speech, such as obscenity and defamation, are restricted in major media outlets by the government or by the industry on its own. However, in general freedom of speech is considered an integral American value, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States constitution.

You must admit you have had a few episodes in your past-(like the mccarthy era) where speech was anything but free. Also during the vietnam war you had armed troops opening fire on demonstrators, sometimes you can have all the trappings but none of the reality. Free speech is something you need to hang on to.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:00 pm

gmc;987042 wrote: Oh yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... by_country

You must admit you have had a few episodes in your past-(like the mccarthy era) where speech was anything but free. Also during the vietnam war you had armed troops opening fire on demonstrators, sometimes you can have all the trappings but none of the reality. Free speech is something you need to hang on to.
Agreed. I wonder what the breakdown is of bannings by the government vs by the industry on its own. I would expect - you can use 'hope' if you like - that the industry holds the lion's share of responsibility. If the industry - a very diverse group of competitive corporations - does not publish a submission, is it still considered a ban?? There's a lot of crappy writing that doesn't get published because it's crap.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:28 pm

What would you do about self-publication?

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:39 pm

chonsigirl;988310 wrote: What would you do about self-publication?

Censorship laws have always been prepared to jail the author, the publisher, the distributor and (depending on the offence) the purchaser.

Did you know it's illegal in the USA to ask if any portion of a product originates in Israel? It's called the forbidden question. If you're asked the forbidden question and don't tell the government you were asked it then you've broken the law as well. That sounds pretty censorish to me.

This is still on the statute books in the US too - it's part of The Alien Registration Act which makes it a criminal offence for anyone to "knowingly or wilfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association". Does that sounds censorish?

The first two examples I gave - the ones where everyone jumped up and down and said of course people should be free to say those things - they're illegal in the US as incitement to criminal activity. Writing or publishing in either of those instances can get people jailed in the USA.

Nobody wants to tackle the third example?

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:36 am

Quote:

According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, the United States is currently ranked 48th in the world in terms of press freedom.[1] Certain forms of speech, such as obscenity and defamation, are restricted in major media outlets by the government or by the industry on its own. However, in general freedom of speech is considered an integral American value, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States constitution.

well, that's talking about the press, of course they wouldn't use profanity or defamation in their stories.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:23 am

sunny104;988756 wrote: Quote:

According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, the United States is currently ranked 48th in the world in terms of press freedom.[1] Certain forms of speech, such as obscenity and defamation, are restricted in major media outlets by the government or by the industry on its own. However, in general freedom of speech is considered an integral American value, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States constitution.

well, that's talking about the press, of course they wouldn't use profanity or defamation in their stories.

Or tell lies

-no that's not right, make things up, not give all the facts:( no that's not right either-report the truth as they know it for the benefit of their readers and sometimes they do get it wrong. There you are quality bullshit, Maybe I should be reporter-or a politician.