Happy Banned Books Week!

Yep, Brudder, advocating free speech is real evil of me, ain't it?

You only advocate free speech that agrees with you, asshole.

Brudder: Please elaborate.

Telling people how they're being stupid/bigoted/just plain wrong doesn't equate to telling them to shut up, though that's a common misconception - it's right up there with the "you oppose my anti-gay legislation so you are treading on MY rights."

I fully support the right of my opponents to speak, because it gives me the pleasure of poking holes in their arguments. 'Tis the whole reason for Wordforge's existence.

And calling each other ghey.

Btw, using 'Tis is ghey.

'Tis not.

*scratches Mewa's name down as nominee for 2007's Mr. Obvious Award*

No, but books are banned regularly at public schools every year, pulling them from the library and classroom simply because someone's terrified of bastardized Latin in a book about kid wizards or a girl having to come to terms with the fact that she's got breasts.

The sad fact is, we've got people out there saying that Of Mice and Men "should be burned up, put in a fire. . . . It's not fit for a heathen to read." There are organizations actively attempting to ban books in the school system despite the fact that the vast majority of the country doesn't give a shit about them being there.

It really is a great book. If anything, it is probably the biggest indictment of 80s excess I've ever seen. Far too often, we get very nostalgic about time periods without really remembering how terrible things are in other departments.

I'm a huge fan of music from the 80s, but even I will recognize that, aside from that, the decade really didn't showcase humanity in the best light.

Kid got a new button from school today, "I Read Banned Books".

I gave a nice copy of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn to my niece for her birthday this year.

How about burned books?

Harry Potter, All Quiet On The Western Front, Peyton Place, what else?

Cute. That's just the sort of wordsmithing that idiots use to get some book they're terrified of out of their schools.

"We're not banning the book, we're just making sure our kids can't read it!"

You appear to be confusing banning books, which is most definitely a piecemeal, by situation sort of affair that, while often done by governments carries no legal force behind it; and censorship, which is creating a law or regulation to prevent or discontinue the spread of some form of communication.

Now, don't get me wrong, a book can be banned via censorship. But it is certainly not a requirement, and, quite frankly, is the exception rather than the rule nowadays throughout the entirety of the first world.

^^^
All true. But the point is, the expression "BANNED BOOKS!!!" (oh teh noes!) is deliberately inflamatory and misleading. ESPECIALLY when such lists steadfastly ignore the objections to book with Christian content (I recall a case in which a teacher with a classroom library was forced to remover the Bible and "The Life of Christ in Pictures" yet allowed to retain similar books on Buddism, Hinduism, and Native American religions...and the ALA was NOT in an uproar about it).

Like so many other things, this list is an attempt to push an agenda while disguising it in the robes of a Righteous cause.

ALL libraries (except LoC) have selective inventories and judgement calls are made regarding what is shelved and what isn't.

Now, I'm certainly in agreement that there has been a lot of bad judgement in these decissions (bad judgement in publc schools - what are the odds? ) - but given the shere number of libraries, and of potential titles to stock, it's hardly shocking that n occasional incident of over-reaction, lack of balls, or simple bad judgement would arise.

The bottom line is:

a. "Banned books!!" is a purposely inflamitory description
b. the propogator of this list is no less agenda driven than those who object to a given title
c. censorship, in regards to children, is not by definition a bad thing. Else we would have Hustler on the magazine rack at your local elementary schoool.
d. once again people living in a VERY free country go bonkers over something that is a LONG way from a loss of freedom, even at it's worst.

buncha over nothing major.

Oh! Duh! Spinoza!
The Catholics burned his shit, and put a fatwa out on him.

Hustler on a magazine rack in school would be the most popular reading assignment EVAR.

1. "Banned Books Week" certainly is inflammatory, because it deals with an inflammable subject - i.e. books. We are in a constant war between the forces of reason vs. the forces of ignorance, and I agree with the sentiment expressed by Professor Henry Jones Senior: "It tells me, that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try *reading* books instead of *burning* them!" (Not you Shadow, but the propagators of Ignorance.)

2. Hell yes, I have an agenda. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. I don't hold with the idea that knowledge is a sin.

3. Long way between Harry Potter and Hustler. Unfortunately. There's some hot wizardesses in the Potterverse.

4. I know that people will accept any number of restrictions on their freedom, particularly in order to feel "safe" - from terrorists, from evahl Satanic Wizards, from teh gays...I, however, am not one of them. Give up a little freedom here and a little freedom there, and soon you're talking about real tyranny.

phantom why havent more folk protest dune main character is viewed by imperials as mad man of the desert who hides in caves and organizes indiginous population to revolt.

And his son becomes a tyrannical 1,000 year old sandworm!

Removing books from a place of learning is probably as perverse as you can get.

Nevertheless, it is not effective censorship, and I suppose there is a danger of cheapening the serious crime of book banning by including schools that are frightened of teaching literature.

And then there are the prequels!

*Nose in the air* Those never happened.

Not saying you do, or that i disagree with you...I'm just pointing out that the people making the list chose which titles to notice and which to ignore based on their politics.

Do you REALLY think the ALA is up in arms that anyone would object to a book that in any way propogated the Christian religion? You never see a book like that on their list and yet such protests happen all the time.

I'm not arguing against maximizing knowledge, on the contrary I stand right with you there (and disagree with the folks who protest most of these books)...I'm saying that I'm not gonna be a sucker for anyone's "urgent press release" trumpeting some mortal danger that, oh by the way, THEY stand ready to fix.

It's propoganda.

One can easily agree that more knowledge is a good thing and also at the same time recognize that there is an ongoing honest discussion of what is age-appropriate. Just because some bozo objects to Captain Underpants (who, I promise you, only made the list for shock value, not becuase there is national outrage about the content of those books) does NOT invalidate the whole discussion of WHEN it is appropriate to expose a chid to a given bit of information.

What the ALA proports to be defending is "put it all out there, let anyone of any age read anything they want"...that sounds noble until you start asking themabout specific works and whether or not they would give them to their own child to read.

I really shouldn't have gotten into this thread - it's too serious for me to bother with...but I could not help noting the irony of those (in the organization, not here) who prop themselves up as defenders of truth deliberately propoganizing and scandalizing to manipulate there audience's view.

A: And plugging your ears and saying "Books aren't banned in America!" and trying to bend the term into something it is not is just as inflammitory.

B: That may be true, but the fact is, those books were banned in various locations. It's not like they just made it up.

C: The issue becomes what is child-appropriate. Unfortunately, that definition differs wildly - I'd bet that there are in fact a good deal of parents out there who would not have a problem with having Hustler in the elementary library. Instead of simply telling the school that they don't want their kid reading, checking out, working on, etc.ing a book, it has become popular to tell the school that they don't want any kid even so much as seeing the cover of whatever crap they don't like, and it falls on both sides of the political fence. The fact is, twenty nine kids who have parents who have no problem with a unit on Of Mice and Men should not be punished just because the parents of the thirtieth kid is afraid of their child talking like a migrant worker. Banning books in schools and libraries is one of the very few instances in this country where the minority rules, mostly because everyone is so fucking scared of lawsuits.

Schools should have to only provide alternate assignments. They should only have to limit book checkouts to the children of the concerned parents. The rest of the kids shouldn't be banned from reading about Jesus or Lesbians just because a couple parents have a superiority complex.

D: On the contrary, it's a very big deal. Just because you don't think it is doesn't make it so.