Book banning

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 84
Topic's author
#1
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
A few bans of books draws attention to the First Amendment:

In Nashville, TN a school pastor of St. Edward School banned the entire Harry Potter series from the library because, “The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text.”[1] Forgive my raised eyebrows, because we might also inquire if by utterance of prayer, “human beings risk conjuring[heavenly] spirits into the presence of the person[praying]?” One might suggest goose and gander? One might suggest one’s evil is another’s good? And who, after all, has been assigned the task of moral jurisprudence but each of us, individually? We cite freedom of religion, and that also implies the choice of an individual to be free from religion, at least in its traditional context, which may not, I suggest, ban practitioners of witchcraft.

Further, To Kill a Mockingbird[Harper Lee] was suggested by removed from school libraries and classroom curricula due to its use of language that is now considered non-politically correct[2] [remind me when Congress officially passed legislation defining specifically excluded words from our vocabulary - No, what you're thinking of was not an act of Congress, but a matter of policy by the FCC], and words which incite racial hatred [and tell me when Congress passed legislation defining our inability to engage self-control; to resist being incited to uncivil action] based on what someone else says.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn[Mark Twain] should be banned for the same reason as Mockingbird.[3]

Of Mice and Men[John Steinbeck] due to profanity.[4]

Are we to ban the Holy Bible, the Q’ran, the Torah, or other Holy Writ for much the same reasons?

Are we to ban Jack and Jill for offending others whose proclivities to 26 other genders do not include M & F?

Why don’t we ban The Green New Deal because it discriminates against other natural, organic colors?

Shall we ban the Communist Manifesto because it misinterprets what bourgeois means?

#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
I can accept that there are certain books that should be banned. For example if it calls for violence against a specific group (like exterminating the jews for example). That kind of thing crosses a line that I don't think we need to allow. 

but short of that, i would pretty much agree with what I assume your point is, that we shouldn't ban books just because we don't like their content. 
Topic's author
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
in other words, you cannot handle being offended. That is a weak position.
#4
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
in other words, you cannot handle being offended. That is a weak position.
that is, in no way, a response to what i said. I said we shouldn't ban books because we disagree with them. We should ban them if they cross a serious line, like calling for violence. 

#5
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
No. No censorship of ideas. Bad HistoryBuff! Bad! 
#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
For example if it calls for violence against a specific group (like exterminating the jews for example). That kind of thing crosses a line that I don't think we need to allow. 
The Bible calls for violence against unbelievers.  Shall we ban the Bible?

The Declaration of Independence calls for violence against the British.  Shall we ban the Declaration of Independence?
#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@oromagi
The Bible calls for violence against unbelievers.  Shall we ban the Bible?
I would say religious books are in their own category separate from regular books.

The Declaration of Independence calls for violence against the British.  Shall we ban the Declaration of Independence?
that's not a book. Also, it primarily calls for an independent government. It does not call for wantonly killing british people. The example I used was books calling for the extermination of jewish people. 
Topic's author
#8
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I can accept that there are certain books that should be banned. 

we shouldn't ban books just because we don't like their content. 
Would you like to take another look at these two comments you entered in the same post #2 
#9
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
r there banned books in China?
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Would you like to take another look at these two comments you entered in the same post #2 
are you a little slow? i was quite explicit that the line is calling for violence. That isn't "content we don't like". That is content calling for crimes. 

#11
Lit
Lit's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 58
0
1
4
Lit's avatar
Lit
0
1
4
I don't think there's any reason for banning books considering man is good.
#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
The Bible calls for violence against unbelievers.  Shall we ban the Bible?
And it also calls for violence against adulterers.
Topic's author
#13
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
That isn't "content we don't like". That is content calling for crimes. 
Now that is slow. You like content calling for violence? You're trying so hard to make your point, you argue against it.
Topic's author
#14
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff

OED: violence: "The deliberate exercise of physical force against a person, property, etc.; physically violent behaviour or treatment; (Law) the unlawful exercise of physical force, intimidation by the exhibition of such force."

The definition includes just violence against property, but, legally, violence is "the unlawful exercise..." 

So, legally, I can conduce all manner of mayhem against my own property, and, as long as that force is not unlawful, I can do it all day long, into the night. Should a story about such an act be banned? Got to know what your words mean. Got to know their history, too, because it was not always so. So, how's that history, buff?
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,900
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
r there banned books in China?

How could you know?
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Now that is slow. You like content calling for violence? You're trying so hard to make your point, you argue against it.
you aren't making any sense. I'm saying calling for violence is an order of magnitude greater of an issue. It has nothing to do with whether someone likes it or not. 

The definition includes just violence against property, but, legally, violence is "the unlawful exercise..." 
now you are just willfully misrepresenting what I said. I said things like calling for the extermination of the jews should be grounds for banning, you responded with some bullshit about property damage.

If you have no intention of actually discussing something, why bother starting this thread?
#17
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I don’t, this is why I ask you guys.
#18
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,114
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn[Mark Twain] should be banned for the same reason as Mockingbird.
Huck Finn and TKAM were required for us. I actually enjoyed them. There’s no reason they should be banned. Literature is an archive of history.
Topic's author
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
why bother starting this thread?
That's my biz, yeah? You don't have to play along. Bye bye.
Topic's author
#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I entirely agree. But, there are idiots who think wiping put history destroys it. Funny thing. It always comes back to bite.
#21
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
I live in Asia. IMHO, the listed reasons for banning are often common excuses for authoritarian governments to use in order to safeguard the public's "wellbeing". I don't agree with the rise of authoritarianism where I live but there's nothing I can do about it. I don't think it's a good idea for the West to emulate the East.
#22
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
No, nothing should be banned. That's a real slippery slope, when you start with ANYTHING
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@janesix
No, nothing should be banned. That's a real slippery slope, when you start with ANYTHING
100% THIS.

(IFF) YOU START KILLING PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE YOU READ ABOUT IT IN A BOOK (THEN) YOU WERE PROBABLY JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE
Topic's author
#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Bravo. The only banning; the only censorship should be that of individual, personal choice. Why must we accept that only others can make these choices for us? As I argued with HistoryBuff, to abdicate that choice to someone else is a matter of weakness, not strength.
#25
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
why bother starting this thread?
That's my biz, yeah? You don't have to play along. Bye bye.
you started a thread asking a question, then refuse to actually engage when i gave my answer. You just intentionally misrepresent what I say and derail any potential debate. I can only assume you were either just trolling or just wanted to not actually discuss it. 
#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
No, nothing should be banned. That's a real slippery slope, when you start with ANYTHING
this is a pretty weak argument that you could make about literally anything. EX we should never allow anyone to kill anyone. So self defense, police doing their jobs etc are all criminals because if you allow someone to kill someone that is a slippery slope. 

the idea that you can't create reasonable rules because people might some day do something unreasonable is ludicrous. If you use that thinking, then we wouldn't really be able to make any rules. 
#27
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
Nope. Freedom of speech is necessary in a decent society.
#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@janesix
Nope. Freedom of speech is necessary in a decent society.
we already have limits on freedom of speech. If you tell someone you want to murder someone or commit an act of terrorism, that is conspiracy. That is a crime. We also have laws against libel and slander. 

So we already have limits on speech. So pretending like any limits on free speech is somehow "indecent" is kind of silly when we have always had limits on speech. 

Topic's author
#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
By having an attitude that there are acceptable reasons to ban books [your example: calling for violence] disregards a very important principle: You thereby attempt to censor ideas. You may not like those ideas, therefore, let's eliminate them? No. You create civil legislation that violence that results in the loss of life or property of another is illegal. Does this legislation work in 100% of cases? No. What if it only deters 10% of people? Do you decide that's not good enough, so ban the provocation of ideas? NO! What do you think democracy is? That everyone agrees with one another? That forcing everyone to think the same way is democratic? 
#30
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
 You thereby attempt to censor ideas. You may not like those ideas, therefore, let's eliminate them? No. You create civil legislation that violence that results in the loss of life or property of another is illegal.
so your argument is that calling for people to commit crimes should be fine, but only the person who commits the crime should be liable? But we already don't so that. Conspiracy to commit a crime, is itself a crime. So why would we let people put that kind of call to criminality in a book when we wouldn't let them say it on the street?