Top Banned Books of 2003 1033
michaelzhao writes "The ALA (American Library Association) recently published the new 100 most frequently banned books list of 2003.
Of the banned books, Harry Potter was in the number 7th place in the most frequently banned. Also included were 'Where's Waldo' and 'The Giver' along with 'Goosebumps' and 'How to Eat Fried Worms.' These books were banned from various public institutions. This means that they were banned from various public libraries and public schools around the nation. (private schools, libraries, and institutions of higher learning don't count) The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!"
2003? Recent? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:2003? Recent? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Waldo (Score:5, Informative)
Good U Penn Article (Score:5, Informative)
Not a list, but has a good portion of the books and actually gives inciteful commentary.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So sad..... (Score:2, Informative)
2003? (Score:2, Informative)
"The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-2000"
I know late stories go up sometimes and sometimes
Re:So What? (Score:1, Informative)
She isn't. Try 76.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Informative)
Or was it something you heard....
Maybe like http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm
That sort of stuff eh?
The simple fact that the Potter books are *counter* to some pretty fundamental Wicca principles is the other give away.
Still... what about them Swift Boat Vets eh? And are you interested in this bridge I have for sale?
Not really "banned" just "challenged" (Score:1, Informative)
Of course, nothing will substitute for good parenting. Parents should keep certain materials away from their children until they can understand it. If parents don't do their jobs, some one else will -- and those people won't exactly share your same values.
BTW, the link goes to the 1990-2000 list, where's the 2003 list?
Re:What books get banned over seas? (Score:5, Informative)
Nevertheless, even if it is no ban, you are not allowed to make works available to children that are rated as unsuitable for them. This is true for all kind of media, from books to movies, music or computer games. Except when it comes to violence in computer games, this ratings usually make sense (you don't want your kids to see a porn movie, do you?), but it can be quite a hassle nevertheless, because you can't just deliver them with standard mail, you are not allowed to do any advertisement that kids could see and so on.
Bottom line is: If someone here would call for a ban on works like Huck Finn, Harry Potter or "The Catcher in the Rye" he woud get laughed at from 95% of the society, but 50-70% would agree to a ban on Doom3....
Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Informative)
Shows how closely you've read the books. While the White Witch might use "deep magic from the dawn of time" for evil, Aslan (the pathetically transparent allegorical version of Jesus) defeats her using what is referred to as "deeper magic from before the dawn of time". In fact, throughout the books, pretty much anything that's intended as allegory for divine miracle is referred to as "magic."
Re:banning (Score:4, Informative)
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made in a thread the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is considered to have lost the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's Law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.
Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
Godwin's Law is named after Mike Godwin, who was legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in the early 1990s, when the law was first popularized. Richard Sexton maintains that the law is a formalization of his October 16, 1989 post
You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the participents [sic] drags out Hitler and the Nazis.
Strictly speaking, however, this is not so, since the actual text of Godwin's Law does not state that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion "old," or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a discussion is over.
Finding the meme of Nazi comparisons on Usenet illogical and offensive, Godwin established the law as a counter-meme. The law's memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as "old"), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.
Many people have extended Godwin's Law to imply that the invoking of the Nazis as a debating tactic (in any argument not directly related to World War II or the Holocaust) automatically loses the argument, simply because these events were so horrible that any comparison to any event less serious than genocide or extinction is invalid and in poor taste.
Various additions and addenda to Godwin's Law have been proposed by Internet users, though the original reference to Nazis remains the most popular. Addenda to the law include:
Gordon's Restatement of Newman's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is the primordial net.news discussion topic. Any time the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.
Morgan's Corollary to Godwin's Law:
As soon as such a comparison occurs, someone will start a Nazi-discussion thread on alt.censorship.
Sircar's Corollary:
If the Usenet discussion touches on homosexuality or Heinlein, Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days.
Case's Corollary:
If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
Van der Leun's Corollary:
As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches one.
Miller's Paradox:
As a network evolves, the number of Nazi comparisons not forestalled by citation to Godwin's Law converges to zero.
Enki's Corollary:
As an online discussion involving law grows, the probability of someone making a comparison involving the McDonald's coffee lawsuit approaches one.
NialScorva's Law:
Given enough time, all legal battles in the tech industry will invoke the DMCA.
Freiler's Maxim:
Those that incorrectly invoke Godwin as proof that they have won the debate have in fact run out of relevant points to make, and have, by invoking Godwin, admitted defeat.
Re:Absurd! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Waldo (Score:2, Informative)
It's not a "banned" list, it's a "challenged" list; books the libraries included on their collection (presumably by some previously-crafted policy) and that someone got their panties in a bunch about.
Slightly off-topic, but speaking of censorship (Score:1, Informative)
Page Source (Score:3, Informative)
03. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
05. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
06. Of Mice and Men
13. The Catcher in the Rye
22. A Wrinkle in Time
41. To Kill a Mockingbird
69. Slaughterhouse-Five
70. Lord of the Flies
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
There is some dissent however, in the source code of the page the first 22 books are marked-up as <strong>, while the last 78 are just <b>.
Maybe their proofreading department is flawed.
Re:That's a tad harsh. (Score:5, Informative)
Um, no. The ALA doesn't call these books "banned." They use the word "challenged," as in somebody somewhere was challenged for shelving this book.
They use the word "banned" to describe books that were actually, you know, banned.
The fault here, as usual, likes with the idiot submitter for using the word "banned" to refer to books that the ALA calls "challenged," and even more so with the idiot editor who didn't bother to check and correct the submission.
Re:So What? - Insulting (Score:2, Informative)
The last few decades of biological and psychological research has shown that homosexuality is, in fact, natural and innate. Some people are born with that orientation. And not just in humans.
Rotten.com has an article on animal homosexuality here [rotten.com] that you might find enlightening.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about "Unfit for Command" (Score:2, Informative)
The New Soldier [blogspot.com]
For some strange reason, Kerry does not really want us to read this book...
Oh well, information wants to be free and all that.
I can still do this until the INDUCE act gets passed.
These files are in PDF format:
Here is the Intro [nomayo.mu.nu]
Here is the Main Section [nomayo.mu.nu]
Here is the Epilogue [nomayo.mu.nu]
Here is the Pics [he.net]
When moderation time comes around, we will see who supports "banning" books.
Doubtless, there will be whiny replies of "But you are infringing this poor mans copyright!! You deserve to be modded down!!"
Yawn.
Re:So What? (Score:3, Informative)
The easy answer is that it contains multiple uses of the "N" word.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:banning (Score:4, Informative)
It is impossible to violate Godwin's law, except with an infintely long thread that does not mention Nazis.
Re:Pft, whimpy stuff (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So What? - Insulting (Score:1, Informative)
and, to reiterate another poster, there is also NO research pointing to gene sequences saying "it's this gene sequence that makes you homosexual".
and innate?? give me a BREAK!!! I have NO desire to tup another guys arse, or him mine, or suck a schlong, or him mine
NOT WWII (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Judy Blume? (Score:4, Informative)
Basically her books are about young adults that are normal and trying to adjust to their new hormones and bodies. I think its harmless and interesting stuff to your average pre-teen. But I could see how religious institutions might say that feeling these feelings is sinful. I can see her on the list before Harry Potter. But then again, the existence of this list is crap.
Newer list (2003) (Score:5, Informative)
The following books were the most frequently challenged in 2003:
1. Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group.
2. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
3. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
4. "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
5. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
6. "Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
8. "We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
9. "King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
10. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.
Consider buying these books and donating them places where children can get them (schools, after school programs, librarys).
Re:Why Harry? (Score:4, Informative)
It would be disturbing if that were what this list is, but it isn't. It's actually a list of books that people are trying to ban, not a list of the ones they've succeeded in banning, and part of the way that a book gets onto the list is by being so widely used that there are many opportunities to challenge it. It's also important to remember that the list is based on fewer than 7000 challenges over a 10 year span, so a book can make the top 100 if it was challenged fewer than 10 times per year in the whole country.
Re:Waldo (Score:3, Informative)
Here's [edchange.org] the same list with explanations.
Re:topless sunbather (Score:4, Informative)
another funny thing is that if you take a map of holland, and mark tiny red dots for every teenage pregnancy, you'll find a couple of big red blobs right in the areas where we still have some really, REALLY religious folks hanging out. the kind that refuses to take polio shots...or teach their kids about safe sex, or even the subject "sex" at all. imo this mindset is fighting a losing battle. kids these days have all the information they could ever want right at their fingertips. tv, internet, you name it. either parents adapt to this, and steer their kids in the right direction instead of simply saying "you're not allowed", or they'll utterly fail.
Re:Why Harry? (Score:1, Informative)
I do not necessarily think putting the 2 together is a good idea, but this explains why Muslems see nothing wrong with schools being religious schools.
Re:Judy Blume? (Score:3, Informative)
Here are some examples of why insane reactionaries don't like her:
"Are you there God, its me Margaret" - 13 year old girl worries that her breasts aren't big enough and wants to get her period so she'll feel like a "grown up"
"Then again, maybe I won't" - 13ish boy has wet dreams (which make him feel guilty and dirty) and watches a neighbor girl get undressed in front of her window
"Flubber" - young teenagers pick on a girl and call her names
"Deenie" - 14 year old girl masturbates, which makes her feel guilty and dirty, until she is told in a sex ed class that it's normal and will not make her blind or a cripple. (The masturbation scene is NOT explicit and goes something like, "I rub myself with a washcloth until I get a special feeling").
Re:2003? Recent? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challe
Re:Guttenberg links (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What do we do, then? (Score:2, Informative)
Ah, okay. That depends on the school or library's specific policy to handle challenges. They should have one. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask your school librarian if they have a policy and what it is, and if they do not have one, suggest that one be written.
An example using one procedure I've seen starts with a meeting between the challenging party, an administrator, and a librarian to discuss the issue, or the English teacher if it's an assigned book. If no satisfactory conclusion is reached informally, the challenging party is given a specific form to fill out that asks them to state their objections and give examples. That form and the book are then read and evaluated by a panel composed of both school representatives and parents drawn from the district. The panel may hear comments from both the challengers and the librarian/teacher. They then make a decision on whether the book should be removed, retained, restricted, etc. Some policies involve the panel making a recommendation rather than a decision and the school board deciding the issue.
Now keep in mind that if a book is removed or retained, that isn't necessarily the end of the line. For some it is, but other decisions have been challenged in a court of law.
Examples of cases:
Stevana Case, et. al., vs. Unified School District no. 233: Students and parents sued the school district of Olathe, KS after the superintendant and school board removed the book Annie on My Mind from the libraries in violation of the policies for such action. A judge ordered them returned to the shelves. (I believe this was filed in 1994 and decided a few years later.)
Pico, et. al. vs. Board of Education, Island Trees (NY) Union Free School District: A plurality of the Supreme Court ruled that books removed by the school board should be returned. They said books cannot be removed "simply because they dislike the ideas contained" in them, thereby "[p]rescribing what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." Books can be removed for not meeting educational suitability requirements. There was also more in the decision about discretion in curriculum for transmitting community values balanced against the school library as a center for free inquiry. I believe this one is from 1982, and it's pretty much considered the biggie for librarians.
Whew. I'm hoping that helped?