Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Books Censorship United States

'Banned Books Week' Recognizes 2016's Most-Censored Books (and Comic Books) (newsweek.com) 166

An anonymous reader quotes Newsweek: The American Library Association's yearly Banned Books Week, held this year between Sunday September 24 and Saturday September 30, is both a celebration of freedom and a warning against censorship. Launched in 1982 in response to a sudden surge in the number of challenges to books in schools, bookstores and libraries, the event spotlights the risk of censorship still present... "While books have been and continue to be banned, part of the Banned Books Week celebration is the fact that, in a majority of cases, the books have remained available. This happens only thanks to the efforts of librarians, teachers, students, and community members who stand up and speak out for the freedom to read," the ALA stated.
"This Banned Books Week, we're asking people of all political persuasions to come together and celebrate Our Right to Read," says a coalition supporting the event. The ALA reports that half of the most frequently challenged books were in fact actually banned last year, according to the library group's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), which calculates there were 17% more attempts to censor books in America in 2016. The five most-challenged books all contained LGBT characters, and the most common phrase used to complain about books is "sexually explicit," the OIF told Publisher's Weekly -- perhaps reflecting a change in targets. He believes one reason is that most challenges now are reported not for books in the library but against books in the advanced English curricula of some schools. This change also represents a shift upward in the age of the readers of the most challenged books. "We've moved from helicopter parenting, where people were hovering over their kids, to Velcro parenting," LaRue says. "There's no space at all between the hand of the parent and the head of the child. These are kids who are 16, 17; in one year they're going to be old enough to sign up for the military, get married, or vote, and their parents are still trying to protect them from content that is sexually explicit. I think that's a shift from overprotectiveness to almost suffocating."
Three of the 10 most-challenged books were graphic novels, so the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is sharing their own list of banned and challenged comics.

Their list includes two Neil Gaiman titles, Sandman and The Graveyard Book , as well two popular Batman titles -- Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Strikes Again and Alan Moore's The Killing Joke -- plus Moore's graphic novel Watchmen, Maus by Art Spiegelman, and even Amazing Spider-Man: Revelations by J. Michael Straczynski and John Romita, Jr.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Banned Books Week' Recognizes 2016's Most-Censored Books (and Comic Books)

Comments Filter:
  • Come on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jandrese ( 485 ) <kensama@vt.edu> on Sunday September 24, 2017 @09:58PM (#55256951) Homepage Journal

    Batman: The Killing Joke by Alan Moore and Brian Boland
    Reason challenged: Advocates rape and violence

    Why is it not a rule that you have to actually read the book before you ban it? Or did the censor completely miss the message of the book?

    Maus by Art Spiegelman
    Reason challenged: Anti-ethnic and unsuited for age group

    This one is from a public library so I have no idea what the problem with the age group is. It also shows another complete lack of understanding of the material.

    • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday September 25, 2017 @12:50AM (#55257415) Journal

      The summary says most of the challenges are NOT about public libraries, but about school curriculum. One example being ELEMENTARY school having kids read about a transgender child.

      So yes, "appropriate for age group" is a very valid concern - there are certainly books that are available to adults, but we shouldn't force all third and fourth graders to read them.

      Multiple books on the list were about transgender children, presenting that as normal. It could well be argued that parents shouldn't be putting their children through multiple surgeries and heavy doses of unnatural hormones to turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, in the vast majority of cases. That's the kind of thing a person ought to decide for themselves, making an informed decision when they are an adult, some would say.

      One might reasonably think that having surgeries done on your little boy to turn him into a little girl may, in many cases, be child abuse, so forcing elementary school kids to read that is normal may not be appropriate.

      I don't care to argue for or against on any of these issues, but they are certainly issues on which reasonable people may disagree. On such issues, perhaps the government schools shouldn't be forcing this stuff on grade-school kids. If you want to teach your kids that it's normal to chop off a little boys penis, you can do that, but I don't see that you have a need or a right to force that on every other family.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Shhh...you're making a valid point that is not very progressive. Who cares about what the parents want...remember that the village is always correct.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        I see your point, however, one can make the opposite argument: why should some narrow-minded parents restrict what is taught to my child, in school? And force a backwards world view? And just as the people "defending" the StormFront (daily Storm? whatever the "nazi website") used to argue here, I could use the following argument: First you censor transgender child stories, then it's same-sex marriage, then it's mixed race couples, then...
        • why should some narrow-minded parents restrict what is taught to my child, in school?

          Because you and those like you support the government's monopoly on children education. And now the same monopoly is creeping into higher education too:

          1. "Title IX" [justice.gov] lets Federal government control, what can and can not be said by the students.
          2. The recently-introduced monopoly on college-loans [redstate.com] allows the government to decide, at any moment, where the would-be students can (and can not) take spend tuition loans.
          3. Profit: thought the 1st Amendment is still, ostensibly, the law of the land, the government can already control, what the students — and their professors — are allowed to say. And teach... And read [theguardian.com]

          It happened to public schools years ago, it is happening to colleges right now.

          • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

            All you've shown is that:
            1: you don't actually comprehend what Title 9 does
            2: you don't actually comprehend how FAFSA loans work
            3: you don't actually comprehend what that article is saying

            Par for the course regarding your comments.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Pardon my ignorance but I wasn't aware this was actually happening: young children going through transition surgeries. I get that children may identify as a gender other than their birth gender, dressing in different clothes or whatever. But I'd see surgery as being in a similar to cosmetic surgery: fine once you're old enough to make that kind of informed decision.

        Is this stuff actually happening? Or just part of the moral panic? I'd like to see links if you have any.

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          It's not. At least not on any kind of a scale. Babies who are born with genital abnormalities are often operated on, which is a practice may people believe should be eliminated unless there's an actual health benefit. As far as I'm aware (and this comes up in my work occasionally), the practice in the US is not to perform gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy on children under 16-18.

      • by gsslay ( 807818 ) on Monday September 25, 2017 @06:04AM (#55258193)

        A book can be about a transgendered child (which is 'normal'. It sometimes happens, therefore it is normal) and not about surgery or administered hormones. I doubt very much that any of these children's books discuss these things at that level.

        I'm unclear why reading about this unusual, but normal, state of affairs is going to traumatise a child. Or why having it in a book is considered 'forcing it on kids', any more than the subject matter of any other book they are obliged to read is 'forced' on them.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 25, 2017 @06:30AM (#55258247)

          Transgender folks account for maybe 0.3% of the population.

          So it happens. Downs syndrome is about 0.015% - so about half as common. But it happens.

          So I suppose it depends on your definition of "normal".

          Teaching kids (and adults) to treat all people with respect and dignity is certainly laudable. And Transgender has certainly managed to become the new hot topic for social activism.

          But do we really need to specifically teach 4th graders about the issues faced by a little boy who feels that his body does not reflect his true gender identity? Is 0.3% the cutoff for teaching normalcy? Is every condition that differs from "average" in more than 0.03% of the population worthy of a specific teaching agenda?

          Homosexuality is more than 10x as prevalent, so obviously we gotta go with that. But what about people who are into fetishes? They are more common than you think:

          Here's a list from a recent study published in the "Journal of Sexual Medicine":

          Having sex with someone much younger: 18 percent women + 57 percent men
          Spanking or whipping someone "to obtain sexual pleasure": 24 percent women + 43.5 percent men
          Being spanked or whipped: 36 percent women + 28.5 percent men
          Being forced to have sex: 29 percent women + 31 percent men
          Having sex with a fetish or non-sexual object: 26 percent women + 28 percent men

          So all of these things are 100x more common than being transgender.

          And then there is this:

          Rare fantasies: Only two of the 55 sexual fantasies—sex with children and sex with animals—were found to be rare, occurring in less than 2.3 percent of the survey population.

          So sexual fantasies about animals is maybe 10x more common than Transgender. Should we teach that as "normal"?

          Maybe, I suppose. But do you teach that to a 5th grader?

          This isn't the no-brainer you think it is. Not every 5 year old that is suspected to be transgender actually turns out to be transgender. I know because we have one in our neighborhood. He was a boy until about 5. Then he was a girl for about 2 years, wearing dresses and changing his name. Now he's a boy again in the second grade.

          This stuff ain't simple.

          • by gsslay ( 807818 )

            You are attempting to equate someone's gender identity with another's sexual practices. Two entirely different things approached entirely differently.

        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          (which is 'normal'. It sometimes happens, therefore it is normal)

          Rape sometimes happens, therefore rape is normal?

          Likewise mass murder?

          Or even travel to Luna?

          • by jbengt ( 874751 )
            No, rape & mass murder don't happen, they are actions done by people. Being born as you are happens, you have no control over it, you don't do it.
        • by Yosho ( 135835 ) on Monday September 25, 2017 @11:11AM (#55259529)

          A book can be about a transgendered child (which is 'normal'. It sometimes happens, therefore it is normal) and not about surgery or administered hormones.

          That is not what the word "normal" means. I understand what you're trying to say, but perhaps the word you're looking for is "natural." Something that is unusual is by definition not normal. I'm not placing any value judgment on it -- just because something isn't normal doesn't mean it's wrong or bad -- but when you use words like that in the wrong way, you're just going to attract the attention of people who object to your meaning but will insist on arguing with your semantics.

          • by gsslay ( 807818 )

            I used the word 'normal' because it was the word used by the person I was replying to. 'Normal' is, of course, a loaded word that should be used with care. It has over-tones of defining what is acceptable. It was this I was addressing.

            Something that is unusual is by definition not normal.

            I would prefer to say that something that is unusual is, by definition, not usual.

        • Sometime children are murderers. It happens. Would you call that normal?

          Keep in mind, I don't mind transfolk at all. It's not normal. It's acceptable, it's not normal. There's nothing wrong with teaching civility, but let's base it on the truth.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The summary says most of the challenges are NOT about public libraries, but about school curriculum. One example being ELEMENTARY school having kids read about a transgender child.

        Oh no! The horrors! Next they're going to have books about burning people alive, home invasion, and poisoning!

        So yes, "appropriate for age group" is a very valid concern - there are certainly books that are available to adults, but we shouldn't force all third and fourth graders to read them.

        And your concern is entirely based on legitimate and substantive concerns, that is why your sole focus is entirely on the transgender issue. You do know you revealed yourself with that, right?

        Multiple books on the list were about transgender children, presenting that as normal. It could well be argued that parents shouldn't be putting their children through multiple surgeries and heavy doses of unnatural hormones to turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, in the vast majority of cases. That's the kind of thing a person ought to decide for themselves, making an informed decision when they are an adult, some would say.

        It could be pointed out to you that parents don't, it is doctors who perform surgeries and prescribe medications. And they've been doing it for years.

        One might reasonably think that having surgeries done on your little boy to turn him into a little girl may, in many cases, be child abuse, so forcing elementary school kids to read that is normal may not be appropriate.

        Yeah, like child abandonment, child exploitation, and c

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Very young transgender children don't have surgery or medication. That sort of thing doesn't start until they hit puberty, with surgery being when they are in their mid teens. By that point they are nearly adults, and in many places allowed to have sex and potentially procreate, so it would be kind of weird if they lacked medical autonomy,

        As for child abuse, for some reason we allow parents to cut bits of their male child's penis off for no medical reason. Seems like allowing a child to identify as what the

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bradley13 ( 1118935 )

        " It could well be argued that parents shouldn't be putting their children through multiple surgeries and heavy doses of unnatural hormones to turn a boy into a girl or vice versa, in the vast majority of cases."

        It could be argued that parents should not chop up their children and serve them up as supper. Jeeeesus.

        Any parent who would even consider such physical alterations on a child is nuts. At best, they are imposing their own psychological problems on an innocent child. At worst, they are simply abusers

      • The summary says most of the challenges are NOT about public libraries, but about school curriculum. One example being ELEMENTARY school having kids read about a transgender child.

        However, many of books in the ban list are ABOUT PUBLIC LIBRARIES. You are looking at only one link [publishersweekly.com] (with top 10 in 2016 ban books) and then conflate it to the whole list (a bigger list link [cbldf.org] or better yet here [ala.org]).

        Multiple books on the list were about transgender children, presenting that as normal.

        Hmm... Half of the top 10 ban list are about LGBTQ, and two of them are about transgender child. That's only from the "top banned in 2016" list. I don't disagree that these books shouldn't be read by children "alone" but rather being approved by their parents. However, you are conflating (again) the

        • > In conclusion, I agree on the part that no one should have the right to force or forbid on kids reading books. The decision should be on their parents. Thus, some books should be banned from public schools but no book should be banned from public libraries.

          I agree, in general. Adults can generally decide for themselves what they want to do, including what they want to read. That's entirely different from what they force all children to do and to read.

          I also know the public library, which we all pay f

          • by pnutjam ( 523990 )
            I think most librarians and bibliophiles would find that suggestion offensive. Literature from opposing viewpoints is important.
            • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Monday September 25, 2017 @11:56AM (#55259871) Journal

              > I think most librarians and bibliophiles would find that suggestion offensive.

              I've suggested that library funds ought NOT be used entirely to push a particular political agenda, that perhaps a library should buy an unabridged dictionary before it buys dozens of "transgender children" books. I'm sure that idea, that basic English is more important than their political ideology, offends some people, but I don't think MOST.

              I also suggested that basic science books may, in some cases, be more important than having even more copies of each of Trump's books.

              > Literature from opposing viewpoints is important.

              Opposing what? 100% of Library Association leadership who donated in 2016 donated to Democrats only. ALA leaders think opposing Trump is important, important enough to spend their own money on. Assuming they are human, their biases will affect their ideas of which advocacy works are good and should be purchased for the library. They'd not be human if they weren't affected by their own bias.

              Personally, I think that when presenting one side of a contentious issue, the other side should also be presented as well - "some people think this, other people think that". Even more important for a school or public library, I think, is the basic, non-contentious science, math etc which can be used to evaluate ALL arguments. I would start with reference works such as dictionaries, almanacs, an atlas etc, before getting into opinion pieces or advocacy works which should reference those reference works. For example, a reader can't make an informed evaluation of how a tax cut or tax increase may affect the federal budget unless they first know what mandatory spending and discretionary spending are. The school or library should have material for people to find out what the federal budget currently is, and how it's created and analyzed, before buying more stuff advocating what someone thinks the budget should be.

              To be informed a issues relating to "transgender children", rather than merely progandized, it would be of great help to have books for people to learn about what chromosomes are, what hormones are and how they affect our bodies, etc.

              In other words, I think government, both government schools and government-funded libraries, should seek FIRST to inform, before they advocate. Someone who has read about chemistry and other sciences can make up their mind about acid rain, presenting a lot of stuff about acid rain while refusing to stock chemistry books is propagandizing people, not educating them.

                Additionally, advocacy groups already do a pretty good job of getting their message out. The tax payer doesn't need to be assisting the NRA and the MoveOn as much as we need to be helping people get informed on the objective facts, in my opinion. So when we're at the bottom of the list, we can afford one more book, I'd prefer a fact-based book about actual historic events over anything put out by either MoveOn or the NRA. The advocates can fight it out on CNN and Fox, in my opinion.

      • by jbengt ( 874751 )

        That's the kind of thing a person ought to decide for themselves, making an informed decision when they are an adult, some would say.

        That sounds reasonable. But I saw a documentary about transgender people that included a 5-year old child with a penis who self-identified as a 'girl'. Her mother fought for years with the kid to dress the child as a boy and give him boy's toys, etc., but it was a huge struggle; the kid always wanted to dress as a girl and play with dolls, etc. Eventually the mom gave up.

    • Re:Come on (Score:4, Funny)

      by stealth_finger ( 1809752 ) on Monday September 25, 2017 @07:29AM (#55258403)

      Batman: The Killing Joke by Alan Moore and Brian Boland Reason challenged: Advocates rape and violence

      Maus by Art Spiegelman Reason challenged: Anti-ethnic and unsuited for age group

      So, the bible has to be the top of this list right? Advocates not only rapr and violence but also slavery and genocide amongst many more

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Reason challenged: Advocates rape and violence

      Around age 14, when I would have been interested in reading The Killing Joke, my class had to read Tess of the D'Urbervilles at school. In that book the protagonist is raped, gets pregnant, calls the child "Sorrow" and neglects it until it dies, then murders the rapist and is hung for it. Finally her sister is obliged to marry her husband because apparently that was the done thing back then.

      I'm going from memory here but it was a pretty screwed up story, and when it was released was considered popular trash

  • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Sunday September 24, 2017 @10:02PM (#55256969)
    ...in other words, books?
  • Mein Kampf (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) on Sunday September 24, 2017 @10:03PM (#55256971)

    Mein Kampf is banned in many countries.
    The way it was implemented is a bit uncommon because it uses the copyright law : Hitler's property was seized by the government of Bavaria, including Mein Kampf copyright, and it was used to block the sales.

    I really think that no list of banned books should be without it. Because it shows that censorship is not just about LGBT stuff, it is also about what "progressives" find despicable. And if you really are against censorship, you should also fight for Mein Kampf to be available.
    It also shows that copyright abuse is a form of censorship.

    • Don't they still publish Mein Kamph, but with notations arguing against Hitler's ideology? Or was that something they were just talking about doing?
      • Re: Mein Kampf (Score:5, Informative)

        by Gryle ( 933382 ) on Monday September 25, 2017 @06:10AM (#55258207)
        Mein Kampf has been available in English since about 1933 in one translation or another. You're thinking of the German language publication. The copyright held by the state of Bavaria expired in 2016, which places the text in the public domain. A group of German academics got together and released a version with notaions to get ahead of neo-Nazi groups who might try and publish their own version for propaganda purposes. Wikipedia has more information.
    • Re:Mein Kampf (Score:5, Informative)

      by GumphMaster ( 772693 ) on Sunday September 24, 2017 @11:05PM (#55257131)

      That copyright expired 1 Jan 2016, so that control mechanism should be dead and buried. The book remained freely available in most of the world regardless.

      Censorship was very effectively wielded by the far-right of politics in WWII Germany, the far left of politics in the USSR, the McCarthyist US to "protect" against the red peril, .... It is painfully obvious that censorship is used by groups of all persuasions not just 'progressives' (whatever that encompasses in your world view).

      • But it is the fact that 'progressives' such despicable tactics is precisely the issue, despite informing us that they are the good guys on every issue and only deplorable people would do otherwise.

        Incredible to think that the ACLU once sued for the rights of nazis to march in the streets. They were in favor of the First Amendment back then. How times have changed!

        • Bavaria has been ruled by the same party since 1957. It is the most conservative government of any German state and stuck decades in the past. There is really no way to call them progressive, not even when comparing them to your Republicans.

          • There is really no way to call them progressive, not even when comparing them to your Republicans.

            There is no rational way, but ratio is not very important in US politics.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          But it is the fact that 'progressives' such despicable tactics is precisely the issue, despite informing us that they are the good guys on every issue and only deplorable people would do otherwise.

          Incredible to think that the ACLU once sued for the rights of nazis to march in the streets. They were in favor of the First Amendment back then. How times have changed!

          Yeah I think I remember when they used to do that... Shit has it been that long since the last time they stepped up to defend the the free speech rights of Nazis? Damn, nearly sixty days. I miss the old days...

          https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13/the-misguided-attacks-on-aclu-for-defending-neo-nazis-free-speech-rights-in-charlottesville/

          Ya wanker.

          -Not British, I just think that's classier than douche.

        • Re:Mein Kampf (Score:4, Informative)

          by pnutjam ( 523990 ) <slashdot AT borowicz DOT org> on Monday September 25, 2017 @10:45AM (#55259305) Homepage Journal
          ACLU still protects the rights of Nazi's [aclu.org], along with everyone else. Free speech is not a privilege.
      • That copyright expired 1 Jan 2016
        No it did not.
        Why should it?

        Hitler died 1945 ... not 1926.

      • Just because the Nazi's were a hair to the right of the communists does not make them far-right.

    • by hord ( 5016115 )

      Did they learn about burning books from Hitler?

    • The Wandering Jew by Eugene Sue is the most censored book. It is so censored that even a show about censored books does not mention it. The sad part is that it was praised by many contemporaries (from E. A. Poe to E. Salgari) as a literary masterpiece.
      • The Wandering Jew by Eugene Sue is the most censored book. It is so censored that even a show about censored books does not mention it.

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Given that Amazon sell it I'd say that that "extraordinary evidence" is going to be a little hard to come by...

          (GP apparently got a +1 completely incorrect mod though - sigh)

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      So it wasn't actually banned, any more than a 1995 Spice Girls CD single is banned because they don't make it any more and copyright prevents other people from making and selling it. If you happen to have a copy you bought in the 90s, it's not illegal.

      Perhaps you have a better example of something that was genuinely banned?

      • Reading comprehension fail?

        The government seized the copyright and used it to prevent the availability of the book.

        That is a sideways approach to censorship, but it is straight up dictionary definition censorship - the government is preventing people from having access to a book.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That's still not banning it though. Banning it suggests that ownership is illegal, that it is not allowed to be sold at all or imported.

          Merely owning the copyright and refusing to licences it does nothing to control copies already in existence, e.g. personal property or second hand copies for sale. They only stopped new copies being manufactured.

          FWIW some places did ban sales even of used Nazi memorabilia, although I think you were still allowed to own it. Not sure if that book was included.

          • That's still not banning it though. Banning it suggests that ownership is illegal, that it is not allowed to be sold at all or imported.

            Nobody likes a pedant, you know.

    • Mein Kampf is banned in many countries.

      Fom what I can find, sales are banned in the Neatherlands, would you care to mention the other countries in which sales are banned?

    • It also shows that copyright abuse is a form of censorship.

      Interesting thought. So let say you inherited the copyright of a book (or movie, painting, song, whatever) with which you disagreed, or made a fool of yourself.
      By your logic, you should be forced to make it available (and possibly make money out of it) even if you don't want to? Otherwise you'd be doing copyright abuse?

  • I suspect it wasn't a case of Holocaust Deniers in power somewhere, and more likely just because of the nudity shown in certain frames.

    • by jandrese ( 485 )
      According to the CLDF the challenge came from a patriotic Polish person who objected to the depiction of Poles.
  • Christianity (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    All of this censorship is based on so-called Christian values and morals.

    Those of us who don't subscribe to that school of thought should be left alone to decide what we will or will not read.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Really? ALL about Christians?

      What about the attempts to censor depictions of Mohammed?

      What about the outcry at the use of Ganesh (Hindu god) to advertise meat, and the urging the censorship of such advertising?

      Maybe you only see the Christian censorship in your country?

    • See my sig.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      I'm not christian, and I think I should decide what I read, not the school.
      When I went to school we choose the books and the teachers only approved or disapproved.
      I don't think teachers should be assigning LGTBBQ propaganda to kids against the parents wishes.

  • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Sunday September 24, 2017 @11:06PM (#55257137)

    Don't ever show these parents the mangas they have in Japan. They'll die from overexposure to nudity and sex the likes they've never seen before.

  • The only books we have are ones that were banned by other schools. The kids have to learn about Tek War sooner or later....

  • Trump (Score:2, Insightful)

    by uvajed_ekil ( 914487 )
    Unfortunately, no one has yet seen fit to add Trump: The Art of The Deal, nor any of Mr Orange's other fine examples of American literature, to their banned books lists. I guess he never even considered using the slogan, Make American Books Great Again, since he obviously had nothing to lend to that fight.
    • Why read a book when you could be on Twitter? Books are for losers.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      He didn't actually write that book, so I hope that the real author is at least getting paid.

      Trumpkins, if you still think he did write it, I suggest you compare the quality of his tweets to the quality of writing in that book.

  • They should be censoring the SJW propaganda garbage that Marvel calls comic books right now. It's damaging to society and makes weak-minded people lose their touch with reality evidently.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      They should be censoring the SJW propaganda garbage that Marvel calls comic books right now.

      Yeah, it's *unrealistic* that women have superpowers. Obviously only men do because of evolution.

  • Girl: Granny, were you aloud to stay out after 9:00 when you were 15

    Granny: Yes. In fact when I was on late shift in the mill I finished at 9 and by the time I's walked home it was 9:30.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    These books aren't banned. You can buy them in every state in the union. This is just a ploy for the SJWs in the library cliques to shake down the public for more money and attention. They don't like to have any "community involvement" that doesn't correspond to their narrow set of SJW prejudices and must constantly lobby to get their way over the ignorant plebs.

  • Watchmen was obviously banned for its big blue cock, which was brought to attention by the movie, where it seemed a million times more gratuitous than in the comic

  • I can recall when 1987 at the great liberal institution on SUNY New Paltz they banned Uncle Toms Cable and Huckleberry Finn because they were considered offensive.
  • I think there is a major difference between preventing your kinds from reading something and standing up for your kids right to NOT read something they don't want.
    On the college level, when parents get involved , from my experience it is almost always the latter. I young adult is in a class and being told you will read XYZ or I will fail you. The young person reaches out to parents for help because they consider XYZ to be , offensive, demeaning, demoralizing, prejudice , or in some other way immoral, and

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Reaching out to your parents about having to read an assigned book in college... that's just absurd. If you don't have the intellectual fortitude to hold up and examine a piece of literature, I guess there's trade school.
    • I don't think you have a right to refuse to read the assigned material in a collegiate course. It'd be like creationists demanding biology degrees while refusing to read the material. And if the students resort to calling in their parents in college that's almost reason enough to kick them out of the course right there...
    • I saw this happen to more then one of my friends in various classes in college, and near as I can tell it is only getting worse. If you are someone who doesn't agree with the morality taught at the 'secular' university then you can be expected to be persecuted by the teachers for disagreing or debating them , especially about literature.

      Yeah, and...? If your friends don't want to read certain material, they should be reading the syllabus for the class and dropping the class if it contains material they don't want to read. If you signed up for the course and want credit for the course, you do the work required by the course. That's how it is. Don't like it? Don't take the course.

      Or, they could be adults, and read the material. If their worldview is so very fragile that exposure to objectionable material could shatter it, maybe they're

  • Newsweek misleads by giving examples of common books like Harry Potter and Moby Dick being banned or criticized in the past. The actual poster from the group leading the banned books list , NONE of Newsweek's examples are there, NOT a SINGLE ONE. Here is there poster of ACTUAL books they are complaining about being 'banned', I would lump them in as religious text of the left http://www.oif.ala.org/oif/wp-... [ala.org] .

What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli

Working...