Banned Books Week 4
We try to stick to online speech issues, but Banned Books Week is too important to skip. Libraries get as much flak from the internet as any book, so feel free to celebrate the week by visiting a banned website. And while CNN softballs the issue by sticking to Judy Blume and Anne Frank, the important question is who will stand up for the really controversial material. Thanks to Stradivarius for bringing this up.
A somewhat common theme... (Score:1)
These books were one of the things that made me realize I wasn't alone and kept me from acting out some of my more violent impulses. As with the War on Some Drugs, War on Crypto, and the like, the ends can never justify the means, and will be counter-productive in achieving them. I don't agree with Judy that you should let kids read whatever they want, but the age at which I would remove that restriction would vary according to the individual child, and certainly every parent's opinion would also differ tremendously. Hell, reading Atlas Shrugged at age 10 didn't turn me into a psycho (insert appropriate smiley here); and even if you could prevent one person from becoming a psycho by banning Mein Kampf, or whatever, the ends will never justify the means.
(Of course we must never forget Judy Blume's all time greatest book, "Please, God, Make The Six-Foot Purple Toads In My Bedroom Go Away"...eh?)
I think this is a banned web site (Score:1)
This is for information to protect you and to make you no more ingenious. Opening this you will never be the same.
Banned Books Week should be an on-line issue (Score:2)
Oh well, too late for anything now, anyway I have a cocktail party to consider.
- The Boston Lunatic
Is reading harmful? (Score:3)
Book burners usually have a closed worldview, a strict and dogmatic set of beliefs believed to be stamped with the imprimatur of truth. Any information contradicting this worldview appears harmful to such a person. Attempts by satan to tempt the righteous from the true path, in some religious worldviews, e.g.
Those of us that hate censorship usually have open worldviews. These are admitted to be incomplete and partially incorrect. Always changing and growing as more input is acquired. New information, especially information challenging our beliefs, is often sought out rather than being shunned as harmful. This is the scientific worldview.
Both sides of this debate view the other as being evil or sick. There is no common ground on which a debate can be held, the groups do not agree on how truth is determined. Of course reality isn't so simple as everyone fitting neatly into one category or the other. Some religious people are open minded about many things, and some scientists are dogmatic about many things. But the debate tends to polarize into extremes.
This is a fundamental question that won't be settled by debate, it goes deeper than reason.
So, we should concentrate on figuring out how these two extremes can live together peacefully. It is hopeless to try to change everybody into one sort or the other. My suggestion for some simple rules for living together:
1. No one should be forced to read a book.
2. No one should be prevented from reading a book.
As usual, handle the difficult case of minors by letting their guardians control their reading until they are of age.