Slashdot Mirror
Banned Books published by Google
Lens Hood Man writes "Marking the 25th anniversary of Banned Books Week, Google is inviting users to celebrate their freedom to read by making Banned Books available to all. From the Google Blog: "...you can use Google Book Search to explore some of the best novels of the 20th century which have been challenged or banned." Those books challenged this year include 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and 'Lolita'."
When Humbert Humbert has sex with Lolita at the Enchanted Hunters for the first time, is Nabokov describing a rape or consensual sex?
I can probably find some banned books that they might find an interesting read, especdially sans redaction...
China will just see a big photo of Mao when you try to load the books on Google. Maybe they could get a backdrop of the glowing fire from a pile of books being burned too!
stuff |
Be sure to get your RML pin today!
k s/radicalbutton.htm
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlin
It seems to just previews not the whole books.
... except that Call of the Wild is by Jack London, not James Baldwin...
"Google is inviting users to celebrate their freedom to read by making Banned Books available to all."
Google has not made these books available to read online, it just gives you the ability to find a library that has the book.
these books are actually banned? this lists sounds more like a list of required-reading books than banned books.
put Anarchist Cookbook on there. i dare you.
If it weren't for these free speech forums, then information could possibly be censored so that no person knew about it! Examples include books about what's under the clay (if you dig 3 ft. you get clay), and books that claim yet cannot prove that certain politicians are cheating. Luckily those things can be posted here.
------
The backyard hole / claymine website: http://amtgard.shop.tm/
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlink s/100mostfrequently.htm
RTFB (read the fine blurb). It says: "you can use Google Book Search to explore some of the best novels of the 20th century which have been challenged or banned" -- meaning that they are not necessarily banned at the moment (although they might be in some other part of the world)
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Great! I've been meaning to read up on some musical history.
This guy's the limit!
Has Lolita really been banned? In the US?
I thought there was something in the US constitution about "freedom of speech". Is it still possible to ban a book? And a book which happens to be one of the best books by one of the best authors of the 20th century...
What about the beautiful Kubrick film with Peter Sellers?
They were banned in several school districts. Maybe not by the whole country but these books have been banned before in different parts of the USA.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/100-Banned-Books-Censorship- Literature/dp/0816040591 k s/100mostfrequently.htm
[2] http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlin
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
The books are still banned from general public distribution.
Because of copyright extensions, the latest in 1998, A book written in 1926 will now not not be available for public distribution until 2022.
The "Public library" is a compensation for the lack of public information created by unreasonable copyright extensions. With a "Public Library", the government ( being the entity that granted near infinite publishing monopolies ), pays the created monopolies for the "right" to allow limited public access to the works of which the authors are often dead or no longer receive compensation.
From the list of Top 100 challenged books:
#7 : Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
#19: Sex by Madonna
#88: Where's Waldo? by Martin Hanford
You're right. They're not publishing these, just making the searchable by all ... er most (pending China's great firewall).
... I was hoping Google would provide the original typesetting (that Joyce was very particular about) but instead it seems I just get a preview :-(
A lot of these I have seen on Project Gutenberg.
Sometimes when I'm dying in my cubicle at work, I open up a random page of James Joyce's Ulysses and drift away
My work here is dung.
Stephen King's writing is atrocious. He may write good stories but his use of language is painful...
. . .you don't need to hype them by saying that they have been banned or censored by "the man."
It's a big world and books may be banned on a local basis. These are books that have been, either successfully or not, the subject of attempts to remove them from shelves of stores/libraries/schools; not merely books that libraries have chosen for one reason or another not to stock ( and I don't know a library worth a damn that wouldn't stock everything available if they had the space/funds. Playboy is not only stocked in many libraries, but has the distinction of the being the most stolen item, the main reason for not stocking it).
Interestingly the list does not include the most banned book in the world: The Bible.
KFG
I don't see how these are banned books... they might even choose at a community level not to stock your book at the library, that doesn't mean that your book has been banned.
If the government at any level forbids a library from carrying a book, it has been banned. In addition to that, books have been banned for ownership in certain localities.
Heck most libraries don't carry everything anyway, I can't go get Hustler and Playboy at my Library. At my local library I can't find copies of the Jane's Reference books, or many other books.
The difference is, is it the choice of the library or of an external influence? When some of the most popular and requested books, like the Harry Potter books, are not carried by the library because the city council has passed a law preventing the library from carrying them, then they are effectively being censored. This is a common occurrence and something everyone should be aware of.
There are good books on that list, but you don't need to hype them by saying that they have been banned or censored by "the man." You should take the books as what they are.
The point is, they have been banned and burned and what is being celebrated is victory over that. The fact that anyone can go online and find a way to get these books is worth celebrating.
1984, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Lord of the Flies, Ulysses, Heart of Darkness, A Farewell to Arms, Invisible Man.
Why not just ban all books from the second half of the 20th century and be done with it? These are CLASSICS, the books literature experts practically memorize by heart. What next? Are we going to ban The Odyssey because of the violence?
Heinlein. Card. Asimov. Sturgeon. Ellison.
King's very good, but "the best"?
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Considering we're coming up on Banned Books Week 2006, this is the perfect time to make these books available.
And yes, every book that Google has up there has been banned or challenged in public libraries across the country. There are still places where 'To Kill A Mockingbird' or 'Tom Sawyer' are considered improper reading for children - and for adults.
Good work, Google. Keep on it.
Brazil has decided you're cute.
no. So you could have done a google search for banned books and gotten the same results ...useless
"Doctor who?" --The Doctor
I don't see how 1984 is that edgy.
It's just a rather blunt warning on freedom of speech and propaganda.
It's just in a story, rather than a simple explanation of why free speech and free thought are important.
As is in the case in so many of these situations, this list has just piqued my interest more. I've read many of these novels but now I just have more in my reading list.
Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
these books are actually banned? this lists sounds more like a list of required-reading books than banned books.
These "Banned Books" lists that librarians like to trumpet tend to be lists of books which were ever banned anywhere by any library at any time, not books which are banned today. So if they can find that some old biddy in Vermont in 1903 didn't like "Huckleberry Finn", it goes straight on the list. The conclusion that you're supposed to draw is that Literature is Under Attack Even Today by Reactionaries who are hiding under your bed.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
King is the best writer of the last half? Ouch... I wouldn't imagine so. That his novels found an audience is certainly believable due to his interesting imagination. I personally don't like his work much.. but know others that do. That said, I certainly wouldn't name him the best. Perhaps the favorite amongst a certain group though, that is certainly plausible.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
I can't help but notice that most of these books have been carried everywhere since they were published: in every library, in every book store. Perhaps one small rural school system somewhere decided not to order it, hence they start crying about it being banned. That doesn't seem to be much of a ban. In contract, books that have really been banned don't appear on the list anywhere. For example, "Jewish Supremacism" by David Duke is officially banned in Canada and gets intercepted at the border and burned. That to me constitutes a real, actual banned book.
(from TFA):
The Call of the Wild
James Baldwin
"Baldwin... has really unusual substantive powers but conventional ingenuity in form...[a] beautiful, furious first novel." - The New York Times
I do believe it was Jack London.
meh
I was surprised to find that five of the 42 "banned books" were ones I studied at high school in the 1970s: To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, Lord of the Flies, Brave New World, Sons & Lovers.
That's 12%. Can anyone do better?
Paid Q&A/Research
If you want quality, serious science fiction, check out Gardner Dozois's "Year's Best Science Fiction" ongoing anthology. There are no Star Wars stories in it, but you WILL find a lot of great MODERN science fiction writers who raise many interesting questions about present-day humanity.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Getting excited about stuff that isn't actually banned anymore is a pretty cheap and easy way of feeling like a rebel ...
Banned books are a historical curiosity now, at least in the lands where people are going to get excited about this. You aren't brave for reading Lolita.
Why would Stephen King be banned?
He's never written anything contraversial. Never challanged any established ideas. IT was entertaining, but it doesn't have a political message or force us to re-evaluate how we define 'crazy.' It doesn't warn us of the dangers of certain ways of thinking like 1984 does or Brave New World.
Honestly, how could someone even think any of King's books are even in the same league.
That link perfectly illustrates his point -- "Banned Book Week" revolves entirely around a tiny number of unverified reports of "challenge" of certain books by certain people. It has nothing to do with any meaningful censorship issues going on in the world, the censorship of search results by Google China being a bit more significant than some kid who was upset by the word "nigger" in Huckleberry Finn or To Kill A Mockingbird in 1993.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
If by "best" your measuring stick is sheer volume, then sure -- he's rather prolific. But in terms of quality, surely you can think of a couple of authors whose writing is a bit better than his? My reading selection tends to be fairly narrow and I can think of quite a few authors whose writing surpasses King's.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
1984? Of Mice and Men? These aren't books that any sane person would ban, even if some private schools ran by fools do so, it's going to be availible in every library.
Upload books that have been banned for a "good" reason, like Mein Kampf, and this could actually be interesting.
Google Cut and Paste for the LOSE! The correct entry: Go Tell it on the Mountain James Baldwin "Baldwin... has really unusual substantive powers but conventional ingenuity in form...[a] beautiful, furious first novel." - The New York Times Books about Go Tell it on the Mountain followed later by the incorrect entry: The Call of the Wild James Baldwin "Baldwin... has really unusual substantive powers but conventional ingenuity in form...[a] beautiful, furious first novel." - The New York Times Books about The Call of the Wild
meh
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Just kidding, I guess there aren't that many people who read slashdot.
In unrelated news, who knew that James Baldwin ghost-wrote for Jack London? Google, that's who.
The Call of the Wild
James Baldwin
"Baldwin... has really unusual substantive powers but conventional ingenuity in form...[a] beautiful, furious first novel." - The New York Times
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
And yet, close to 70% of the books listed there were part of my high school's English curriculum. Not "suggested reading," or anything else we had to read on our own, but part of the coursework over my 4 years of high school. Maybe that's just how we do thing around here, but as "contraversial" as the subject matter of each book may or may not be, I can read that list and remember the ideas presented from each book. I remember discussing the credits and demerits of each concept in an objective way as part of the class. I can't see why anyone would want to ban these literary icons from schools or libraries, when the dissection of each only lends to the ability to think freely and creatively, and develop critical thinking and reasoning skills.
So I think it just means that these books have been challenged or banned somewhere, not necessarily everywhere, and they're not necessarily challenged/banned any longer.
Wouldn't touch anything with Dozois's muddy fingerprints on it, ever.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
To Kill a Mockingbird was required reading for me - I was assessed on it for my Literature class. A great work IMO, really cuts to the core on racism. Can someone tell me why it was banned?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Heinlein, Card, Asimov, Sturgeon, King: all absolute lightweights. If you mean Ralph Ellison -- and you don't -- then you're on the right track with the last one.
Mein Kampf isn't legally banned, at least not in the U.S. where that would be unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure you can buy it on Amazon and probably in many bookstores. Now maybe some libraries refuse to hold it. Also, there is no good reason to ban a book. Now, maybe its banned in Europe, as they do tend to limit speech more than the U.S., where we don't limit hate speech.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/100-Banned-Books-Censorship- Literature/dp/0816040591k s/100mostfrequently.htm
[2] http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlin
A quick glance at these 2 lists only confirms my suspicions. We are well and truely fucked as a nation.
Various groups tried to ban the book because it depicts racism and uses words like 'nigger'. The people challenging these books focus on a few words or pages, and usually haven't read them.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
The fact that anyone can go online and find a way to get these books is worth celebrating.
I disagree. I think that these books merely represent a list of books that were banned at some time and place and are currently not banned in this time and place. It does not mean that there aren't other books that are currently being banned. It does not mean that censorship as a concept has been defeated, only that the tastes of society have changed.
I think if someone wrote a book like "Lolita" today, they would probably be banned. Lolita itself is not because of its fame.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
"This list of books is exactly why we must not fail in our fight against terrorism. Ya see, the terrorists hate our freedom. They hate our way of life. This list of books shows how much they hate us."
*psst*
*mumble mumble mumble*
"America? Really?"
"Can't we jazz it up to so I can use it in a speech on terrorism? No? Karl will figure out a way."
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Seriously: So many of the books on this list are completely and totally harmless. I can understand the challenges to "My Dad's Roommate" from a Christian perspective (Don't agree, but understand). But WTF is wrong with Waldo? "How to Eat Fried Worms" is a nice, innocent book. My mother is a conservative Mormon, and she loves to read it to her First Grade class every year.
The fact that many of these books make these lists says a lot about the mentality of people who want to ban books.
There was a time about half a century ago that people weren't too keen on the idea of "cutting to the core of racism". Large sections of the US, in particular regions in the South East, might not have been very favorable to having their children influenced by such a work. Many of those regions still have communities where people are rather proud of their ethnic heritage and don't necessarily consider their beliefs of ethnic superiority to be racist (or if they realize that they are racist, don't consider racism to be a bad thing).
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
I'd hardly call Heinlein a "hack". I'm not saying he's the most important writer ever, but a "hack"? No.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Can't believe I am responding to an ANON.
But...
Let me remind you that the Islamic-Fascist's go one better: attempt to kill the author.
Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists that drew the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark have had to live in hiding, Theo van Gogh was silenced forever by them.
Yes Virgina, evil exists and it wants to kill you.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
If they are banned how is it I can go buy them? A more honest and less inflammatory term would be controversial books. At least in the US they are not truly banned. Maybe not available in some school libraries or even some public libraries but that isn't the same thing as banned.
Frankly I would like to see libraries "ban" more books.
Chariot of the Gods would be a good start.
Why wasn't the Bible on the list? It is banned in and or restricted heavily in many countries.
Also I didn't see any Holocaust denial books or pro Nazi books on the list. Those have been banned in many countries as well.
If you are going to pretend that you support freedom of speech I guess posting a list of books "banned" in some US high schools is a freaking safe way to do it.
I have to admit that publishing a book online that you can can buy at most any book store in the US really does make up for censoring pro-democracy cites in China. Good for you Google. Let us all bask in your "Celebration of the Freedom to Read".
I think I will go puke now.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Probably because it expresses opinions (i.e. that the rights of black people are just as important as the rights of white people) that some folks disagree with.
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you did not enjoy his work, there is no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I disagree. I think that these books merely represent a list of books that were banned at some time and place and are currently not banned in this time and place.
Many of these books are banned in many places right now. Maybe where you live.
I think if someone wrote a book like "Lolita" today, they would probably be banned. Lolita itself is not because of its fame.
Ahh, but here's the thing. Despite being banned, all of these books are still available in the US. If someone wrote a book like Lolita, it would be constitutionally protected and you'd be able to order it online, or find a library that had it using the Google search mentioned.
I've been seeing a lot of comments about "Hey, I read most of those books in High School! How can they be banned?" First of all, this is a list taken out of context... many of those books were taken out of libraries due to topics that are not controversial now, but were controversial a few decades ago. Depictions of euthanasia ("Of Mice and Men"), drug addiction ("To Kill a Mockingbird", "Brave New World"), sex (Lots of books on the list), even favorable depictions of non-Caucasian races ("Adventures of Huckleberry Finn") all would be cause to get a book banned. In hindsight, it seems silly, but every generation has its taboos. Just TRY to get a book approved about terrorism or school shootings in today's English curriculum. AIDS is okay to talk about now, but it wasn't 20 years ago.
It's a lot like Rock stars. They do a lot of publicity stunts and live a lifestyle that seems garish and offensive to the social conservatives of their time, but looking back in hindsight, most of the hype is just plain silly. Biting off the head of a bat? Ozzie, your domestic home life is much scarier than that; so is the fact that we find it entertaining to televise it.
Second, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of these books are chosen by high school English teachers in a misguided attempt to jazz up their curriculum. "Ooo, this was a banned book. That'll reach out to my jaded kids who barely can read a page a day, let alone a whole book." I don't think they realize how big the Cliff Notes market is, or how easy it is to rip off essays about banned books from the Wikipedia.
"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious
education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit
is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years
previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter
made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary
he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary
of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument
for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross,
while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for
Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with
atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."
[Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11]
Generated by fortune -o (you might have to do apt-get install fortunes-off to get the good stuff).
Conclusion: Debian provides the essential literature for the modern neo-Nazi.
It's pretty easy to celebrate books that were one banned but no longer challenge today's standards.
Google's banned book list looks like a required reading list from a college literature. I don't see any of Stephen King's books that were banned by various schools over the years. He's probably the best writer of the last half of the 20th century.
You'll be happy to know Stephen King is the 7th most banned author according to the ALA, for 1999-2004. He just writes so bloody many books in the same vein, that none of them are in the top 10 right now. Amusingly, he is beaten by J.K. Rowling and her witchcraft promoting Harry Potter books, which come in at number 4.
Uh, no. We get a picture of Tipper Gore. I dislike the republicans as much as the next guy, but it doesn't mean I forget that the Democrats are a bunch of assholes too. Tipper Gore (as per the link) got all hot and bothered when she heard her daughter listening to a Prince album and it flustered her so much she went the wrong direction and tried to get all kinds of great music banned.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A list of books made the top story? Oprah makes lists of books and you don't see them here.
I'm losing interest in Slashdot. Digg has cool graphics to look at when the news is slow--Slashdot just amps up press releases when news is slow.
That is a good one;-) very.
I dislike the republicans as much as the next guy, but it doesn't mean I forget that the Democrats are a bunch of assholes too.
That's why they're called Republicrats. Two sides of the same coin.
"To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee ...Challenged in the Normal, ILL Community High Schools sophomore literature class (2003) as being degrading to African Americans."
I read this book in high school, and I came away from it with a new appreciation for the horrors of racism and injustice. How the hell is it degrading? By showing just how fucked-up the law was in regards to nonwhites?
Because understanding this in a book like that requires intelligence, and so many people these days are just too stupid to understand a book like this. The typical American these days has trouble understanding "Dick and Jane".
From TFA :
/.ers are actually more digging into the fact than average persons only frightens me, I mean, have you tried to only read only the headlines in a newspaper ?)
"To Kill a Mockingbird. Of Mice and Men. The Great Gatsby. 1984. It's hard to imagine a world without these extraordinary literary classics, but every year there are hundreds of attempts to remove great books from libraries and schools. In fact, according to the American Library Association, 42 of 100 books recognized by the Radcliffe Publishing Course as the best novels of the 20th century have been challenged or banned."
Only those 42 books are online right now. Remember that the headlines are misleading (the thought that
Of course, as pointed by the parent, and pointed in other posts, a lot of significant works have been banned : Mein Kampf, Mark's Capital, the Bible, etc... but they are not in the top 100 NOVELS of the century.
Plus, may I be the first to say, that putting online all books that have been banned at one time and at one place in human history would be a very huge work and probably would result in a digitalization of the entire litterature.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Notably absent from these pages are the words "in the United States". This list would be a hell of a lot longer if we included books banned by, for example, Nazi Germany. (Uh oh, I feel a Godwin coming on.)
I realize Google is based in the US and this isn't necessarily even an accusation of USA-centrism (why would I even object? I'm a US citizen myself..) but it is a factual omission that seems important considering this will be seen by Google's hundreds of millions of users all over the world.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Because the list only covers attempts to ban in the USA. The 'bible-haters' here aren't exactly a majority, probably in any non-planned community, whatever else they may be.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
i went to a little redneck school in rural southwestern ohio and there was a copy of mein kampf in my highschool library.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
True. Anyone who has read the Dark Tower series would agree. Best books ever.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
Stephen King only writes horror stories, made to scare, to play with angst and fears and to instill a sense of insecurity. Why would that be banned in today's USA?
After all, he neither talks about sex nor does he speak out for free speech or applying common sense.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The 'bible-haters' here aren't exactly a majority. . .
There are many haters of particular versions of The Bible.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips
KFG
I see Chocolate War by Robert Cormier on the list for "sexual content and offensive language". Having read this book numerous times over the years, where the hell was there sexual content?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
I've read MK. In the original version (pays to have a grandfather who didn't burn his mandatory piece). In a nutshell: It's a piece of very poorly worded, very shoddy propaganda without any kind of substance or any content. Pages and pages of inane rambling about how certain groups of people undermine the system and leech from others, followed by the claim that peoples "in all times" strived to gain more room for themselves and how this needs to be reapplied.
In short, it's amazing how a "theory" like this could cause something like WW2. My guess is that few people really read it and thus nobody knew that Hitler was a loonie. Maybe it should've been banned earlier, more people would've probably seen where this is leading to.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
for a foreigner what "challanged" and "banned" exactly means?
... lots of those books I have read in school in the age of 14 - 18 .... sounds unbelieveable to me that the land of "free speach" does consor books, or what exactly is going on there?
I don#t really get it
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
MK is actually banned in Austria and Germany (the "core" countries of the Nazi Reich) under the law against "Wiederbetätigung" (law against reestablishing, propagandizing or promoting the nazi doctrine). There is a "commented and edited" version available for educational purposes only, and it's fairly hard to get as a "normal" person without a reason (i.e. not being a teacher who needs it for history class), which contains parts of the book, with comments correcting the propaganda lies therein.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
From what I heard from my history teacher in high school when we were discussing this, the reason why Waldo got banned is his eyes look like tits (because he's wearing glasses.)
"Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
Sort of ironic to celebrate Google's showing these banned books when Google China agreed to censor itself.
The box said I needed Windows XP or better so I bought a Mac.
Reading this article I tried to find Nabokov's novel by searching for "lolita" on google. Considering the number of results this definitely looks like a popular novel but how come isn't Nabokov Book the first result?
\u262D = \u5350
Ban Captain Underpants? What sort of social meme is at risk by this series of books? My son enjoys them and even I get a kick out of them.
Since when is cartoon violence a problem in the US? What the hell are these people thinking?
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
While doing research in the library at the University at Buffalo, I was surprised to discover that they had Playboy on microfilm! I guess you never know when someone might have to look back to see what the turn-ons of Miss May 1985 were. I don't recall seeing it out with the current periodicals though.
Well at least they aren't paid links to Amazon.com.
an ill wind that blows no good
If the government at any level forbids a library from carrying a book, it has been banned.
You miss out on the fact that the library is (usually) a government institution funded at public expense. Declining to spend public money to provide a book at taxpayer expense is not equivalent to banning. Banning would be forbidding people to provide a book at their own expense.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
It's very funny, I pretty much agree with your comment. However "Islamo-Fascist" is a meaningless term invented by neocons in a pathetically transparent attempt to link the current conflicts to World War II. Use of "Islamo-Fascist" ought to be considered covered by Godwin's law.
Wow, local govt "commonly" banning books from their local library? sounds like your country is more restrictive than the UK. Eeek, good luck over there guys, sounds like you need to chase some of that proverbial freedom for yourselves! Question to library people - how common are book bans for libraries in local government in the UK? or nationally? really interested to know.
I used to work in a UK library, we were restricted in what we could stock because we only had a limited budget (obviously) but we had a pretty decent interlibrary loan system which could theoretically turn up anything in the world if a library was connected to the system, which meant most of the western world for all intents and purposes, and if the person was prepared to wait while systems stepped through requests to the various levels (latest Harry Potter: sure, just a waiting list because everybody wants it and we can only afford 20 copies; highly expensive science report on fisheries in Iceland: give us a few months while we try our national library then get our national library to talk to Iceland's national library...) Some controversial stuff wasn't kept on the shelves, as far as I remember because lunatics would keep stealing such books (because they loved or hated the stuff) - prime example being Mein Kampf by Hitler. But the books were in stock and if somebody requested it we'd get it to them.
"I don't want to go on a rant, here, but America's foreign policy makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. I mean when a neo-conservative defenestrates it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate..."
"What the hell does rant mean?"
Whatever man, I spelled it write!
Well, some of his books do contain some sex. More importantly though, a lot of that horror stuff that he write contain references to things that are downright unholy. The Dark Tower series went on for thousands of pages about an alternate pseudo-religion in which the characters allowed their lives to be steered by ka. It all sounds pretty blasphemous to me.
. . .someone might have to look back to see what the turn-ons of Miss May 1985 were.
.Playboy. It's where Clarke first published Fountains of Paradise. It isn't all about pictures of women. . .
.although I'm a bit partial to January 1967 and October 1979 myself.
I first learned about the idea of the space elevator in . .
. .
KFG
I went to the Google page and clicked on the "To Kill a Mockingbird" link to find that book at my local library.
What I got was a list of about 75 books with "To Kill a Mockingbird" in the title, including many screenplays, references, notes, etc. I think there are a lot of duplicates, too, with minor differences in the book's meta data. It was extremely difficult to distinguish which one is the "real" book.
After trying five or six links that looked like it might be the right one, I gave up.
-David
Let me remind you that the Islamic-Fascist's go one better: attempt to kill the author. Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists that drew the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark have had to live in hiding
I find the news coverage and people's opinions of the cartoon issue very interesting. Certain rabble rousers intentionally tried to cause trouble over the cartoons, the the point of sending ones they created and which had never been published anywhere to newspapers and to religious zealots in many countries. And yet, I saw not in one place, but in many, Muslim clerics placing themselves between an embassy and a mob throwing stones and trying to calm the situation and prevent violence. Islamic culture won big points in my mind that day.
I just picture a bunch of hicks from rural America showing up at an Iranian embassy after the widespread publication and promotion of pictures of jesus being sodomized. Then, to put it in context, I picture this happening in Texas, months after an army of middle easterners had conquered Mexico, bombing cities and sending frightened refugees to hide in the USA. Where each of these hicks knew some old friend or relative or friend of a friend or friend of a relative who had lost a mother or son or child to the bombings. And then I pictured all this happening after the President of Iran had made comments about how they should invade the US too, since the US had aided Mexico and all those christians were violent sodomites. With this picture in my mind, I wondered how many local pastors and priests in texas would be there, placing themselves between the rocks and the mob, and the Iranian embassy.
Yes Virgina, evil exists and it wants to kill you.
I don't approve of censorship or murder, but I do understand why people are convinced that both are right in certain circumstances. Lets just be sure not to pre judge people based upon religion or ethnicity. A catholic, muslim, or atheist is equally capable of promoting fascism.
You miss out on the fact that the library is (usually) a government institution funded at public expense. Declining to spend public money to provide a book at taxpayer expense is not equivalent to banning. Banning would be forbidding people to provide a book at their own expense.
I completely disagree. Censorship is simply preventing ideas or writing from reaching the public. Just because a library is government funded, does not mean they should be able to pick and choose which ideas are provided to the public. In many cases, books are donated and cost the library nothing. Removing those works, is banning in a very real sense.
Plus, may I be the first to say, that putting online all books that have been banned at one time and at one place in human history would be a very huge work and probably would result in a digitalization of the entire litterature.
I believe digitization of our entire literature is the goal. Think big.
I don't know if they had it on MF, but the Library at SUNY Geneseo had Playboy - with most of the pictures cut out by running a pen around them till the paper fibers gave out.
I read this book in high school, and I came away from it with a new appreciation for the horrors of racism and injustice. How the hell is it degrading? By showing just how fucked-up the law was in regards to nonwhites?
Some black parents in my school district recently tried to have Mockingbird removed from the curiculum (but not from the library) and my first reaction was similar to yours. The media reports made it sound like their whole objection was that the book uses The 'N' Word and discussing it in class was offensive to them. When I went to the meeting however, I quickly discovered the issue was more complex. The main problem is that mostly white teachers choose this 46-year-old book by a white author to teach students about racism. 46 years ago, a novel by a white author was about the only way such a message could reach a wide audience, but in 2006 there have got to be better ways. Any black author knows far more about racism than Harper Lee (despite Mr. Lee's best intentions), and it's time for the curiculum to reflect that.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
That's just sad.
http://www.icarusindie.com/Literature/Library/
. html
It's not overtly advertised as such but my collection started by looking up books that were banned at some time and then finding them on the gutenburg project and hosting them myself. I also have some books that I just thought were interesting and worth having.
UPenn has been directly some traffic my way from their banned book site here
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books
Maybe this is Google's feeble attempt at making up for suppressing speech elsewhere in the world.
Work Safe Porn
You've hit upon the key flaw in Google's championing of liberty in the face of book banners/burners. Yes, once again its the shrill call of "pedophile", summoning all decent people the world over to stamp their boots on deserving human faces over and over.
Google has now committed an "indefensible" action, thus siding themselves with "inhuman hordes of evil". Expect this book and any like it to be dragged out and thumped repeatedly in condemnation the next time Google crosses the powers that be.
May the Maths Be with you!
Islam in it's normal state - as practiced by the vast majority of Muslims the world over - is generally very tolerant. Like Christianity, it's the extreemist nutjobs that cloak their cause with their religion that cause all the trouble.
I know you were kidding, but anyway... this book was great. I had it as a kid, it's been around for a long time. I do have to wonder what's different from the book for girls, though... the order of the chapters or something?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In fact more christians killed christians than pagans killed christians in the era of ancient rome, over conflicts of belief. It's made all the more ridiculous (hilarious, if so many hadn't died for it) that Christianity itself began as a splinter of another religion, Judaism.
Christians also burned the library of Alexandria, destroying the oldest manuscripts of the bible.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Her full name is Nelle Harper Lee, and she's been a woman all her life.
For a real banned book:
m
i ornate_di_Sodoma
One that's not even in Project Gutenburg.
One that google won't even show you if you use moderate safesearch.
One that has been banned in more countries than any other.
120 days of Sodom, by Marquis de Sade
Warning: NSFW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_120_Days_of_Sodo
Quite possibly the most fucked up thing ever written.
Or turned into a movie for that matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2_o_le_120_g
People ban stuff for the silliest reasons. Half of those books were banned merely because of racism or one or two possibly offensive subjects.
This is a true banned book. If you are not offended by it, you are quite possibly a horrible human being.
Even saying that, I think you should read it. It puts perspective on things.
Shush! The christians already burned down the library of alexandria, the former largest library ever...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Stephen King only writes horror stories, made to scare, to play with angst and fears and to instill a sense of insecurity. Why would that be banned in today's USA?
Yeah, you would think that if any horror / suspense / thriller type author would be a candidate for banning, it would be Dean Koontz. Why? Because the
many of his books present a very libertarian themed message, where the "bad guy" is the Government or a Corporation, and the "good guys" have to rely on themselves, their wits, ability, courage - and occasionally - guns, to fend off some evil and preserve their freedom Strangely enough, I started reading (and liked) Koontz' works far before I came to call myself a libertarian. In retrospect, I wonder how much Koontz' works actually influenced me in that direction?
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
How about a site listing the pages Google participates in being censored from Google.cn, in China?
This comment is a reach. If a Democratically-elected institution decides that it doesn't want to expend public funds to make certain books available to the public free of charge, this is hardly a "ban".
I disagree. If a library decides it does not want to spend the money to carry a book, fine. If, however, a law is passed preventing a library from carrying a book, or if a book is donated for free, and then discarded by the library because they don't agree with it, that is a ban.
Taking this to the logical extreme, by your argument if the US government instituted free public television, like the BBC, but refused to carry programs on that television station or in libraries that spoke favorably of the republican party, but did carry opinions in favor of the democratic party then that would be just fine? The government is providing a service that fills a niche in our society, ruining the market for private libraries. They are obligated to carry out that service in a way way that is impartial and upholds free speech.
You may not like it, and you may disagree with the majority vote, but it seems perfectly legitimate to me for the public to decide how it wants to spend its money.
The constitution was created to stop tyrannies of the majority. You need a super-majority to overturn the freedom of speech, then the government can take actions that have a chilling effect on free speech, such as banning books from public libraries.
Mein Kampf is banned in Germany. The owners of the copyright to Mein Kampf, the Barvarian state of Germany, try to oppose the publication and distribution of the book abroad, but with limited success. German libraries tend to carry heavily biased commentaries of the book.
In France and Hollond, it's illegal to sell the book, but not illegal to own the book. In the majority of European countries, mostly those that didn't feel the full force of the Nazi regime in World War 2, the book is legal to own and trade. This includes the United Kingdom. Furthermore, in Palestine, Mein Kampf hit number 6 on the bestseller's list.
"The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One stands for danger; the other for opportunity
But please don't use MS Word or something like that in the process. When things are going to be digitized, it should stay readable for many years no matter which hardware platform or software is used.
By using formats like DocBook or TEI much future work is saved when the book shall be converted to the current fashion of dataformats.
Some of these like The Jungle have always been available on Project Gutenberg. Many of them are also available for free offline at your local public library. Said institutions are often the places that spend the most effort fighting against banned books and doing so on total budgets smaller than Google's petty cash.
That's not to knowck what Google is doing. They are doing a good service here but let's not neglect the people who fight the fight every day of the week not just once a year.
I am sorry. You're request for this information has been refused.
You do not have the required security clearence nor can show that you "need-to-know" this information.
Any further attempts to aquire this information may result in crimminal and/or civil prosecution as specified in the following [redacted] sections of US Code [redacted] and the US PATRIOT ACT.
Thank you for your compliance.
Literature Suppressed on Sexual Grounds
Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds
Literature Suppressed on Political Grounds
The Editorial Review from the Library Journal (on the Amazon.com site)
And wrong. There are a couple of nude people in one of the beach scenes.
....and now you have a reason to look at the books again.
That book is indeed dangerous. It encourages children to hunt for the answer and this may open them to be molested by pedophiles and twisted by terrorists. Children need to be force fed the correct answer. If fact, if your kid loves to read Waldo books, I'd recommend
- Here's Waldo
. It's great, your kid is told exactly where Waldo is.We aren't talking about books and materials that libraries choose not to add to their collections.
We are talking about books that libraries already had in their collections (or intended to add), but were forced to remove (or prevented from obtaining) by others. Usually a combination of complaining patrons, and local government responding to those complaints to override library decisions.
How it typically happens in the US: One or more patrons complain about a given title to the library, and ask that it be removed from the collection. The library listens to the complaint, but refuses to remove the title. Those patrons then take one of two paths.
a) Take the issue to any available higher authorities... such as local government. Which in many cases controls the library budget, or is actually in control of the library. An attempt to force the library via orders from above. It is sometimes successful.
b) Organized protest, in direct opposition to the library. Some libraries have caved (changed their decision) under that kind of pressure, others have not.
Many books on that list have been subjected to that kind of treatment in the past, or still are to this day.
FWIW, I work in a library and have been witness to those very processes, as well as hearing accounts from them elsewhere. Thankfully, none I've seen myself have gone very far. Yet.
Not to mention the "Demolicans"... Demolicans...Demo lican... Demo licking? hrmmm...
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I just picture a bunch of hicks from rural America showing up at an Iranian embassy after the widespread publication and promotion of pictures of jesus being sodomized.
Listen to yourself - you are equating a funny picture showing the real state of affairs (i.e. the trend of Islamic states heading towards terrorism) to an intentionally offensive one of showing a religious head performing sexual acts.
Did they show Allah making out with a naked guy? All they did was have a comic commenting on Islamic terrorism, and a very valid one at that.
I'm sorry, Islam by itself may not be violent, but a significant chunk of Muslims out there are increasinly turning to a violent version of the religion. You can say all you want about hicks and conservatives, but their percentages are way lower.
Heck, you see comics and cartoons involving almost every religion in a lot of democractic countries -- the thing is, you can publish a funny cartoon of Jesus in the US and people would perhaps even laugh at it. Good luck trying to publish one in Saudi or Pakistan.
Well, maybe such hype will get the kids to actually read them? They're banned by the man, you know! Gotta read 'em! Pretty clever actually.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Liberals like to read books that have been banned somewhere, while conservatives like to form censorship committees and read them in a group setting.
I am officially gone from
It takes a frustrated fundie to even notice that...
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
So you're saying you actually read Playboy for the articles?
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Um, don't look now, but your accusation doesn't quite hold. The destruction has been attributed to many forces, without conclusive evidence. Clearly, many barbaric hordes raped the Roman Empire, and there are a handful of events when that library may have been destroyed. Only the last one of the likely ones is by a religious horde, and it isn't Christian -- it's Muslim. It's also thought it may have been destroyed in 48 BC. Bee See .. as in, Before Christ. If that one happens to be true, then the Christians who didn't exist until decades later must be a powerful bunch indeed!
The destruction of the Library of Alexandria was a tragedy for all humanity. Please, don't take away from that fact by blaming the party most convenient to you.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
An Alabama law banned all books that showed homosexuality in anything but a negative light. But that has nothing to do with the War on Some Terror(tm)
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
So you're saying you actually read Playboy for the articles?
I like reading.
KFG
I tried reading the book once, just to see what all the fuss was about. It was written in such a boring and awful style that I didn't get beyond the first few pages. I find it hard to understand how it got banned, because I don't believe that anyone could possibly have forced themselves to read it.
I like my coffee the way I like my women - roasted and ground up into little tiny pieces.
Will there be a "The Trouble with Islam" day, or a "Where were you on 9/11" day?
Not a chance.
Google's a collection of moneygrubbers happy to use US protections to make a global fortune. EVIL pricks that they are.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Honestly, I think Mein Kampf should be taught in schools as a way to teach kids how to look past propaganda and political garbage, so when their leaders start handing them bullshit, they recognize it for what it is.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
No, it's the literary equivalent of a gateway drug. If exposed to Worms in a Mouth, the student will inevitably progress to trying Snakes on a Plane.
At least Google Images brings it up with the search "Where's Waldo"
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Microsoft BOB for Dummies! I don't see it anywhere on the list?
load "$",8,1
And where are books supporting the revisionist position on Holocaust extermination claims?
In 1984, after the California Library Association (CLA) cancelled contracts it had signed with Holocaust revisionist David McCalden to present an exhibit and separate program on his views at the CLA's 86th Annual Conference in Los Angeles, McCalden sued, claiming the city of Los Angeles, the Wiesenthal Center, the California Library Association, the American Jewish Committee, and others illegally conspired to deprive him of his First Amendment free speech rights through "extortionate threats." The suit eventually wound up in the Supreme Court, which decided to let stand a lower-court ruling in McCalden's favor.
It seems there are banned books, and then there are BANNED books.
Greg Raven
As long as there's any left, I'll take mine first.
Good thing you didn't waste your time "learning about Shakespear"
BTW, you spelled Shakespeare wrong.
I don't know where to stand on this issue despite having studied it, but couldn't copyright itself be considered a form of censorship? If the US Constitution didn't have a clause specifically authorizing the creation of Patent & Copyright Offices, then a law forbidding publication of certain books by anyone but the owner of a magic "C" would violate the First Amendment, wouldn't it?
And copyright has been used in attempts at true censorship, as with Diebold's apparent attempt to suppress embarassing memos regarding flaws in its voting machines.
Revive the Constitution.
Another reason for Net Neutrality!
Nice Hitler troll, but "Mein Kampf" is not banned. You can buy it and read it. The copyright belongs to the State of Bavaria and is to all intents and purposes unenforcible. The book is due to enter the Public Domain soon, if not already ..... you might find a copy on Project Gutenberg. It's a bit ..... challenging, I think is the word used nowadays. Clearly the work of a smart person, though equally clear that <litotes>he has a bee in his bonnet.</litotes>
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Was it a novel ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I've never studied Mein Kampf, let alone read it (it is a bit long for the exercise I think) I remember reading extracts of Hitler's speech in history class, and was taught some of the mechanisms behind his propaganda. As an adult I later learned more, and felt that indeed, I hadn't been taught the whole picture but I am not sure that teaching that in school would be very effective. Maybe some kids would become aware of the danger of their political leaders but some would be lured into neo-nazism if you show them the more seducing side of it.
On the orher hand, it is better for school to teach them some fact rather than skinheads... I don't know, a choice has been made by national education. I prefer to see this rather than this period not taught at all because objectivity is hard to attain.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Many of the rabble rousers were religious zealots.
Really? Can you send me citations for evidence of this. I looked into it at the time and was unable to find any real evidence of who created many of the drawings sent to the press and the BBC investigation drew a blank as well, last I heard. It seems probable than many of those fanning the flames were the normal crew who use religion as a path to power, but I've not seen evidence in this case, only speculation. I've seen other speculation from industry insiders that this may have been a military intelligence operation from the US or an unknown other country.
The congregation listened and it escalated despite the fact that probably most had never even seen the drawings themselves.
The drawings were widely publicized on television, the internet, and in print.
Look at the levels of response to this pen and ink drawing versus the response to the "piss christ" exhibit or other things.
The "piss christ" exhibit was basically completely unknown without any publicity and was never displayed anywhere expect a snobby art gallery in an urban area.
Can you see the difference in the magnitude of response?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Take a look at my previous post. I build an analogous situation including many, many important psychological factors. People don't react in anger unless they are subjected to a threat. People rarely react with extreme anger unless they are subjected to multiple, real threats and persistent fear. The people of the US have not seen their more powerful neighbors invaded and conquered by a foreign power that routinely backs their largest religious rival and which repeatedly makes scornful remarks about their religion. The inherently evil nature of christianity has not been the excuse for such an invasion. The US is not under imminent threat of invasion by such a vastly larger an more advanced army that they are certain to be defeated. Until they are, comparing a small trigger in said powder keg to a different trigger in a kiddie pool is in no way useful.
Go ahead and look at my analogy from the previous post and if you want to argue against it, go ahead and show a way in which it is not analogous or explain why you think religious community leaders would be trying to stop the rocks. I hope at least a few of them are strong and selfless enough to do just that, but I sadly do not expect such a thing.
Listen to yourself - you are equating a funny picture showing the real state of affairs (i.e. the trend of Islamic states heading towards terrorism) to an intentionally offensive one of showing a religious head performing sexual acts.
It is called an analogy. Some of us use them to try to understand others. It is called putting yourself in another's shoes. The analogy I presented provides a pretty accurate role reversal for the average person, placing them in the position said muslims were in at the time. By picturing it, you can begin to understand the mindset of people there and predict how they are likely to respond to future events. It also allows us to normalize significant factors, except religion to show how foolish claims that it is the Islamic religion that is the cause of the behavior, and not the situation as a whole.
As for your assertion that Islamic states are headed towards terrorism, it is fairly accurate, but you might have your cause and effect a little screwy. The US has moved drastically toward increased terrorism in recent years to an extreme degree. We launched a larger army that all the middle east could ever manage for our "shock and awe" campaign against certain predominantly muslim nations. If that is not blatant attempts to use terror as a weapon. Maybe you need to reconsider exactly what the definition of "terrorism" is rather than buying into the media hype.
Did they show Allah making out with a naked guy? All they did was have a comic commenting on Islamic terrorism, and a very valid one at that.
You are very misinformed. The cartoons that were published in numerous papers and shown on TV showed acts of copulation as well as cartoons equating Islam with terrorism. The second is a touchy subject because of the situation in which the average muslim is placed. If you would bother even trying to understand their position you'd see they have friends and relatives, children, daughters, and grandfathers who have been blown up by an invading army whose excuse has been an act of "muslim terrorism" even though the country all those muslims were from is not the one that was invaded. To them it looks like an obvious pretext for a war, and promoting that pretext further simply looks like an invitation to use it to possibly do the same to them.
I'm sorry, Islam by itself may not be violent, but a significant chunk of Muslims out there are increasinly turning to a violent version of the religion.
Gee, I wonder why that would be? I don't suppose it has anything to do with a huge army marching into their homes and killing them and blowing up their brothers and sisters with cluster bombs? If I were asked five or ten years ago what the best way would be to increase the amount of muslim terrorism, I'm not sure I would have come up with an effective a method as we are now implementing. It is a great way to drive a huge number of people bound together by a common religion into such horror and despair and anger that they are willing to die simply to try to exact some revenge for all that has been done to them. But then, having an enemy and spreading fear are great ways to win votes, which I'm sure had nothing to do with our decision to invade.
You can say all you want about hicks and conservatives, but their percentages are way lower.
Really? How many conservatives and christians are there in the US military? How many people have they killed? Seems pretty violent and the numbers are many orders of magnitude greater than those killed by muslims lately. Or do you mean violence not done by Americans?
Heck, you see comics and cartoons involving almost every religion in a lot of democractic countries
You can flick a match against a wet cloth in your kiddie pool and nothing happens. If you flick a match against sandpaper in a room full of gunpowder there is an explosion. Obviously cloth is better than sandpaper and we need to be vigilant against the dangerous sandpaper out there. Be sure to place the blame where it belongs, on the sandpaper.
Go back to watching the 700 club and never questioning your beliefs of considering other points of view. I'm sure you'll be happy in your holier-than-thou, but blind-as-hell convictions.
Just because a library is government funded, does not mean they should be able to pick and choose which ideas are provided to the public.
It absolutely means that the public which owns it should vote democratically about whatever standards they want the library to hold. The public should not be forced to fund something they don't want.
This is also why I think democracy is a terrible way to run things like libraries and education.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
It absolutely means that the public which owns it should vote democratically about whatever standards they want the library to hold. The public should not be forced to fund something they don't want.
Luckily the US government is structured so that it takes a super majority, rather than a simple majority to infringe basic human rights. In many cases we're not talking about funding. Usually, these are attempts to remove books the library already has, either because they were purchased or donated. Rarely does it cost anything at all.
There is no room for Men Kampf in the classroom. Schools already have their hands filled preaching their own brand of propaganda.
Rich
A way for people to get access to books that people have tried to ban? I'm all for it. Mind you, there's probably going to be some dipshit corporation out there who sues Google over this.
Patrolling ftw
.... it is good that you hide your literary incompetence behind an AC comment.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Witch hunts are never right Mister, even if you catch only witches.
There is a thing called due process and rule of law.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Check the population of Indonesia.
Think about how many Indonesian terrorists there are (not many).
STFU.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There you go old chap.
Sorry to rain in your little parade.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
More information specific to girls in the girls book.
And yeah, we've both in our house. I read it growing up as well, but only after I got "the talk".
I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.
I didn't get "the talk", I got a book instead. This was immensely preferable because my mother would have probably been freaked out, I would have been nauseated, and I can absorb material a lot more rapidly from the printed page than people can speak anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Oh, come on! You should have at least gotten a +1 Funny for that.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Not quite the same. They cancelled his speaking engagement. I guess we can say that's a form of censorship, if it's defined broadly, but it's more a denial of venue. It's somebody saying, "I'm not going to let you use my pulpit."
I would argue that their action is justified, since what they're saying is that they're not going to hand him a captive audience. If he wants to publish his theories, or disseminate them in any other public forum where people can choose whether to listen to him or not, he's more than welcome to.
The public schools are inherently subject to stricter rules on what gets taught there, than what a person can shout from a streetcorner -- as they should be. Unlike a person standing on the street, who can presumably just walk away from the speech they disagree with or find offensive, a student in a public school doesn't have a choice of whether to listen or not. They're required by law to show up (and private and home-schooling aren't alternatives for most people), and therefore get whatever's on the curriculum force-fed to them. Thus, something which might be perfectly acceptable in a library (where you have to take the book off the shelf and read it: an opt-in process) would be totally out of place in a lesson plan or curriculum (where there's no choice, or it is at best an opt-out process to avoid the material).
In other words, what you're allowed to put out into the commons and allow people to choose to read/listen-to, is different than what you're going to be allowed to say in a school, to a totally captive audience. McCalden got taken from him the latter, but not the former.
Now, if you want to see some real censorship, look at what happened to the Holocaust "revisionist" in Austria sometime last year -- he went to jail and was basically forced to recant his statements in order to avoid serious (on par with murder, IIRC) prison time. Now, I don't agree with what he was saying in the slightest, but I think it's rather disturbingly hypocritical to use such decidedly fascist tactics to prevent the spread of Nazism.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."