Libraries Release Most-Censored Books List

Banned books week by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 18:14 · Score: 2, Informative

This week is banned books week. Celebrate (?) by reading a banned book - say no to censorship :)

Re:Banned books week by MPolo · 2011-09-27 18:23 · Score: 1

The lists are interesting in that this year's list includes an item of required reading for my English classes (Brave New World), and last years includes a book that I required for English, even though it wasn't formally required by the government (To Kill a Mockingbird). [I'm teaching in Germany, where there are centralized exams to graduate from High School, so that everybody has to read at least some of the same books.]
I suppose that it is censorship in a certain way, since the libraries typically receive government monies; on the other hand, the publication and purchase of the books was in no way suppressed, so in that sense, censorship isn't exactly the right word here, as it would be, say, in Iran when the controversy over The Satanic Verses came out.
Re:Banned books week by lxs · 2011-09-27 19:02 · Score: 1

Just not Twilight.
Re:Banned books week by bane2571 · 2011-09-27 19:26 · Score: 1

To be fair to the Libraries, this list is basically one of the public's complaints against books, not an actual list of censorship. The count also contains complaints for "age inappropriate" material and complaints from schools. I know I'd complain if my hypothetical 10 year old child was subjected to twilight.
Re:Banned books week by iiiears · 2011-09-27 21:11 · Score: 2

"..seven of the ten most-censored books are now available on Amazon's Kindle — more than twice as many as last year."
I lol'ed

--
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
Re:Banned books week by jellomizer · 2011-09-27 22:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

For twilight I think it is banned (partially) due to religious groups. But I think it is mostly from high school English teachers who do not want to read essay after essay about twilight from every girl. When they assign them a book report.
I remember a college class on creative writing the first day of class the professor stated she didn't want any stories about God or Jesus. Not because she had a problem with religion, but she previously taught in salt lake city Utah, and every story she read was about God, and was sick of hearing the same thing over and over again in a creative writting class.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Banned books week by Mattwan · 2011-09-28 01:26 · Score: 1

That's built into the system. The list isn't just complaints about library materials; it also includes complaints about required reading in classrooms. I find it a little intellectually dishonest, really, since the promotional materials and the "Banned Books" name suggest something different than what is actually being considered.
Re:Banned books week by FictionPimp · 2011-09-28 02:26 · Score: 2

I'd complain if I was subjected to twilight!
Re:Banned books week by ChrisMaple · 2011-09-28 05:25 · Score: 2

All American high school diplomas entitle the holder to attend a university
Let's not be silly.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Banned books week by painandgreed · 2011-09-28 05:48 · Score: 1

Both "A Brave New World" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" were required reading in my English class (Ontario, Canada)
As they were in my school in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. It's probably one of the reasons these books make the top ten list is because they are at least recommended for required reading in almost all schools. Thus objected to the most.
Re:Banned books week by l0kl1n · 2011-09-28 09:33 · Score: 1

For twilight I think it is banned (partially) due to religious groups.
You are correct that religious groups do stupid shit like this. Speaking as an (individual) religious person though, I would say that if my kid(s) couldn't tell the fucking difference between a vampire and God, I would have to conclude the problem is more on how I've raised them than due to the existence of vampire fiction.
Re:Banned books week by BitterOak · 2011-09-28 10:09 · Score: 1

This week is banned books week. Celebrate (?) by reading a banned book - say no to censorship :)
The only books that are truly banned in the United States are child pornography (with actual photographs.) Yes, there are many books that libraries choose not to buy with their limited funds, and many books that schools choose not to have on their library bookshelves, but that's not the same thing as being banned. So if you really want to stick up for your right to read banned books, you'll need to look at some kiddie porn.
As much as I hate the idea of children being abused, we can't truly claim, as a country, to have full freedom to read as long a people can be jailed for merely possessing or reading the wrong books or magazines, no matter how disgusting they might be.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Re:Banned books week by rusl · 2011-09-28 10:46 · Score: 2

They are writing creative stories from the perspective of God or Jesus? i want to read that! That sounds awesome. Jesus goes to the bar and gets into a fight and turns the water into beer? God decides a week will be 10 days and do everything in metric. It just sounds like a lot of fun and blasphemy!
Probably I'm being too optimistic on the story topics. I wish everybody would write a story about God themselves instead of parroting the same boring Hollywood version of the Bible stories.
BTW my religion is "ignostic" I got that word off of wikipedia.

--
Stupidity is its own reward.
Re:Banned books week by MPolo · 2011-09-29 20:53 · Score: 1

I was trying to avoid explaining the whole German system. In any case, almost the whole country has switched to a 12-year Gymnasium, so completing the same number of years in a German school does qualify for the university (assuming you pass the leaving exams).

Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-27 18:18 · Score: 5, Informative

In this age of hyperbole, where everything is worked up to be a huge scandal (Obama is the antichrist, Bush is Hitler, and social security is a Ponzi scheme), it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.

And frankly, if they're going to remove something from their library, Twilight is a great choice. Bravo, friends, bravo.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Not really censored by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 18:24 · Score: 5, Informative

It doesn't even really mean that someone removed the book from their library. If you read carefully it says that these are the most challenged books, where a challenge is defined as a formal written complaint or request to remove the book from the library. None of these materials are actually censored.
But, the editors here clearly self-censored and chose not to read the article before posting it.
Captcha: "paranoia" (somewhat apt).
Re:Not really censored by AlXtreme · 2011-09-27 18:59 · Score: 3, Informative

Someone please mod AC up.
These books weren't censored, they were challenged by over-protective parents fearing that their children might ask them uncomfortable questions. The books themselves weren't removed (I'd assume successful challenges might not even make it to ALA).
"And Tango Makes Three" got the most challenges. Seriously America, you're worried about two male penguins hatching an egg?

--
This sig is intentionally left blank
Re:Not really censored by Talderas · 2011-09-27 23:44 · Score: 2

I like to compare Twilight to trashy romance novels.
I think trashy romance novels are better because you still get the sex.
Plus it's fun to recite them out loud in a dead pan voice.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Not really censored by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 23:54 · Score: 1, Informative

-1 clueless drivel.

Free speech also means not being compelled to support the same of those you disagree with
Get the fuck out, or get some sense of perspective. Free speech has nothing to do with being compelled, that's freedom of movement/decision. In fact, free speech has everything to do with not having a selection process for which books are "public funds worthy" and which are not.

Free speech is a wholly separate thing from acceptable speech
No it isn't. The free speech doctrine states that every utterance of a private thought is protected unless it directly harms an individual. Weasel words like "acceptable" don't add into it. And society has already determined the scope. That you seem to imply that your own opinion to outweighs that of society says a lot about you.
Re:Not really censored by Mattwan · 2011-09-28 01:32 · Score: 1

"And Tango Makes Three" got the most challenges. Seriously America, you're worried about two male penguins hatching an egg?
Perspective is important here. There were only 348 challenges total, so the top spot probably got under a dozen. It shouldn't be surprising that there are ten or eleven nutbars who currently have kids in elementary school.
Re:Not really censored by LateArthurDent · 2011-09-28 01:54 · Score: 1

In this age of hyperbole, where everything is worked up to be a huge scandal (Obama is the antichrist, Bush is Hitler, and social security is a Ponzi scheme), it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.
Not again...censorship does not require involvement by the government to be called censorship. If you mean it that way, you need to specifically qualify it and say, "government censorship."
Making it difficult for people to have access to information, any information, is a bad thing. It's not about whether you can get around it, and it's not about who is behind the censorship. It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.

And frankly, if they're going to remove something from their library, Twilight is a great choice. Bravo, friends, bravo.
I know you're being facetious, but it's worth pointing out that it's always a great thing when others get denied access to things you disapprove of. It's only a problem when you get denied access to things others disapprove of.
Let's please not fall into the trap of justifying censorship by arguing the literary value of Twilight. We can all agree Twilight sucks, but that's really not relevant to whether it should be available to those who would like to read it.
Re:Not really censored by T.E.D. · 2011-09-28 02:08 · Score: 1

You are quite correct in your first two sentences, then make the editor's same mistake in reverse in the next. If you have evidence that none of those materials were in fact removed due to the complaints, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, either don't make the assertion, or don't complain when the editors make the same logical fallacy. You don't get it both ways.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-28 03:09 · Score: 1

, but it's worth pointing out that it's always a great thing when others get denied access to things you disapprove of. It's only a problem when you get denied access to things others disapprove of.
Until you realize that no one is being denied access to anything, you are not worth talking to on this topic.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-28 03:15 · Score: 1

All you have to do is look at the numbers. A Ponzi scheme ends up spinning wildly out of control. Social Security can be made financially secure for the next 70 years with some small changes (raise the retirement age slightly, raise payments into the system in various ways). Look it up, you'll see.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by tlhIngan · 2011-09-28 04:30 · Score: 1

It doesn't even really mean that someone removed the book from their library. If you read carefully it says that these are the most challenged books, where a challenge is defined as a formal written complaint or request to remove the book from the library. None of these materials are actually censored.
If enough parents get together, "challenged" turns into "censored" very quickly. It has happened many times in the past and would probably happen in the future.
There are many groups who do these things, including ones like the Parents Television Council that floods the FCC and Apple with complaints over the slightest bit of female breast exposure. (I tossed Apple in there because they're the ones behind the "no porn in the App Store" - too many complaints, see (apps can get 1000+ complaints in a day from groups like them)).
And hey, there were huge protests from parents here over letting schools have 3 children's books featuring alternative families (i.e., homosexual couples) in the library. The books just featured stories about families with two dads or two moms as perfectly normal. Had it been written as one dad one mom, no one would've complained. Just because it featured a homosexual family doing normal stuff.
Re:Not really censored by minchazo · 2011-09-28 04:46 · Score: 1

Making it difficult for people to have access to information, any information, is a bad thing. It's not about whether you can get around it, and it's not about who is behind the censorship. It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.
Dead wrong. I don't want my kids reading, "How to build a bomb using common household chemicals" until they are mature enough to do it safely! It's my responsibility to a) keep them from information that will cause serious emotional, physicial, or mental damage and b) help them grow to the point that they *can* read those same texts safely.
Re:Not really censored by jdavidb · 2011-09-28 05:41 · Score: 1

I believe in the First Amendment. And I believe in the value of libraries funded collectively for the good of all. (Or at least all who will take advantage of them.) What I don't believe in is forcing people to use their money to fund the promulgation of books they disagree with. I don't believe in that any more than I believe in forcing people to fund a war they disagree with.
If you want a book available at a library, pay for it yourself. Don't demand that other people do it for you and then call it censorship if they don't.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Not really censored by LateArthurDent · 2011-09-28 05:59 · Score: 1

Dead wrong. I don't want my kids reading, "How to build a bomb using common household chemicals" until they are mature enough to do it safely!
If they're capable of understanding and following the instructions, but you haven't talked to them enough to get them to the point of understanding the dangers, you've already failed in an important parental duty. It's ok, you can still fix it, and learn to teach your kids how to make good decisions instead of making decisions for them.
You keep the cabinets with cleaning supplies locked while your toddler can find it and accidentally drink it. By the time your kids can read and comprehend instructions about which cleaning supplies to use to make a bomb, he damn well should be old enough to understand the implications of home-made explosives. Some parents have the same problem regarding sex. If your kid has reached puberty, they should know the consequences of unprotected sex. If they haven't, you talk to them in preparation for when they do reach puberty. You don't try to hide sex from them, it doesn't work that way, and it really doesn't work with anything else. Kids will encounter many things in life their parents don't think they're the right age to handle. Either they will be prepared or they won't. Assume they will encounter it earlier than you'd like, and do your best to make sure they're prepared instead of trying to shelter them from existence.
Before you ask, I don't have kids, but I was raised in a zero censorship environment. I was encouraged to feed my curiosity with whatever it is that I was curious about. I supposedly got my first sex talk the very first time I asked where babies came from, which I don't remember, but I believe, since I don't remember a time I didn't know about sex. I do, however, remember many more talks after that. People get angered when celebrities do immoral things because they should be "role models" but forget that somebody doing something wrong is a very good role model as to what not to do. Unprotected sex talks were sometimes prompted by something on TV. "Do you think what this fictional character / celebrity / politician is doing is right? Why, or why not?" Same thing about stealing, climbing dangerous objects, whatever other opportunity presented itself.
If you were to ask my parents, I'm fairly sure they'd say they are happy with the way I turned out. I survived to adulthood without losing an eye, I'm honest, and I'd say I'm successful (not rich or even close, but I have a job I enjoy and can support myself with some money left over for indulgences now and again and to save for retirement...what else do you need?) That doesn't mean that I agree with everything they believed in and everything they tried to teach me, I'm my own person. That doesn't mean I didn't make any mistakes along the way or that I always followed their directions. That said, I learned from my mistakes, and took to heart the most important lesson one can ever learn from their parents: how to make your own decisions responsibly. That's not something you can learn all at once when you turn 18 and move away to college. That's something that needs to be painstakingly taught from the moment you start walking and talking.
Re:Not really censored by desdinova+216 · 2011-09-28 06:10 · Score: 1

social security is a Ponzi scheme
Hate to burst your bubble, but social security IS a Ponzi scheme. This fact was constantly pointed out by the original detractors when SS was voting into being. SS supporters assured everyone that it could never turn into what is has become today.
Seriously, take some time to learn what a Ponzi scheme actually is. Now go learn how Social Security works. According current laws, SS is illegal except that its now one of the US government's largest programs.
A statement of fact is not the same thing as a "huge scandal." Sometimes facts really are scandalous in nature; frequently because people simply refuse to accept reality.
Non biased citation needed
Re:Not really censored by LateArthurDent · 2011-09-28 06:37 · Score: 1

Until you realize that no one is being denied access to anything, you are not worth talking to on this topic.
And yet, here you are replying to me.
Here's the relevant quote from my post which you apparently missed:

It's about whether it's acceptable to take any steps at all to make it harder for you to get your hands on a book. It's not.
When people ask a school library to remove a book, for example, they're taking that step. Whether they succeed or not, we should bring attention to it and discourage the censorship line of thought, lest we make it easier for others to succeed by assuming that they can't. Constant vigilance and all that.
Re:Not really censored by oldmac31310 · 2011-09-28 06:56 · Score: 1

I really like it when my kids ask me 'uncomfortable questions'. It usually means that they are really thinking and hungry for knowledge. If I think it is something they shouldn't know about yet I'll just say, 'when you're older'. Not a perfect solution, but it beats protecting them from everything. I'd rather they find out certain things from me than via the warped information source of the school playground!

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:Not really censored by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2011-09-28 09:51 · Score: 1

Seriously America, you're worried about two male penguins hatching an egg?
You know how it is. First it's books about gay penguins, then it's rallies downtown (where they're all gay penguins, they just don't admit it), then next thing you know you're living next to a gay penguin couple and they're hatching eggs that let me tell you THEY didn't lay and then they're on the school board and maybe even teaching! Then they've got all those innocent little minds to corrupt! DO YOU WANT YOUR SON TO BE A GAY PENGUIN?
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-28 15:22 · Score: 1

You have to decide what goes into a library and what doesn't. By your definition, most books in the world are censored because they are not easily accessible. It's really a shame that most libraries censor "Apes, Angels and Victorians," but leave Twilight. They also typically leave out the Madonna Sex book, but really, are they missing anything? This is a tempest in a teapot.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-28 15:25 · Score: 1

Sure, the goal is fine, but how about we switch to an actual retirement savings plan instead?
What happens to the people who try to invest their money, but lose it all? It happens, and we shouldn't let them starve in the street as a result.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by lgw · 2011-09-29 05:28 · Score: 1

That's an absurd false dichotomy - there are choices between the extremes of "the government pays you less than even government treasuries" and "you can choose any stupid inventment you want". With a 30 year time horizon, investing in effectively all stocks is always the best return, and times when "all stocks" do particularly poorly are times when it's uncertian that the government can cover it's obligations anyhow (because the overall economy is so much in the crapper). Closer to retirement, a broad array of investment-grade corporate bonds is quite safe. It's the basic investment advice any financial advisor would give you, and really we all should be invested in the American economy - why should there even be a "non-owner" class? Why shouldn't everyone own the means of production, at least to som edegree?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-29 05:42 · Score: 1

I am inherently suspicious of anyone who is whining that social security is a bad investment. Social security is such a small amount of money, after all. If you really knew that much about investment, you would not car about such a trivial amount.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by lgw · 2011-09-29 07:59 · Score: 1

A poor return is a poor return, regardless of the amount invested. With a reasonable return, the amount that goes into Social Security (including payroll tax) would actually pay enough to live on! The difference is critical here.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-29 14:38 · Score: 1

Hmmm, you're right, maybe we should raise the social security contribution so people can live on it.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by lgw · 2011-09-29 15:27 · Score: 1

There's no real difference between the taxes labelled "Social Security" and other taxes - that's just a game. Whatever the tax is called, would you realy ask your grandchildren to sacrifice more for your benefit? Most people want to spoil their grandchildrem, not have things go the other way.
I just can't see the objection to transitioning from a plan where we take money from our grandchildren at gunpoint, to a plan where everyone joins the "owning class". From a plan where the government has great control over the lives of so many by the decision to send or withhold the checks, to a system where the same end is achived by giving the people the power instead of the government. It's as if there are people wo really want a totalitarian government! And that makes no sense at all - a dictatorship is just no fun unless you get to be the dictator.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-29 15:43 · Score: 1

It doesn't really matter, we're not going to be letting old people die in the street, we'll be paying taxes for them either way. So what difference does it make?

If social security tax is high enough that paying it is actually painful to you, then you probably suck at investing anyway, and should stop your whining because you would be one of those old people dying on the street. If it isn't painful to you, then it's not really a big deal anyway.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by one-egg · 2011-09-29 17:03 · Score: 1

You seriously misunderstand. Most of these libraries are government-operated, either public libraries or schools. While it's true that SOME of the libraries rightfully resisted, the ALA's primary point is to illustrate the pressure that is being put on these libraries. And in many cases, the books were actually removed (note that the second-most-frequent challengers were administrators). Sometimes, lawsuits got them back, sometimes not. So yes, it's censorship.
Nor is your claim that "All these materials are easily available elsewhere" supported by the facts. In many cases, the library facing the challenge is the only library in a small town that doesn't have a bookstore, and often the readers can't afford to buy their own books. So your argument really boils down to "If you're poor, you don't get to read what you want."
At least your dig at Twilight gets humor points.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-29 17:18 · Score: 1

In many cases, the library facing the challenge is the only library in a small town that doesn't have a bookstore, and often the readers can't afford to buy their own books.
This is dumb. In a small town like that, there are more books than a few that are effectively censored because the librarian chose not to include them. Many books that are much more important and valuable than the ones on this list (let's be honest, half the books on that list will be forgotten within a decade). If anything, this is people revolting against the idea that one person (the librarian) gets to choose which books are censored and which are not.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-29 17:19 · Score: 1

Oh, and thanks for approving my humor.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by one-egg · 2011-09-29 17:25 · Score: 1

Your ignorance of the issues is glaring and appalling.
If the people were really objecting to the choices made by librarians, they would be clamoring for particular purchases as well as objecting to the books that were currently on the shelves. That's not the case. Nor are the citizens asking for the librarian to be replaced or instructed in their tastes. They are quite simply saying, "I don't think anybody in my school/town should be allowed to read this particular book." That's a hugely different question.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-29 17:54 · Score: 1

Your ignorance of the issues is glaring and appalling.
Why thankyou. You idiocy and lack of nuance on the other hand is quite entertaining.

They are quite simply saying, "I don't think anybody in my school/town should be allowed to read this particular book."
Of course not. Were that the case, they would have to go to much greater lengths. Rather, they are saying, "I don't want my taxes to pay for other people to read this trash. If they want to read it, let them go find it/pay for it themselves themselves."

Not only that, most libraries that I've run into do allow you to request books. And people actually do request books. Are you so unfamiliar with libraries that you are unaware of this? Add ignorance to your list of faults.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by one-egg · 2011-09-29 19:08 · Score: 1

> Rather, they are saying, "I don't want my taxes to pay for other people to read this trash."
Not quite. In fact, not at all. What they are saying (and you seem to be supporting) is "Even though my tax money has already been spent, and even though other people contributed THEIR tax money to help buy this book, and even though those people might think the money was well-spent, I want to remove this book from the shelves so that it will be more difficult--or better, impossible--for anyone to read this book that I personally dislike, despite the fact that there is no financial benefit to doing so." It's all about suppressing ideas, and the people who make the complaints make that position quite clear.
There are mechanisms (e.g., elections) for changing future spending priorities. After-the-fact censorship isn't one of them.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-29 19:33 · Score: 1

And yet amazingly these people can still get the books. If this is what passes for censorship in America, then America is a pretty great place.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by lgw · 2011-09-30 08:28 · Score: 1

Way to completely ignore my point. Also, if your attitdue is "why improve anything unless it's completely broken", I hope you're not an engineer!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-09-30 12:57 · Score: 1

I don't see privatizing social security as making it better.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Not really censored by lgw · 2011-10-01 09:46 · Score: 1

So, really, not in trolling, you'd rather see the government have the power to grant or withhold life's basic needs over a significant percentage of the populaiton? Rather then giving those people independence (and ownership of the means of production)?
Seriously? Can you offer any explantion? I assume you're not just masturbating to pictures of Hitler and Stalin here, but actually think government control would make people's lives better in some way?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Not really censored by phantomfive · 2011-10-01 10:03 · Score: 1

withhold life's basic needs over a significant percentage of the population? Rather then giving those people independence (and ownership of the means of production)?
OK, we're talking about social security here, and anyone who is completely dependent on social security at the end of their life, most likely failed, and mostly through their own incompetence. Do I want to give them ownership of the means of production? No, no, absolutely not.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Soon to be also censored... by Baraka · 2011-09-27 18:19 · Score: 1

...the US Constitution.

--
"The illegal we can do right now; the unconstitutional will take a little longer." --Henry Kissinger

Re:Soon to be also censored... by rusl · 2011-09-28 10:50 · Score: 1

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

--
Stupidity is its own reward.

Brave New World by glwtta · 2011-09-27 18:25 · Score: 1

It's been a while since I read it - what is it exactly that people object to in Brave New World?

At worst, I remember it being a bit preachy.

--
sic transit gloria mundi

Re:Brave New World by narcc · 2011-09-27 18:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Oh, I don't know -- maybe something to do with all of the young children engaging in "erotic play". That sort of thing tends to make people uncomfortable.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Brave New World by loteck · 2011-09-27 18:43 · Score: 1

Children being encouraged to experiment with sex, I'd bet.
Re:Brave New World by Tomato42 · 2011-09-27 19:29 · Score: 1

Now that's prudish.
Re:Brave New World by Intropy · 2011-09-27 19:41 · Score: 1

Probably that strumpet Lenina.
Re:Brave New World by cowboy76Spain · 2011-09-27 20:24 · Score: 1

It's been a while since I read it - what is it exactly that people object to in Brave New World? At worst, I remember it being a bit preachy.
From the article (well, linked by it):

Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
Reasons: insensitivity, offensive language, racism, and sexually explicit

I suppose racism claims have been raised by some angry Delta (everyone knows Epsilons are not intelligent enough to fill a complaint). More seriously, perhaps the part about the reserve.
Anyway, I find the article very poor if it comes from an association of well-educated people as librarians. The "top 10" lists does not even show how many hits each of them got.
And, with less than 2000 requests for removal in a year, it does not look like it is a very serious problem (of course, TFE of TFS "forgot" to add that bit of data). Even if you accept the claim that they estimate "actual" requests to be 5x the reported requests, it looks like those attempts of censorship can easily be thwarted by ignoring the claims.

--
Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
Re:Brave New World by Ash+Vince · 2011-09-27 23:34 · Score: 2

Children being encouraged to experiment with sex, I'd bet.
If that was the case, you should start censoring MTV. Almost every female pop idol since Madonna has indulged in a bit of pelvic thrusting or whatever in the videos.
I remember working at a gig one saturday morning building the stage with all the roadies when suddenly they were all outside the security guards hut leering at a Christina Aguilera video being shown on children's TV. They were all enjoying it immensely until someone pointed out their daughters were probably at home watching it too.
Kids are encourage to experiment with sex by every other form of media, why should books be any different?
On a different note anyone who reads A Brave New World should also read Island as in many way the books are counterpoints to each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel)

--
I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
Re:Brave New World by masternerdguy · 2011-09-28 00:01 · Score: 1

Probably because its about a world where people are essentially constructed for a specific job and kept under control by sex and drugs. Some people seem to get uncomfortable with some of that.

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Re:Brave New World by dkleinsc · 2011-09-28 00:09 · Score: 2

That plus the religious rituals to Ford that had an element of group sex.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Brave New World by Mattwan · 2011-09-28 01:40 · Score: 1

Anyway, I find the article very poor if it comes from an association of well-educated people as librarians. The "top 10" lists does not even show how many hits each of them got.
As a librarian, I have to say I'm not sure how well-educated we really are. I am told that there is a handful of rigorous, challenging library schools, but those with which I'm familiar are basically diploma mills.
I've long suspected that the office that prepares these annual lists intentionally hides or obscures the number of challenges against each individual book. If people were fully aware of how few claims there actually are against any given book, it would be hard to work up outrage and publicity.
Re:Brave New World by LateArthurDent · 2011-09-28 01:58 · Score: 1

If that was the case, you should start censoring MTV. Almost every female pop idol since Madonna has indulged in a bit of pelvic thrusting or whatever in the videos.
I think you mean Elvis.
Re:Brave New World by danlip · 2011-09-28 03:03 · Score: 1

Because it might wake people up to the fact the government wants a populace that is drugged and stupid? They are just using TV and NCLB rather than soma and stunted fetuses. And let's lot forget all that evil sex in the book.
Re:Brave New World by Reverand+Dave · 2011-09-28 04:11 · Score: 1

And the wide acceptance of drug use in the book as palliative and beneficial.

--
I got here through a series of tubes
Re:Brave New World by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-09-28 04:28 · Score: 1

Hey now, Soma-dosed orgies are nothing to be afraid of. After all, they are the 'killer-app' of the future!

Ask not what your orgie can do for you, but ask what you can do for your orgie!

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Brave New World by desdinova+216 · 2011-09-28 06:28 · Score: 1

If that was the case, you should start censoring MTV.
does MTV still show Music videos?
Re:Brave New World by Ltap · 2011-09-28 07:50 · Score: 1

The complaints are exactly the same as those who complained about Huckleberry Finn for having the word "nigger". Even if the overall sentiment of the book is opposite to certain content, people will hyperfocus on a part of the content to the exclusion of everything else ("this book wants our kids to do drugs and have group sex", even though that's entirely against the drift of the book.) Ultimately, what lies at the heart of this is something very ugly: they expect people to like or dislike things without having experienced them, which goes against not just scientific empiricism but the way we live our lives. It also explains why so many of them have made value judgements about books without having read them or without any idea of what the book is about. According to their flawed logic, since books can "corrupt", you simply can't read books you might dislike. All of this ultimately runs into the "who watches the watchers" problem. Unfortunately, most of these people tend to just hop on bandwagons and blindly believe authority figures about which books are "bad" (for instance, the "Harry Potter will make your kids evil wizards" thing that spread memetically throughout far-Right groups).

Inevitably, opposition to "bad" books ultimately stems from people like Glenn Beck, whose "9-12 Project" got one teen novel banned from some school libraries. It is especially bad with books for young children that focus any sort of diversity in human relationships -- ultimately, it more or less comes down to homophobia on the part of a minority of parents. Almost inevitably, books such as these are not banned for violence but for political reasons, homophobia (and other dislike of non-heterosexual-monogamous-married-religious relationships and lifestyles), and because they even dare to mention sexuality and relationships in something like a teen novel. The reason why they want to ban these for other students, rather than just their own children, is that it fundamentally comes down to the "bubble". They can't hide real life from their children effectively if they will hear about it from their peers and maybe have a chance of groping their way back toward cultural sanity -- they can't risk the moderating effect others might have on their children. As a result, they try to do everything they can to expand the "bubble" to encompass not just their own children but the children surrounding their own children, sort of like a buffer zone. Much of the time this proves fruitless, but it's effective enough to cause numerous headaches (for instance, the number of Americans who have no idea about what evolution is and blindly hate it). Recognizing this at the root cause (censoring parents and enforced cultural homogeneity) helps to address these issues before they cause problems.

--
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
Re:Brave New World by Macgrrl · 2011-09-28 16:52 · Score: 1

Elvis was a female pop idol?

--
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 18:36 · Score: 1

It amazes me that books like these are censored while the Bible, which tell Christians to kill non-believers, is allowed.

There you go, I fixed that for you.

Censored? by pahles · 2011-09-27 18:49 · Score: 3, Informative

The list is about "challenged" books, not about them being censored. Please RTFA!

--
Sig?

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by DerPflanz · 2011-09-27 18:52 · Score: 1

It amazes me that books like these are censored while the Qur'an and Hadith, which tell Muslims to subdue or kill non-Muslims to enter paradise, is allowed.

It amazes me that books like these are censored while the Bible, which tell Christians to kill non-believers, is allowed.

There you go, I fixed that
for you.

The point still stands.

--
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by slippyblade · 2011-09-27 18:53 · Score: 1

Or the bible for that matter which says that selling a disobedient child into slavery is a good deal. Or fathering 2 separate warring peoples with your daughters is a virtuous thing. Or that wearing two different types of fabric in the same outfit is "an abomination"

Banned Classics...1984 eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 18:58 · Score: 1

Does anyone else find it a tad ironic that 1984 is among the books "censored"? Maybe they should remove Fahrenheit 451 as well. :)

Re:Banned Classics...1984 eh? by Chrisq · 2011-09-27 21:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Does anyone else find it a tad ironic that 1984 is among the books "censored"? Maybe they should remove Fahrenheit 451 as well. :)
I would go with enforcing conversion of the title to "Celsius 233". I am the SI unit Nazi

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by victorhooi · 2011-09-27 19:02 · Score: 4, Informative

heya,

Err, which version of the Bible are you reading...?

I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers. In fact, last time I checked, it stated quite unequivocally "Thou shalt not murder". (Exodus 20:13). Note that it says murder, not kill (http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html).

The giving/taking of life is God's alone to command - and barring some explicit command from him (as happened in the OT), to take a life is considered by most Christians to be tantamount to blasphemy and trying to supplant God's role.

So sorry, but your post is really full of ignorance.

Cheers,
Victor

Challenged isn't censored by jevring · 2011-09-27 19:06 · Score: 5, Informative

The article lists the most *challenged* books. Challenging a book doesn't result in it being censored. The title of the article is incredibly misleading.

--
Move sig!

Re:Challenged isn't censored by FrootLoops · 2011-09-27 20:05 · Score: 1

To be clear, FTA:

A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness.
It doesn't say anything about how successful these challenges are.
Re:Challenged isn't censored by FrootLoops · 2011-09-27 20:48 · Score: 2

To follow up on my own comment about the success of these challenges, I read the Wikipedia page on And Tango Makes Three, #1 on this year's list and also #1 for 5 of the last 6 years. It's based on a true story where two male penguins formed a couple and were given an egg to raise.
To summarize the list of challenges on the linked page, which is hopefully representative of the challenges that went particularly far, there were...
3 failed requests to restrict the book
2 failed removal requests
1 successful request to move it to non-fiction
1 successful removal, oddly based on no requests; the removal was reviewed and at least temporarily reversed, though I didn't find the ultimate outcome
This is the mildest form of censorship I can think of. I imagine most school districts wouldn't bother to go to court over this book. It's good that this list is kept and some organizations work to keep controversial books around, but until some real censorship takes place it's not really news.
Re:Challenged isn't censored by tverbeek · 2011-09-27 21:21 · Score: 2

So they are examples of attempted censorship, not necessarily successful. It's still troublesome.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Challenged isn't censored by jevring · 2011-09-27 21:30 · Score: 2

So they are examples of attempted censorship, not necessarily successful. It's still troublesome.
There will always be people unhappy about something. It's their right to be. I don't think we have to be worried about people complaining about this until it's actually acted upon. It's not like we can prevent people from asking others to censor stuff. That would be censorship in itself.

--
Move sig!
Re:Challenged isn't censored by trojjan · 2011-09-27 21:34 · Score: 1, Offtopic

The title of the article is incredibly misleading.
You must be new here.
Re:Challenged isn't censored by tverbeek · 2011-09-27 23:25 · Score: 1

You do realize that these challenges are often successful?

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Challenged isn't censored by jevring · 2011-09-27 23:41 · Score: 1

Do you have any numbers to support this claim?

--
Move sig!
Re:Challenged isn't censored by js_sebastian · 2011-09-28 00:21 · Score: 1

To follow up on my own comment about the success of these challenges, I read the Wikipedia page on And Tango Makes Three, #1 on this year's list and also #1 for 5 of the last 6 years. It's based on a true story where two male penguins formed a couple and were given an egg to raise.
To summarize the list of challenges on the linked page, which is hopefully representative of the challenges that went particularly far, there were... 3 failed requests to restrict the book 2 failed removal requests 1 successful request to move it to non-fiction 1 successful removal, oddly based on no requests; the removal was reviewed and at least temporarily reversed, though I didn't find the ultimate outcome
This is the mildest form of censorship I can think of.
Only because people are standing up against this kind of censorship, and giving schools, libraries and districts that indulge in it bad publicity. Without this kind of attention, the no risk option would be knee-jerk censoring of anything that a parent opposes...
Re:Challenged isn't censored by Tomato42 · 2011-10-01 06:52 · Score: 1

We're all humans, we make mistakes. There are innocent people put to prison and there are murderers on the loose. As long as it affects very small minority it's OK, we can't achieve perfection.

That's not being protective, it's avoidance. by mosb1000 · 2011-09-27 19:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

I question the claim that these parents are being protective of their children. I think they are doing nothing more than being bad parents by avoiding difficult but important conversations with their children.

I am reminded of the fact that people who never learn to swim are much more likely to drown. You might think that they don't know how to swim, and so they will stay out of the water and be safer that way. The real world doesn't work that way.

Re:That's not being protective, it's avoidance. by kelemvor4 · 2011-09-28 02:08 · Score: 1

I question the claim that these parents are being protective of their children. I think they are doing nothing more than being bad parents by avoiding difficult but important conversations with their children.
I am reminded of the fact that people who never learn to swim are much more likely to drown. You might think that they don't know how to swim, and so they will stay out of the water and be safer that way. The real world doesn't work that way.
You should also be reminded of the fact that the kids educated about drugs by programs like D.A.R.E. are more likely to actually do drugs than those not educated on the subject (source http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99564,00.html ). My point there is your analogy is not correct in every situation, and I believe this is one of those. These people are being good parents, rather than negligently exposing their children to materials that their children may not be mentally developed enough to understand. Maybe you'll let your small children read things like this, heck you might even get them a subscription to penthouse and a copy of the anarchist's cookbook for their fifth birthday, but I applaud the parents for their well placed concern.
Re:That's not being protective, it's avoidance. by radish · 2011-09-28 02:55 · Score: 1

There's a difference between deciding that your child shouldn't read a certain book and challenging it, which is essentially asking that no child should be allowed to read it.
And that's putting aside the absurdity of equating an extremely popular picture book about penguins to penthouse...my first child will be born soon (yay!) and there's already a copy of Tango on the bookshelf.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:That's not being protective, it's avoidance. by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-28 03:38 · Score: 1

well placed concern
Where? I don't think trying to stop children from reading certain books because you don't like their contents counts as "well placed concern."

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:That's not being protective, it's avoidance. by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-28 03:40 · Score: 1

I think that trying to ban things for a certain group of people (or at least trying to make them less available in some ways) is quite different than actually making them do something.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:That's not being protective, it's avoidance. by mosb1000 · 2011-09-28 04:22 · Score: 1

DARE grossly misrepresents the truth about drugs. Kids aren't stupid, and they resent being lied to and condescended. It's not knowing about drugs that gets them into trouble, but knowing that they can't trust what they've been told.
I would say that not educating your children about drugs is a very bad idea. Do you really think it won't come up on it's own? Are you really sure that it wouldn't be better for them to hear about them from you? Because if that's the case, they'll learn about them from some drug dealer.
Re:That's not being protective, it's avoidance. by mosb1000 · 2011-09-28 04:25 · Score: 1

You're the kind of person that teaches their kid to swim by throwing them in the deep end, huh?
Re:That's not being protective, it's avoidance. by Toonol · 2011-09-28 04:47 · Score: 1

There's a difference between deciding that your child shouldn't read a certain book and challenging it, which is essentially asking that no child should be allowed to read it.

But this list includes objections to required reading books. That IS simply asking that your child not be forced to read it. I'm completely against book censorship, but can imagine a circumstance where I would object to my child being required to read a particular book. That would be considered 'censorship' by this article.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Ultra64 · 2011-09-27 19:26 · Score: 1

>I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers

You immediately contradict yourself:

>and barring some explicit command from him (as happened in the OT),

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by mosb1000 · 2011-09-27 19:29 · Score: 2

I've read the Bible a couple times, it doesn't say that.

God does command the Israelites to kill certain people (for example the inhabitants of Jericho) based on their practices which it claims are an abomination to God. Whether or not they are believers doesn't enter into it.

Nevertheless, these verses are largely censored in churches. Not so much because preachers want to denigrate them, but because preachers are generally a bunch of spineless cowards who want to avoid difficult conversations that might hurt the profitability of their churches.

RTFA for more info... by fantomas · 2011-09-27 19:31 · Score: 1

The article notes that these are books challenged and requested removal in public or school libraries. So I think you're going to see a bias towards books for teenagers which adults feel are inappropriate for their dear children: more emphasis on requests for censorship because of rude words, sex scenes and unconventional ideas than because of religious thought.

I can see conservative parents getting upset about a whole range of exciting contemporary teenage literature while I would imagine only the most radically conservative are going to get upset about school libraries stock religious works, they'll more likely accept the concept of teaching comparative religion.

My guess is all the world's religious works have some pretty horrific sections, you might be upset about the Qur'an but everybody here at slashdot loves the way the Lego Bible picks out the extreme sections of the Christian holy books... I'd guess the Christians can give the Muslims a good run for their money in terms of tough edicts on people who don't follow the holy words... (stonings, killings, etc). Within a school or library context I don't think people blink when they see a shelf with the different world religions holy books next to each other (probably they yawn).

Incongruous by akeeneye · 2011-09-27 19:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Alexie's book, written for teenagers, yet quite satisfying reading for adults, has a few references to jacking off as I recall. Any parent of teenagers who thinks this would be foreign territory to their spawn is delusional. But Nickel and Dimed?? Are the uber-capitalists now descending on libraries to challenge the sort of books that illustrate that the economic status-quo is not exactly peachy for everyone?

--
The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie

Re:Incongruous by dkleinsc · 2011-09-28 00:19 · Score: 1

But Nickel and Dimed?? Are the uber-capitalists now descending on libraries to challenge the sort of books that illustrate that the economic status-quo is not exactly peachy for everyone?
It appears so, yes. FTFA:

Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Reasons: drugs, inaccurate, offensive language, political viewpoint, and religious viewpoint
In other words, they're going after it because Ehrenreich is an atheist socialist who believes drug use is acceptable. And the right wing is right about describing her as a pro-drug socialist - she's one of the co-chairs of Democratic Socialists of America, and on the board of NORML.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Incongruous by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-28 01:08 · Score: 1

I'm assuming that if a book isn't put in the library in the first place it won't make it onto the challenged list. Otherwise I'd have to assume the library shelves are well-stocked with copies of Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries, and that while many leftist books were banned no liberal parents had a problem with their children being exposed to Starship Troopers or the works of Ayn Rand.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Incongruous by dkleinsc · 2011-09-28 02:45 · Score: 1

Well, I don't know about libraries near you, but in my area (which is politically quite liberal), in public and publicly accessible libraries, there were about 500 copies of The Turner Diaries, over 4000 copies of Mein Kampf, 1800 copies of Starship Troopers, and over 4000 copies of Atlas Shrugged. That suggests that those books are widely available. (This will help you find those books in a library near where you live.)

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Incongruous by akeeneye · 2011-09-28 03:10 · Score: 1

I didn't know about her and the Socialist/drug angle. It's been a while but I don't think these things come up in any overt way in the book. It's not like The Jungle by any stretch of the imagination. Now that I think of it, I'm almost sure she's written at least one article for the Freedom From Religion Foundation's monthly newsletter. And I believe it was about patriarchy and the oppression of women in the various flavors of Christianity. That would make her a feminist, atheist, pro-drug socialist. Not to mention an uppity woman.

--
The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie
Re:Incongruous by dkleinsc · 2011-09-28 03:47 · Score: 1

That would be a completely accurate description of Ehrenreich, one that she'd be quite proud of.
You're right that she doesn't tend to write overtly socialist stuff in her books, she just writes about how demonstrably unfair the capitalist economic system is to working and middle-class people and lets you draw your own conclusions.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Nickel and Dimed? by ethicalcannibal · 2011-09-27 19:35 · Score: 1

Am I reading this right? 8) Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich? I know it get's bandied about politically, but why censor it? I read it and didn't find it objectionable. Anyone know why?

Re:Nickel and Dimed? by will_die · 2011-09-27 22:57 · Score: 1

Mainly for the political reasons and also for advocating illegal drug use.
Some teachers have been using it as a way to attack capitalism and providing no counter views so when adults find out about it there have been a few objections.

The difference between "challenged" and "censored" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 19:37 · Score: 1

It's actually quite easy.

If some authority disaollows you from reading a certain work and removes said work everywhere in their area of influence (and maybe even puts some sort of punishment on creating, owning, reading, knowing, trading, .. this work), it's "censored".

If you confuse "censored" and "challenged" when submitting a slashdot article (your own TFA even says "challenged" for the love of everything!) then you are "challenged".

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by narcc · 2011-09-27 19:37 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers.

Give Deu. 17:3-5 a quick read. You don't get much more explicit than that.

Honestly, I don't see how you could have missed it. Joshua slaughtered just about everyone in Canaan -- with more than a bit of divine assistance.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Sqr(twg) · 2011-09-27 19:38 · Score: 1

There is a quote in the Qur'an that says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" which sound bad when taken out of context, but that is directed specifically against the Meccan Pagans of 1500 years ago (that were at war against Mohammad at the time of writing).

Likewise there are many questionable passages in the Bible. For example: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death"

These are still allowed because they are important historical documents that reflect the views of the time. Making similar statements today would be considered hate speech in most countries.

Harry Potter?! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 20:04 · Score: 1

I noticed that Harry Potter got challenged quite a bit but not any more!

My 7 year old was learning about HP at school, it was part of her school's curriculum last year used to encourage kids to think about fantasy situations to help with with their creative writing skills. After they'd all finished the book they also sat and watched the film to see how their interpretations differed from the film maker's. I can imagine the people who complained back in 2002 would have a fit if they knew what was happening my kid's school, LOL!

I love this bullshit! "Quick, hide it! If we hide enough bad stuff our kiddies will be safe forever!". Roll forward several years. "Oh no why are our kids so screwed up and can't cope?! Why do they feel the need to run, hide and perhaps even contemplate suicide to escape from the nasty things in life? Could it be that we hid so much from they they don't understand how to cope with horrible things in life?".

I guess there's people out there with too much fucking free time on their hands they feel the need to complain to public libraries and request books be taken off shelves!
Alright don't show an 8 year old a mangled corpse or pictures from a vivisection lab or slaughter house, but discussing persecution ( Kill a Mocking Bird ), censorship ( Farhenheit 451 ) , repression ( 1984 ), magic and witch-craft ( Harry Potter ) is not going to screw your kids up, denying them these things most likely will!

Re:Harry Potter?! by ledow · 2011-09-27 23:21 · Score: 1

Not even that, how do you expect children to grow without experiencing? That doesn't require personal experience, any more than learning about airplanes requires you to be a pilot. But if you don't read about the wars, you'll never understand what "torture" or "genocide" etc. actually *mean*.
If it's just a word on the page, it's much easier to *commit* that act than if you have it drummed into you exactly WHAT happened (that kind of teaching inevitably comes with a certain "so never do it" moniker, but that's really not necessary if the right facts are put in front of someone). In schools I've worked in, it's been explained to 8-10 year old precisely what it means to not come back from the war. In Germany, you can visit concentration camps that show you uncensored videos of hundreds of bodies being pushed by a bulldozer into a hole in the ground as part of their educational section. This sort of stuff is horrific (in the original sense of the word) but incredibly educational.
Taking it to the other extreme, when a child's pet fish dies you can buy a replacement that looks the same, or have them help you bury it in the garden. It's sad and confusing for them, sure, but it's a very worthwhile thing to do.
The people who *complain* about these things being available understand what they are talking about only in a very removed context, thus it's easy to condemn them. But even they would have *more* knowledge of what's being banned than someone who's been insulated from everything that's banned (which could easily include lists of things that HAVE been banned).
Harry Potter is 100% harmless - it's Tolkien for kids (except in my day, Tolkien WAS for kids). But, hell, in Of Mice and Men, a best friend shoots a mentally-challenged person who's committed murder, after being afraid that other people might his friend has tried to commit rape. That book was taught to me in school, and I'm none the worse for it.
Never, in the best of schools I've been to, have I ever seen such a change as a rough class of inner-city kids come to a grinding, poignant, reflective silence - such as I witnessed in my own English class as a child as we read through the end of that book together. The closest I ever saw was when we were writing our own poems based on a poem describing war-time mustard-gassing of soldiers.
Things that are "horrific" can also be "fantastic", "terrific" or even "amazing" but only if you understand what those words actually *mean*. Just because they are horrific, does not mean you shouldn't subject yourself to them voluntarily. Better to get an idea of things by reading them first than by experiencing them.
Re:Harry Potter?! by Reziac · 2011-09-28 06:10 · Score: 1

To summarize what you're pointing out -- censorship is at root about keeping people in a juvenile (ignorant, dependent) state.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by slippyblade · 2011-09-27 20:17 · Score: 2

Yep - Lot. What a nice guy.

Here's a clip that I love to trot out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2_LqOS3uo

Exodus 21 talks extensively about the buying, selling, and owning of slaves. Deuteronomy is indeed the source of the 2 fabrics comment. The reason you wont see christians follow it? Same as every other backwards and self-contradictory passage, they pick and choose what bits to believe.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Chrisq · 2011-09-27 20:20 · Score: 1

There is a quote in the Qur'an that says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" which sound bad when taken out of context, but that is directed specifically against the Meccan Pagans of 1500 years ago (that were at war against Mohammad at the time of writing).

Likewise there are many questionable passages in the Bible. For example: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death"

These are still allowed because they are important historical documents that reflect the views of the time. Making similar statements today would be considered hate speech in most countries.

It actually says "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" in several places, one of which the apologists always bring out because it is qualified by the context. In the other places it is a general command.

Both over-protective and lazy by AlXtreme · 2011-09-27 20:25 · Score: 1

Note that I used 'over-protective'. It's probably just as well parents being lazy, but the end result is the same regardless.

Using your analogy: children won't learn to swim if their parents steer them away from water.

Those parents might do so because they think it is too risky. They might not want to put in the effort. They might not be able to swim themselves. Regardless of their reasons or how they explain their actions, they are indeed harming their children in the long run.

--
This sig is intentionally left blank

Re:Both over-protective and lazy by mosb1000 · 2011-09-28 02:04 · Score: 1

When would be the appropriate age? Much older and your kid might not listen to you at all.
Age appropriateness in books has more to do with ability to comprehend content. If your kid is picking it up and reading it, that means it's age appropriate for them. It would be different if we we talking abbot movies, but you can't even understand a book unless you already know a lot about what you are reading.
Re:Both over-protective and lazy by tehcyder · 2011-09-28 03:32 · Score: 1

Seriously. All books are acceptable for all age groups. There are no books at all that I might want to prevent my kid from reading. It is their life, not mine. If my kid wants to read something, I would want him to read it with me, not in spite of me. I have read a lot of filth, but not by Irvine Welsh. And you are right, some of that filth is really not appropriate for 10 yr olds. But why should it not be accessible to them?
I hope you're not a parent yourself, some of us have had to deal with kids whose alleged carers didn't bother forcing them to do things like go to school or eat meals.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Both over-protective and lazy by cheekyjohnson · 2011-09-28 03:37 · Score: 1

I don't see why not. They're just books with words in them.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:What's missing here? by silentcoder · 2011-09-27 20:42 · Score: 1

Maybe because liberals don't believe that censoring conservatives is justified and believe in respecting the views of others even if they disagree with them. Notably to respect their rights to air views even if you utterly despise those views.

The trouble with respecting the views of conservatives is that they'll never afford you the same courtesy.

Which, for at least Christian Conservatives go directly against their Jesus's direct order to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Re:What's missing here? by Chrisq · 2011-09-27 20:58 · Score: 2

Which, for at least Christian Conservatives go directly against their Jesus's direct order to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Not in Conservative Christian Logic. "If I were a homosexual/atheist/non-Christian I'd want someone to pressure me and make things difficult so that I would have no choice but to accept Jesus and be saved from the fires of hell."

Re:What's missing here? by inglorion_on_the_net · 2011-09-27 21:02 · Score: 1

Strange that there are no examples of right wing hate literature on the list. I mean with the country being overrun by freedom hating liberals and all, you would think the list would consist almost exclusivly of works by "conservative" authors.

Right, but you wouldn't expect the liberal media conspiracy to report that, now, would you?

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by artor3 · 2011-09-27 21:12 · Score: 2

Ahh, but surely you're aware that Christians follow the New Testament, in which Jesus states that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

The Old Testament is full of obscure rules that have no bearing on the Christian faith. The Catechism is very, very clear on the taking of a life: you can only do it to protect against an attacker, and even then you should not be trying to kill, only disable.

Re:What's missing here? by gmhowell · 2011-09-27 21:24 · Score: 1

Maybe because liberals don't believe that censoring conservatives is justified and believe in respecting the views of others even if they disagree with them. Notably to respect their rights to air views even if you utterly despise those views.

Right, because political correctness is the result of right wingers. David Horowitz is a complete chode, but there is an inkling of truth in his rants concerning university thought police.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Amazon Kindle irony by tverbeek · 2011-09-27 21:25 · Score: 1, Informative

It's ironic that these books targeted for censorship are available for the Kindle, given the fact that Amazon engages in censorship of the Kindle store.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by KiloByte · 2011-09-27 21:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

not a iota or a dot will go away [from OT] before the world ends * Matthew 5:18-19

not a single letter of the OT can be invalid * Luke 16:17

all scripture counts * 2 Timothy 3:16

it is not up to personal interpretation * 2 Peter 20-21

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Do these people have a clue? by antifoidulus · 2011-09-27 21:29 · Score: 1

Seriously, we seem to be constantly under the impression that somehow, if we don't expose kids at all human sexuality, then somehow they won't become sexual. IE somehow readings lists can trump millions of years of evolution...

Here's a hint, the only kids interested in reading about "orgy porgy" are probably the only ones not actually recreating it :P

--
Monstar L

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by xaxa · 2011-09-27 21:35 · Score: 1

Ahh, but surely you're aware that Christians follow the New Testament, in which Jesus states that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.

Since the point was about censoring the book, it's not relevant which page it's on.

Re:What's missing here? by silentcoder · 2011-09-27 21:37 · Score: 1

Oh right. Because suggesting that we protect vulnerable communities with sensitive speech is the same as demanding viewpoints you dislike be kept from others at gunpoint

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by SwedishPenguin · 2011-09-27 21:41 · Score: 1

Regardless, the Old Testament is still *in the bible* no? The contents of books is what is relevant to this discussion, not which parts of the bible Christians choose to selectively follow.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by artor3 · 2011-09-27 21:45 · Score: 2

Jesus worked on the Sabbath. He associated with sinners. He didn't fast at all the appointed times. The OT is still around, and important for historical reasons, but Jesus repeatedly made clear that the rules were changing.

Re:What's missing here? by silentcoder · 2011-09-27 21:47 · Score: 1

>Not in Conservative Christian Logic. "If I were a homosexual/atheist/non-Christian I'd want someone to pressure me and make things difficult so that I would have no choice but to accept Jesus and be saved from the fires of hell."

Which is pretty flawed logic. A much more valid version would be: "If I lived in a muslim/atheist/budhist nation, I would like them to allow me to practice my beliefs freely without persecution or pressure. Therefore in the nation my faith rules I should treat those with different beliefs with the same courtesy."

This applies just as much to believes which are in fact biological realities such as "I am gay".

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by artor3 · 2011-09-27 21:47 · Score: 1

The original statement was that Christians are commanded to kill non-believers. This is false. It might command Jews to kill...

By the numbers by oDDmON+oUT · 2011-09-27 22:01 · Score: 1

4,660: Registered challenges to books since the beginning of the century.
311,800,000: Approximate population of the United States in 2011.
So, 1.49454779e-5, or .0000015%, of the population is responsible for
the "Frequently challenged books of the 21st century" list.

It's mind boggling that so few could affect the lives, or get the attention
of, so many.
Welcome to the era of rule by the lunatic fringe.

--
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.

Re:By the numbers by bjorniac · 2011-09-27 23:43 · Score: 1

And that's presuming that there are no repeats - I'd wager there are people who object to more than one book at a time...
Re:By the numbers by masternerdguy · 2011-09-28 00:07 · Score: 1

Yes, I can see the significance of that extra zero...

--
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Re:By the numbers by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-09-28 00:21 · Score: 1

So, 1.49454779e-5, or .0000015%, of the population is responsible for the "Frequently challenged books of the 21st century" list.
Umm, no.
1.49454779e-5 is certainly correct.
Alas, 1.49-etc isn't actually 0.0000015%. It's not even 0.0000015. The number you were searching for was 0.0015%....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:By the numbers by jmottram08 · 2011-09-28 01:30 · Score: 1

you mean the extra 2 zeros?

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by trout007 · 2011-09-27 22:25 · Score: 1

That is like saying slavery is legal because the original constitution allows it. Yeah if you ignore the 13th and 14th amendment.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by knarf · 2011-09-27 23:12 · Score: 1

I'm fairly sure the bible never commands anybody to kill non-believers.

Let's do a simple search for that, shall we?

Google 'killing bible' and click a link. I'd say any link, but why not click the first?

Murder in the Bible

Read and weep...

--
--frank[at]unternet.org

Brave New World by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-27 23:28 · Score: 1

this list is basically one of the public's complaints against books, not an actual list of censorship

Which is really ironic.

You see, there's an endocrinologist I know who makes a nice living giving normal upper middle class kids growth hormone because their parents are concerned that their son will be under six feet when he finishes growing. Why, a young man who looked like he was going to peek at 5' 9" was given hormones at the insistence of his parents.

Brave New World - we're already there. I guess parents don't want it shoved in their faces. I don't have a problem with it - tall (and good looking) people have an edge in this society and if a parent can do something to improve their kid's chances, I say go for it.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Sqr(twg) · 2011-09-28 00:07 · Score: 1

You heard that on Fox news, right?

My point was not to defend hate speech against pagans, but rather to point out that both the Qur'an and the Bible are historical documents that contain antiquated views.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by wisnoskij · 2011-09-28 00:20 · Score: 1

Non-believers and animals are often not considered as supposed to belong to that non murder-able group.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

What my mother doesn't know by js_sebastian · 2011-09-28 00:23 · Score: 1

Googling for some of these books that I had never heard of finds some interesting tidbits on what people consider censorship-worthy nowadays...

The most common reason for the basis of the challenges is the poem “Ice Capades” which describes how Sophie is fascinated by her breasts’ reaction to a cold window pane

Re:What's missing here? by Soluzar · 2011-09-28 00:32 · Score: 1

The Christian faith doesn't "rule" America, last I heard.

Transportation by tepples · 2011-09-28 00:57 · Score: 1

it's worth mentioning that censorship here is not government censorship, it means someone decided to remove that book from their library. All these materials are easily available elsewhere.

Not unless the child in question has a ride to said "elsewhere".

I kinda miss Wilhelm Reich on the list.... by datorum · 2011-09-28 01:00 · Score: 1

"This action has been cited as one of the worst examples of censorship in U.S. history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich#1956:_Book_burning

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Chrisq · 2011-09-28 01:02 · Score: 1

You heard that on Fox news, right?

No, I read the Qur'an. Something that a lot of people who say "it doesn't say that" haven't

Number of challenges specifics please. by sgt+scrub · 2011-09-28 01:03 · Score: 1

It would be nice if they listed the challenges specific to each book.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Re:Number of challenges specifics please. by spopepro · 2011-09-28 04:32 · Score: 1

That's part of a report that is available to ALA members, but here's a more useful, but not comprehensive, guide with much of the info you would be interested in.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Chrisq · 2011-09-28 01:06 · Score: 1

Really? Show me the library that did this. (bet you can't)

fair cop - I just realised that these are only books that people companied about.

huxley.net by Misagon · 2011-09-28 01:20 · Score: 1

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is also available on-line for free ... unless, that is, you have to go through a censoring web proxy. I recommend it. It is not that long. It is interesting how much in sci-fi movies and literature that has been influenced by it.

--
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley

Re:huxley.net by Reziac · 2011-09-28 06:02 · Score: 1

[skims here and there, trying to remind self from a reading of 4 decades ago]
Lordy, is that the *original* tinfoil hat??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by pongo000 · 2011-09-28 01:29 · Score: 2

Jesus fulfilled the law of the OT. Don't forget the Israelites were the intended audience of the OT. Christians don't believe the OT is null and void, but that Jesus fulfilled the old law through his teachings and authority as the Son of God. Observant Jews still follow the OT laws because they don't view Christ as do Christians. Jesus, a Jew himself, was clear on the point of fulfillment:

Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, âI desire mercy, and not sacrifice,â(TM) you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the Sabbath." (Matt. 12:1-8)

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Sqr(twg) · 2011-09-28 01:43 · Score: 1

Right. But you realize that when you make statements such as "the phrase X appears more than once in text Y" it takes less than 10 seconds for anyone with Internet access prove you wrong?

And Tango Makes Three is #1!!! by esteban_sosa · 2011-09-28 02:04 · Score: 1

It is incredibly telling and depressing that "And Tango makes Three" is the number one most challenged book. From the summary of the book: "At New York City's Central Park Zoo, two male penguins fall in love and start a family by taking turns sitting on an abandoned egg until it hatches." Wow... This country has a long way to go on the way for tolerance.

Re:And Tango Makes Three is #1!!! by kehren77 · 2011-09-29 05:20 · Score: 1

I'd completely forgotten about this book until I saw it again on the list. I'll have to go pick up a copy now that I have a 4 month old to read it to.

Re:How about Catcher in the Rye? by T.E.D. · 2011-09-28 02:17 · Score: 1

Well, if you RTFA, you may notice that it made the list too in 2005 and 2001.

Missing the point by T.E.D. · 2011-09-28 02:23 · Score: 1

Everybody complaining about the headline using the wrong word is absolutely right, but missing the point.

These aren't people who don't want their own kids reading something they don't like. A parent has full power to deal with that at home.

These are people complaining that other people's kids are reading things they personally don't want them to. Note that just about every "library" in the USA is run by some arm of the government. So if the librariies in question were to act on any of these complaints, it most certianly would constitute government censorship, and thus these are all attempts to get the government to censor materials some person doesn't agree with other people having free access to.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Chrisq · 2011-09-28 02:29 · Score: 1

Right. But you realize that when you make statements such as "the phrase X appears more than once in text Y" it takes less than 10 seconds for anyone with Internet access prove you wrong?

And about two minutes to direct you to 4.89 and 9.5.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Chrisq · 2011-09-28 02:31 · Score: 1

Right. But you realize that when you make statements such as "the phrase X appears more than once in text Y" it takes less than 10 seconds for anyone with Internet access prove you wrong?

And about two minutes to direct you to 4.89 and 9.5.

Incidentally It always shows the true nature of Islam that apologists will come on and lie saying "it doesn't appear more than once" in the hope that people won't check themselves. This is why Muslims always say "read the Quran, its a book of peace", because they assume that most people won't. Do as I did - call their bluff and read it.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Sqr(twg) · 2011-09-28 02:47 · Score: 1

9.5 is the one I quoted.

4.89 does not call for slaying Pagans. It calls for killing Hypocrites. A different thing entirely. It also only calls for killing the Hypocrites when they side with the Pagans of Mecca. Certainly not a "general command".

Re:What's missing here? by silentcoder · 2011-09-28 03:05 · Score: 1

Look at the bottom of your banknotes. Which "God" you think they are talking about ?
The faith may not be the official government but I'm not aware of a single person in that government who does not at least CLAIM to subscribe to this faith - nor do I think any person who doesn't would have the slightest chance at being elected there.

Face it, the Christian faith IS the de-facto rulers of America even if not the de-jure.

That said - I was merely talking about majority population - not political setup. Most "Budhist" nations are not ruled by the Budhist faith either - they are merely countries where Budhists are the majority (and ergo - a non-Budhist would have a very hard time getting elected there).

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by Chrisq · 2011-09-28 03:05 · Score: 1

9.5 is the one I quoted.

4.89 does not call for slaying Pagans. It calls for killing Hypocrites. A different thing entirely. It also only calls for killing the Hypocrites when they side with the Pagans of Mecca. Certainly not a "general command".

Read the commentary:

However, since a verse being revealed with respect to a specific event does not mean that it is restricted to that event, the Qur'n is here presenting a typical hypocrisy.

This means anyone who presents their religion as Islam or in any way equivalent. It is used today to justify killing the Ahmadiyya Muslims and people who claim that there is truth in all religions.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by narcc · 2011-09-28 03:33 · Score: 1

As the parent references Exodus, it wouldn't appear that he feels the same way.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by tehcyder · 2011-09-28 03:49 · Score: 1

The original statement was that Christians are commanded to kill non-believers. This is false. It might command Jews to kill...

You can't just ignore all the bits in the Bbile (Old or New Testament) that get in the way of your argument. The only reason that Jesus is special is that he's (supposedly) the son of the God of the Old Testament.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by tehcyder · 2011-09-28 03:53 · Score: 1

Excellent. The Christians will just point out that all that shit is in the Old Testament and none of the quotes are by Jesus, as though somehow Christianity is just about the words of Jesus himself, with no background or context whatsoever.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Nickel and Dimed by eepok · 2011-09-28 04:09 · Score: 1

I read "Nickel and Dimed" in undergrad. I found it insightful. I had no idea it was so hated and/or feared by any establishment. I think I'll read it again since it's still on my book shelf.

I love librarians-- the rebellious rabble-rouses!

Re:What's missing here? by Toonol · 2011-09-28 05:07 · Score: 1

The trouble with respecting the views of conservatives is that they'll never afford you the same courtesy.

That's a pretty damn general statement. Keep in mind that a big chunk of conservatives are highly libertarian, and probably support free speech more than anybody. It also ignores the highly intolerant portion of the left, who call for rules against certain types of 'hate' speech. Be more specific with your criticisms.

Turnabout is fair play by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-28 05:26 · Score: 1

I have decided to remove the tax code from my library.

Re:Turnabout is fair play by rusl · 2011-09-28 10:56 · Score: 1

what?

--
Stupidity is its own reward.

Re:What's missing here? by desdinova+216 · 2011-09-28 07:08 · Score: 1

wait a second isn't "christian Logic" an oxymron?

Interesting by black+soap · 2011-09-28 07:09 · Score: 1

Looking at the list from 2003, I am surprised to see one "nonfiction" book: Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, by Michael Bellesiles. That book got a lot of good press, but then became the only book ever to have a Bancroft Prize revoked after it turned out the author basically made the whole thing up. Most of the books make the list because religious groups want to get rid of books with sex, drugs, etc., but it looks like this book was opposed because it was factually incorrect, (and "scholarly dishonest" - Bellesiles had to leave Emory University after his book came under scrutiny). That the book was very much opposed to the gun lobby didn't help. I'll admit that I had a copy - but a little research quickly shows how worthless it is. I am normally not in favor of burning books, but that trash should never have been published as nonfiction.

Re:This year? by desdinova+216 · 2011-09-28 07:16 · Score: 1

I think what's in TFA (admittedly I didn't read it) is probably through 2010 because that is the last complete calendar year that there are statistics for since 2011 still has almost 3 months left.

Re:What's missing here? by Jiro · 2011-09-28 08:24 · Score: 1

Twilight is on the list and it is widely criticized by left-wingers as right wing propaganda, as the main female character tries to make her husband happy, getting married young is considered important, and the characters refuse to have sex until marriage. While it's not really right wing hate literature, from the way the left talks about it, you'd think it's right wing Mormon propaganda that contributes to the oppression of women everywhere.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-28 09:49 · Score: 1

and barring some explicit command from him (as happened in the OT), to take a life is considered by most Christians to be tantamount to blasphemy and trying to supplant God's role.

Actually, both Catholics and Orthodox (which together constitute the majority of Christians) believe that taking a life is perfectly valid and justified in many contexts - e.g. death penalty for some crimes, when it is applied by the state according to a just law; or killing an enemy in a just war (e.g. when it's defensive); or, more broadly, self-defense or defense of others, where it is the only way to stop the attacker.

I don't know much about doctrinal support for it among Protestants, but, given that they fought wars too, and given that most religious people in U.S. tend to be in favor of the 2nd Amendment, I suspect the things are not all that different there.

Re:It amazes me that books like these are censored by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-28 09:50 · Score: 1

So the Ten Commandments are not binding, then?

Re:What's missing here? by silentcoder · 2011-09-28 17:01 · Score: 1

>That's a pretty damn general statement. Keep in mind that a big chunk of conservatives are highly libertarian, and probably support free speech more than anybody. It also ignores the highly intolerant portion of the left, who call for rules against certain types of 'hate' speech. Be more specific with your criticisms.

Right because I was clearly talking about fiscal conservatives... oh wait - no I was very obviously talking about social conservatives. By definition a social conservative is somebody who believes the state should enforce morality as legality.

--
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *

Stupidity by xenobyte · 2011-09-28 18:30 · Score: 1

I just don't get why so many parent think it's a smart thing to shield their kids (and young adults) completely from the real world. The culture shock when they suddenly find themselves in the middle of it is so much greater, complete with greater potential of it overwhelming the kids to such a degree that they get seriously hurt (and even lead to suicide).

Okay, so some of the parents really are stupid but most should know better. Their kids doesn't become homosexual from reading about it, nor do they become racists from reading the Color Purple, Tom Sawyer or similar, or vampires/pagans from reading Twilight or similar. But they're "shielding" the kids, probably with the best of intentions, but unavoidably cause more harm than good. We - as a society - simply shouldn't let them censor what's available for the kids to read.

Perhaps the parents simply fear their kids becoming smarter than the parents on an intellectual level., perhaps even questioning some of the dogmas in the family and their views on the world. A generation of kids that are able to think for themselves and thus most likely questioning what the parents believe... Scary!

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --

Slashdot Mirror

Libraries Release Most-Censored Books List

178 of 229 comments (clear)