In your opinion, Is the desire to ban books good or bad?

[iNow]

As most of you have probably heard by now, there is some broohaha about Governor Palin, presently the VP pick on the McCain presidential ticket, wanting to ban books.

 

A good summary of the issue and how it's come about is available via the Boston Globe at the following:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?&articleid=1117009&format=&page=1&listingType=2008pres#articleFull

 

 

 

Accroding to this recent CBS News piece, there is an interesting new angle to the story:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/politics/animal/main4439414.shtml

Ross emphasized an angle I previously hadn't heard much about. Palin was elected mayor thanks in large part to the strong backing of her church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, which, right around the time Palin took office, "began to focus on certain books available in local stores and in the town library, including one called 'Go Ask Alice,' and another one written by a local pastor, Howard Bess, called 'Pastor, I am Gay.'"

 

 

 

Watch the video of that story below, share your thoughts and comments, and vote above.

 

Edited September 13, 2008 by Sayonara³
Changed Boston Herald link to show article page 1

[big314mp]

Since when is banning "knowledge" good?

 

Yes, I'd include those messes by Uncle Fester, et al.

Edited September 12, 2008 by big314mp
spelling, d'oh

[insane_alien]

censorship in all its forms is generally an idea i don't agree with.

[Phi for All]

Informed decisions need information. Decisions on who represents you in government need even more information. Democracies don't work as well when information is controlled. Banning books is banning information.

 

Partisanship is very much like banning information. The platform Reps and Dems don't really want you listening to the other side, so they ridicule and reduce so you don't have to feel like a dummy for not thinking for yourself.

 

I also think the Amish church is a good analogy here. The Amish discovered that too much information (in the form of high school education) caused their young people to leave the church and their culture. Would it be good for the Amish church to ban certain information from their people? You bet, for the church. But I don't think ignorance is good for the individual.

 

So it's really a question of whether or not you consider your choices above those of your "group". If you feel that your choices should be overridden in favor of the group's choices, be prepared to be misrepresented, misinformed and misunderstood.

 

If your "group" focuses on family and hates gays and drugs, it might take some extreme external investigations before *you* find out that your group's leader secretly seeks out homosexual relationships (through prostitutes, let's say) and methamphetamines. It's doubtful your group would ever tell you that kind of stuff on their own (unless you were also a leader). Don't you think you're better off knowing that kind of information? Would you or your group be better off being in the dark about your leader? How should it make you feel to know that, if that information had been censored, you'd still be following that leader?

[ParanoiA]

Yes, totally unacceptable. Of course, I'm not drawing any lines of my own here either, I wouldn't ban porn or any other kind of smut literature.

 

So, any hypocrites in here or are we all in agreement that all literature should be available by the library without any judgement? And soon as you draw a line, you take a seat next to Palin.

[Phi for All]

Remove ANY book from a library and you murder a part of our world. There are books I won't read but there aren't any books I would ban others from reading.

[bascule]

Yes, totally unacceptable. Of course, I'm not drawing any lines of my own here either, I wouldn't ban porn or any other kind of smut literature.

 

Nor would I, but YMMV.

 

That said mormons tried to ban a bunch of books from my high school library (including the perpetual whipping boy "Catcher in the Rye", which contains the f-curse!) Of course, books like The Difference Engine which contains an incredibly detailed account of the main character's encounter with a prostitute are totally fine, because nobody's ever heard of them.

 

So, any hypocrites in here or are we all in agreement that all literature should be available by the library without any judgement? And soon as you draw a line, you take a seat next to Palin.

 

That's quite the slippery slope there...

[big314mp]

Reading these posts, I'm wondering if some sort of "group polarization" is possible?

 

Perhaps no one will vote for banning books because of the hellfire and damnation they might receive?

 

Just a thought...

[insane_alien]

well, its more just that the kind of people who go into science fields tend to oppose the restriction of knowledge and information.

[Phi for All]

Perhaps no one will vote for banning books because of the hellfire and damnation they might receive?

Hellfire and damnation are abstract punishments. You'd be more apt to receive a logical lambasting here.

 

For instance, if you did support banning certain books, what would they be and why would you justify removing them from human scrutiny?

[john5746]

Reading these posts, I'm wondering if some sort of "group polarization" is possible?

 

Perhaps no one will vote for banning books because of the hellfire and damnation they might receive?

 

Just a thought...

 

I wonder if "self imposed retardation" is possible. If I could send hellfire and damnation your way, I would own up to it and not claim to love you and make it all your fault.

[ParanoiA]

So' date=' any hypocrites in here or are we all in agreement that all literature should be available by the library without any judgement? And soon as you draw a line, you take a seat next to Palin. [/quote']

 

That's quite the slippery slope there...

 

There's no slope there. You're either a hypocrite or you're not. If you want to ban books for ethical/moral code set "A" verses banning books for ethical/moral code set "B" you're still banning books per an ethical / moral code set, just like Palin.

 

That said mormons tried to ban a bunch of books from my high school library (including the perpetual whipping boy "Catcher in the Rye", which contains the f-curse!) Of course, books like The Difference Engine which contains an incredibly detailed account of the main character's encounter with a prostitute are totally fine, because nobody's ever heard of them.

 

I'm not surprised. I think they were even trying to ban Harry Potter in the Kansas school libraries, or was it Oklahoma? I don't remember, but I do recall something about the "black magic" promoted in those books. I was speechless. I had a religious co-worker explain it all to me and I really couldn't think of anything to say that wouldn't offend him. So I offended him. Sorry, but I was kind of offended myself.

[waitforufo]

Banning books is bad. The "desire" to do so is a bit more complex. The collection of an elementary school library for several reasons should perhaps not be as comprehensive as a general public library. The flip side of banning books is selecting books. In the recent Palin dust up I found this quote to be quite provocative. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/51821.html)

 

"Sarah said to Mary Ellen, 'What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?" Kilkenny said.

 

"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'"

 

Who sets this "national selection criteria?" At what point does rejection from a selection process become banning? If a library does not select "The Turner Diaries" or a high school library does not select "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" has it been banned?

 

I'm sure many "desire" that "The Turner Diaries" was never written. But should it be banned? Should it be selected? Are these questions the same?

Edited September 12, 2008 by waitforufo

[bascule]

There's no slope there. You're either a hypocrite or you're not. If you want to ban books for ethical/moral code set "A" verses banning books for ethical/moral code set "B" you're still banning books per an ethical / moral code set, just like Palin.

 

That's like saying that if it's okay for the FCC to ban obscene material from television / radio then it should be okay for them to ban Democratic political ads from the television / radio.

 

Obscenity is a separate issue entirely. I personally don't think the FCC should have the power to ban obscenity from broadcast media, but I understand the reasoning for them doing so.

 

The same goes for a public library. There are children present and I can understand why parents don't want them exposed to obscene material.

[Mr Skeptic]

Reading these posts, I'm wondering if some sort of "group polarization" is possible?

 

Perhaps no one will vote for banning books because of the hellfire and damnation they might receive?

 

Just a thought...

 

The reason is because of the way the poll question was phrased. If it had instead asked whether it was ever (as opposed to in general) OK to ban books, you would have gotten a more even division.

 

Yes, totally unacceptable. Of course, I'm not drawing any lines of my own here either, I wouldn't ban porn or any other kind of smut literature.

 

So, any hypocrites in here or are we all in agreement that all literature should be available by the library without any judgement? And soon as you draw a line, you take a seat next to Palin.

 

That would be me, maybe. I could see benefits in banning books on, say, lockpicking and finding which houses have loot, making homemade explosives from easily availible chemicals, calling for the death of a particular individual, creating deadlier or drug-resistant disease bacteria and/or weaponizing them, etc, etc. Not all speech is protected, and some is in fact illegal, and some is dangerous. Now I am not saying that all books like the above should be banned, but rather that I wouldn't automatically think someone who wanted to ban such books was a bad person, rather that they might, to some extent, value safety over freedom of information.

 

And yes, banning some books makes it easier to ban others. Perhaps we need some laws as to which type of book may be banned, and which may not.

[ParanoiA]

That's like saying that if it's okay for the FCC to ban obscene material from television / radio then it should be okay for them to ban Democratic political ads from the television / radio.

 

Obscenity is a separate issue entirely. I personally don't think the FCC should have the power to ban obscenity from broadcast media' date=' but I understand the reasoning for them doing so.

 

The same goes for a public library. There are children present and I can understand why parents don't want them exposed to obscene material.[/quote']

 

Ok, but then you open up the conversation about what is considered "obscene". Like you said above, your mileage may vary. So why don't they get the same consideration? Why don't they get the respect of variable mileage?

 

You can't say you're against banning books if you're banning books. Apparently the book banning statement needs to be qualified here.

 

Perhaps the poll could use updating? I'll bet some in here would change their vote if they had to consider allowing porn in their local library. That, apparently, is a moral code set taken for granted. It is still a muzzle on free speech and information exchange. It counts ever bit as much as Palin's excuses.

 

That would be me, maybe. I could see benefits in banning books on, say, lockpicking and finding which houses have loot, making homemade explosives from easily availible chemicals, calling for the death of a particular individual, creating deadlier or drug-resistant disease bacteria and/or weaponizing them, etc, etc. Not all speech is protected, and some is in fact illegal, and some is dangerous. Now I am not saying that all books like the above should be banned, but rather that I wouldn't automatically think someone who wanted to ban such books was a bad person, rather that they might, to some extent, value safety over freedom of information.

 

I actually understand that. Hell, when you think about it, there's no way to offer every single book in print, so it's not like the library system isn't effectively banning most literary work anyway.

 

But the qualifier needs to be added. I don't think one should run around saying banning books is wrong unless they really mean that. Instead, one should say banning books for reason "x" is wrong. Of course, that takes all of the *sting* out of stating 'So-and-so wants to ban books', when one has to actually expose their own book banning desires implicitly.

Edited September 12, 2008 by ParanoiA

[Pangloss]

The only time I support control over the dissemination of information is when it's either with regard to children (and there specifically only to avoid premature exposure), and in the case of temporary withholding in order to either guarantee the rights of individuals against mob rule, police state, etc (such as undercover agents or victims of crimes).

 

As with flag burning, we can't call ourselves a free society unless we're willing to tolerate even those things which we abhor. Tolerance is NOT the same thing as promotion. It just is not.

[Phi for All]

I'll bet some in here would change their vote if they had to consider allowing porn in their local library.

They'd probably lose federal funding but is there a law that prohibits a local library from loaning porn to members of legal age if the local populace wants it to? Besides moral concerns, I can see how it would be a very expensive decision (even without the loss of funding) and that may be all there is to it. No censorship, just concerns over the high costs of maintaining a county-class pr0n collection.

[iNow]

Not all speech is protected, and some is in fact illegal, and some is dangerous. Now I am not saying that all books like the above should be banned, but rather that I wouldn't automatically think someone who wanted to ban such books was a bad person, rather that they might, to some extent, value safety over freedom of information.

I was about to make this very same point, but I'm glad you did first. You hit the nail on the head.

 

However, per those listed in the OP, I don't think that 'Go Ask Alice' or 'Pastor, I am Gay' could reasonably fit within that caveat/exception.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps the poll could use updating?

My phrasing was very intentional. There will be no mid-stream changes, thank you very much.

[big314mp]

Well, the point that I was trying to make was that some very polarized opinions were presented. Looking at the issue from the other side, this would seem like a rather hostile place to promote book banning. Hence the poll would be a rather poor indicator of actual opinions on the site.

 

Although perhaps the poll was more of a conversation starter, given iNow's careful wording

 

That would be me, maybe. I could see benefits in banning books on, say, lockpicking and finding which houses have loot, making homemade explosives from easily availible chemicals, calling for the death of a particular individual, creating deadlier or drug-resistant disease bacteria and/or weaponizing them, etc, etc. Not all speech is protected, and some is in fact illegal, and some is dangerous. Now I am not saying that all books like the above should be banned, but rather that I wouldn't automatically think someone who wanted to ban such books was a bad person, rather that they might, to some extent, value safety over freedom of information.

 

This strikes me as the same argument that gun makers are responsible for gun crimes. The author of the work is being penalized for the potential wrongdoings of unknown people.

 

Punishing one person for someone else's actions is not at all a good foundation for a free society.

Edited September 12, 2008 by big314mp
multiple post merged, grammar

[iNow]

This strikes me as the same argument that gun makers are responsible for gun crimes. The author of the work is being penalized for the potential wrongdoings of unknown people.

See, I don't read it that way. Let me give an example.

 

For illustration, let's say there is a book called, "How to create the worlds 3 deadliest biological weapons using items found in a grocery store."

 

Should we allow that book at the checkout counter of your local grocer? No, that would be silly. As anyone can see, the best place to put it would be at the entrance to the store.

 

 

Kidding aside, nobody was talking about such books anyway, nor that authors shouldn't be allowed to write them, since this book would never be found at a public library anyway.

 

 

 

Why is it always religious people trying to ban and block books from the public? Could it have something to do with the inverse relationship between education and religiosity? </rhetorical off-topic question>

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewel_of_Medina

[Pangloss]

It isn't always religious people, but it's certainly a thing the religious right has become known for, I agree. A common example would be victim's rights advocates, e.g. the O.J. Simpson book.

[big314mp]

Kidding aside, nobody was talking about such books anyway, nor that authors shouldn't be allowed to write them, since this book would never be found at a public library anyway.

 

I think that is what waitforufo was talking about with his point about national selection criteria for libraries.

 

To me, banning books conjures the image of nazi Germany book burnings. I think only certain fundamentalists would support such a view.

 

Banning books in libraries, IMO, is something similar, but of very different scale. Libraries need to have certain standards, as they are paid for by the public.

[iNow]

I think that is what waitforufo was talking about with his point about national selection criteria for libraries.

I agree that it's an interesting point, but it's not a valid comparison.

 

On the national level, there will be a collection of experts in the field alongside seasoned educators together deciding which books should be part of the primary lists, and they are doing so as a group. It is only after they ultimately reach some sort of consensus that they write their guidelines and suggestions, and once the group is aligned they distribute those to the libraries. (As an aside, it would be interesting also to see of they ever attempt to enforce the removal of books from libraries, or if they simply set the "default position" of book lists up front.).

 

At the level of Sarah Palin, however, that was an instance where a book (or multiple books) already were in place, and she explored the possibility of using her power to remove them because they conflicted with her religious beliefs. She was not working with a group of experts on setting a curriculum, or trying to maximize the education of the children. No. She was seeking a way to unilaterally remove books which were being discussed among the members of her church and deemed inappropriate. She exercised her power and terminated the librarian when she was refused, only revoking the termination after public outcry.

 

Again, a discussion of how standards are set at the national level, while interesting, is not a valid comparison to the discussion we're having here about Palins character, integrity, and academic approach to the world.

 

 

 

To me, banning books conjures the image of nazi Germany book burnings. I think only certain fundamentalists would support such a view.

Indeed. What it reminds me of is Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury.

Edited September 13, 2008 by iNow

[bascule]

Ok, but then you open up the conversation about what is considered "obscene".

 

I don't consider anything obscene. I've seen Roy's Nuthang and the BME Pain Olympics and they don't offend me. If you haven't seen both of those you really have no opinion on the matter.

 

So why don't they get the same consideration? Why don't they get the respect of variable mileage?

 

Because they don't fall under the typical criteria of free speech.

 

You can't say you're against banning books if you're banning books.

 

Again, I'm not against banning anything. But I can respect the opinions of people who feel they don't want their children exposed to obscene materials in public libraries, even if you can't.

 

And I don't think that's hypocritical, despite your fallacious slippery slope argument. I guess I'm one of those people who despises logical fallacies like the one you've posed.

 

There is middle ground, even if you want to fallaciously argue there isn't.