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

[ParanoiA]

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Again, I'm not for banning anything at all and I don't amend that statement with subjective moral exceptions like "typical free speech" and make believe it's not the same as Palin's moral exceptions. You are the same. You offer her, and those she represents, no choice, you offer everyone else variable mileage. It's all about what's considered obscene. You and her have a different code set and both of you are blatantly ignoring the other's right to choose when you support banning books.

 

It's sad you can't tell the difference. Read up on nationalism again, there is a reason you are being hypocritical and aren't seeing it.

 

Prove the fallacy. Don't do yet another Palin impression and just repeat it over and over again.

 

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

 

Ok, ok. But clearly the desire to ban books is not bad according to several posters in here, yet everyone answered that is was. The poll is corrupted. Sorry.

 

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>

 

Because they see their value system being erroded. They think that the athiest movement, for lack of a better more accurate phrase, is threatening the morality of man. Similar to how we think that religion threatens the morality and advancement of man.

 

And each side is responding by restricting the choice from the rest. Each side seems to think they have the correct point of view to legislate morality with. This is why it's perfectly fine for liberals to restrict my freedoms, while conservatives and religious folk are accused of controlling information, oppression and etc.

 

It's entirely wrong for either side to restrict my freedoms for subjective, moral reasons. This is why I reject bascules argument about obscenity being an exception to "typical free speech" parameters. Bullshit, it's a subjective judgement.

 

However, I'm being a hypocrite too actually. After all, I do see the sense in keeping my neighbor from constructing a biochemical weapon with grocery store products. I guess I too didn't answer the poll honestly. I can admit it, now that I see it.

Edited September 13, 2008 by ParanoiA

[big314mp]

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.

 

I think that the difference you are objecting to lies in the motive of the ban, rather than the ban itself. Palin was banning something in order to enforce a sort of mindless group conformity (and then punishing those who stood up to her, which is a blatant abuse of power). Nobody is arguing whether that is good or bad here. Clearly we all see that that is a huge overstepping of bounds by government.

 

Where the ambiguity (and therefore, opinions) come into play is whether there are materials that should be banned for the public good.

 

There was a story in the news a few years ago, where the FCC (or some government agency, I don't clearly remember) took a pornography studio to trial on obscenity charges, citing that the work had "no artistic merit" (that being the excusing factor for nudity). That sort of "ban" is highly objectionable as "no artistic merit" is purely a matter of opinion. If it isn't something that is broadcast to the public, the public shouldn't be in the business of banning it (as Johnny Public can choose not to acquire such materials).

 

Which brings us back to the libraries, if you consider that broadcasting and "making available" are two different things. I can agree that libraries should be bound by certain restrictions, as they do spend public dollars. Where to draw those lines is something that regulators can't be too careful about. While I am not entirely comfortable with the position that all books and/or media should be available in libraries, I do see a certain amount hypocrisy in that position.

 

I need to throw in the fact that since libraries freely exchange materials, the question of "Whether tax dollars can be better spent on other materials?" is moot since as long as there are enough copies floating around to meet demand (and one would think the demand of objectionable materials would be rather low, or they wouldn't be objectionable), then the available materials can move to meet that demand.

[swansont]

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.

 

I can understand why some parents don't want their kids exposed to the books they want banned, too, so parental desire can't be the criterion. For me it comes down to the first amendment protection — if the speech is protected, you shouldn't be allowed to ban books containing it. If parents don't want their kids to read e.g. Harry Potter, then they should exert some parental control.

 

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.

 

Consider the cleaning bills. Would you want to borrow such material from the pubic public library?

 

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.

 

The poll is certainly not a scientific one. That's generally true of any poll that fails to promote anonymity or choose subjects randomly.

 

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.

 

The easiest division is to ban none of them. Then there is no debate over where to draw the line.

[ParanoiA]

Consider the cleaning bills. Would you want[/i'] to borrow such material from the public library?

 

Now there's an actual objective argument.

[Phi for All]

Consider the cleaning bills. Would you want to borrow such material from the pubic public library?

That's my point about the costs. I'd be willing to wager that even normal, respectful library patrons would be harder on the library porn collection than they are on the regular selections. On top of that, I can get a copy of Hot Fuzz for $15, but a copy of Crotch Fuzz is $40.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it would make the library a creepy place to send your kids by themselves. But then, that's in the context of a sexually disfunctional society. We're so scared of sexuallity that any liberation on any front gets saturated by the previously deprived.

 

Just look at the internet...

[iNow]

That's a very interesting point, ParanoiA. What is the role of a library in today's internet age? Hmmm... Different topic perhaps.

 

 

I also apologize to all of my scientific friends out here who see this poll as poorly constructed. I agree completely with that assessmnet, however, Big314mp hit the nail on the head. I wasn't looking for significant results and standard deviations. It was a conversation starter so we could explore the subtleties of the issue together.

[bascule]

You offer her, and those she represents, no choice, you offer everyone else variable mileage.

 

Are you seriously equivocating a ban on pornography from libraries with a ban of a book like Catcher in the Rye?

 

You should really take a journalism class sometime...

 

I can understand why some parents don't want their kids exposed to the books they want banned, too, so parental desire can't be the criterion. For me it comes down to the first amendment protection — if the speech is protected, you shouldn't be allowed to ban books containing it.

 

Yep, and there's ample Supreme Court case precedent on the matter of pornography and the first amendment. You can defend a work as not being pornographic if it has "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

 

Prove the fallacy.

 

Okay... in this statement:

 

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.

 

...you equivocate any sort of selection as to what works are permitted to be carried in a library as being the same as removing works which contain words that Palin considers inappropriate without any supporting logic as to why the two are the same. You're essentially saying that any sort of selection process starts us down the slippery slope to Palin's position.

 

However, Palin's position would ban books with "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which meet the criteria of protected free speech as defined by the Supreme Court.

 

Pornography is not protected free speech.

[ParanoiA]

Are you seriously equivocating a ban on pornography from libraries with a ban of a book like Catcher in the Rye?

 

You should really take a journalism class sometime...

 

Are you seriously pretending one is a moral code set and the other is not?

 

You should really think for yourself sometime...

 

Yep' date=' and there's ample Supreme Court case precedent on the matter of pornography and the first amendment. You can defend a work as not being pornographic if it has "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".[/quote']

 

More subjective conclusions that come from one's personal convictions. Just like Palin. It's not my fault the supreme court got it wrong. Again, stating what is, is not an argument for what should be - at least philosophically.

 

...you equivocate any sort of selection as to what works are permitted to be carried in a library as being the same as removing works which contain words that Palin considers inappropriate without any supporting logic as to why the two are the same.

 

I've stated over and over why the two are the same. They are the same because they are both subjective interpretations of appropriate content. Period. I don't care if 99% of the country agrees with its conclusion, it's still a subjective conclusion. I'm sorry if your mind just glosses over that and takes it for granted and you've tricked yourself into believing it's not a moral statement.

 

You're essentially saying that any sort of selection process starts us down the slippery slope to Palin's position.

 

It's not a slope, it's a straight drop. Those that advocate banning books for subjective reasons don't get to point fingers and accuse others of being oppressive for banning books for subjective reasons. Well they can, but we call them hypocrites.

 

However' date=' Palin's position would ban books with "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" which meet the criteria of protected free speech as defined by the Supreme Court.

 

Pornography is not protected free speech.[/quote']

 

It ought to be.

 

The difference between us is simple. I don't believe my subjective opinions should be legislated. Ie..I think believing in god is silly and detrimental to one's individual growth and advancement of our condition and reasoning potential - but I don't believe I have a right to legislate it. My personal convictions are irrelevant to my reverance for the principle of individual choice. I can personally think I'm right, and the other guy is wrong, (in fact I know I'm right), but that hubris has no useful function in law.

 

You seem to grant your logic as an exception to the template in which you judge Palin. I don't. I see both of you advocating freedom, while both of you make excuses as to why your brand of thinking should override my freedom.

 

I think you should be required to demonstrate an objective harm by Palin's choices in order to single them out and except your own. That's why I thought Swansont's humorous line about "cleaning costs" for the porn material actually, funny enough, was an objective argument actually. If one could demonstrate the cost prohibitive nature of that material, then that's fair to legislate. Otherwise, you're just making us live with a trade from one moral code to another.

[DrP]

Hmm - I was going to instantly click bad - but after further thinking,......... lets play advocate here. What if a book was written soley to con or mislead people. i.e. if it was written as FACT with references and stuff (which may also be fake or written as a sole purpose to support the origional con) but was actually false or misleading.

 

 

Exampes:

Books designed to entice the readers to part with their money in some kind of disguised pyramid scheme.

A recipie book for school children which contains a recipies which are poisonous.

A guide to meditation designed to allow you to meditate your way out of depression - filled with mantra's know to induce suicidal thinking.

 

.... I don't know - I'm kind of making this up, but thought I'd think about it a little more before casting my vote.

 

 

thoughts?

[big314mp]

I was feeling rather anti-religious at the moment, and the first thing that came to mind when reading your post was the Bible

 

I suppose the mantra of "Buyer beware" applies here, although that sounds a little to harsh to me.

[waitforufo]

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.

 

So if you dress up a bunch of book banners to look like egg heads and Poindexters and give them a title like "The National Library Board" then they are not book banners anymore?

 

(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.)

 

Libraries constantly cull their collections. My local library sells book annually. Who selects the books to be culled? Librarians. Do these librarians have their own political and religious biases? Can they set these biases aside? Lets all hope so.

[bascule]

Pornography is not protected free speech.

 

It ought to be.

 

Why?

[ParanoiA]

So if you dress up a bunch of book banners to look like egg heads and Poindexters and give them a title like "The National Library Board" then they are not book banners anymore?

 

Apparently not. Since the majority opinion seems to be legislated most of the time, even on matters when opinion shouldn't be legislated, a book banner is only someone going against the majority opinion to cull books. This is a subtle example of majority siege, imo.

 

Libraries constantly cull their collections. My local library sells book annually. Who selects the books to be culled? Librarians. Do these librarians have their own political and religious biases? Can they set these biases aside? Lets all hope so.

 

Interesting. Similar to abortion serving eugenics, culling serves information control. But that's unfair really, since they're not banning them and theoretically could be requested.

 

Why?

 

Because it is speech that does not cause damage. All speech should be fine as long as it does not jeopardize public safety - again, to demonstrate objective damage. You know...the yelling fire in a crowded theater bit.

 

Otherwise, you're having to pass judgement and infer offense or damage, and that's the antagonist to liberty - it's how North Korea operates. It's also what Palin is doing when she makes excuses to ban these books. She has to make a value judgement, not a demonstration of harm.

[YT2095]

I`m against the banning or destruction of books, and whilst the reading of literature remains optional I will maintain this opinion.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't care if 99% of the country agrees with its conclusion, it's still a subjective conclusion.

 

I've seen far worse than 99% agreement for objective conclusions. Such as global warming or evolution

[iNow]

So if you dress up a bunch of book banners to look like egg heads and Poindexters and give them a title like "The National Library Board" then they are not book banners anymore?

 

 

Libraries constantly cull their collections. My local library sells book annually. Who selects the books to be culled? Librarians. Do these librarians have their own political and religious biases? Can they set these biases aside? Lets all hope so.

 

So, you seem to think that an accrurate description of the desires of the people who serve on those boards and in those libararies is to ban books and eliminate them from public availability. Fascinating.

[waitforufo]

So, you seem to think that an accrurate description of the desires of the people who serve on those boards and in those libararies is to ban books and eliminate them from public availability. Fascinating.

 

Actually, what I am saying is that if you want to ban books, don't run for mayor, become a librarian.

[iNow]

Actually, what I am saying is that if you want to ban books, don't run for mayor, become a librarian.

 

You have a really weird view of the world, but whatever. We all know that wasn't the point you originally were trying to make. You were trying to distract everyone from the topic at hand by suggesting we focus instead on the library book selection board. You're rather transparent, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Speaking of books, there is a great expose on Palin in the NYTimes today. It is finally a piece of investigative journalism on several issues that our media has been so desperately lacking these past several weeks.

 

It's a few pages long, but well worth the read: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp

 

 

In it, and relevant to the topic at hand:

 

 

For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

 

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

 

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

 

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

 

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

 

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

 

 

There are plenty of other nuggets of information in that article which are worthy of their own threads.

[ParanoiA]

Actually, what I am saying is that if you want to ban books, don't run for mayor, become a librarian.

 

Good one. I'm going to use that, hope you don't mind.

[Pangloss]

You have a really weird view of the world, but whatever.

 

I thought you guys were going to knock this stuff off? Do I have to close another thread?

[iNow]

I take your point. I just have a hard time with this type of dishonesty, and an even harder time with people who approach these discussions like that and are truly being sincere.

[waitforufo]

I thought you guys were going to knock this stuff off? Do I have to close another thread?

 

 

I have made my point in this thread and I'm done. ParanoiA, I'm glad you enjoyed my post, feel free to use it any time.

[iNow]

Is there anyone out there who still thinks that Palin did not "desire" to ban a book or two?