Censorship.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Is censorship ever acceptable?

But now a book sold in the Grand Canyon park official bookshop suggests that it was created by the flood reported in Genesis.

...

The claim has prompted the American Geological Institute and seven scientific bodies to flood the National Park Service with complaints calling for the book to be removed from the shop.

Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1119131,00.html

So, should the bookstore be forbidden to sell this book? Does selling it promote creationism? Or is it not the responsibility of a government agency to decide what people should have the right to read? Is that censorship?

I've been somewhat intrigued by this story, especially after reading an article in the Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=480301) which comes fairly close to supporting those who want the book banned. I don't think I've ever seen this paper support censorship before, so it seems rather hypocritical of it to change its position simply because it disagrees with the subject matter of the book.

Personally I think it makes no difference whether a person has any sympathy with the beliefs of the authors of this book, either you believe censorship is okay or you believe it's wrong. Even if you passionately disagree with the content of this book (which I'm sure most of us FYMers do) that's not a reason to ban the book. People should be able to read it and make up their own minds about the validity of it. I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that by selling this book the shop is endorsing creationism - is my local bookstore endorsing Christianity by selling Bibles? Does my library endorse the Conservative Party by providing a biography of Margaret Thatcher?

I just can't understand the hypocrisy of people who would normally be passionately anti-censorship to suddenly go soft on the issue just because they don't like the book that's being censored.

If anyone wants an alternative view of the subject you can read: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0106gc.asp

Thank-you for reading the above rant.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree. If the views a certain book posesses offends me, then I do not read it. Why is that such a hard concept for some people out there to grasp? If you don't like it, don't buy/read/listen to/watch it. I don't agree with the idea of creation, therefore, I wouldn't read the book (or maybe I would, just to see if they might have a new spin on it that I might not have thought of before-it IS good to hear opposing views, after all...). But someone who does believe in the creation theory has every right to read it.

The author of that book has as much right to write about creationism as a person does to write about evolution (so, going by those people's logic, I guess all scientific articles regarding evolution should be banned, since they're supposedly promoting evolution).

We all have minds of our own in this country. Let's use them.

Angela

 

[verte76]

Of course they should sell this book. If I don't want to read it, I don't have to. I mean, hell, don't get me going on Scientology. I don't like anything about it. But we have Hubbard's "Dianetics" at our library. I don't care that it's in there. I don't have to read the thing. You're right, Angela, let's just use our minds!!

 

[~*Buffalo*~]

I agree with everyone else. Banning one book is not going to make the issue of creation vs. evolution go away, and is likely to cause more debate about the topic anyway. Does this bookstore also sell books which support evolution? Does anyone complain about that? I think everyone has the right to read what they want, and if they don't like it they don't have to read it.

I think censorship in someinstances is acceptable, for example having ratings on films. Obviously it's best for children not to be exposed to overly explicit sex or violence, and fair enough that they are restricted from seeing it. But something that is not necessarily damaging to society - and creation vs. evolution is in the public arena anyway - shouldn't be hidden away just because the majority mightn't agree with it.

 

[nbcrusader]

I agree. If the views a certain book posesses offends me, then I do not read it.

Agreed. Let capitalism sort it out. If the book doesn't sell, it will disappear.

 

[BVS]

Agreed. Let capitalism sort it out. If the book doesn't sell, it will disappear.

I like that.



My opinion: no book should be banned.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I like that.

So do I. .

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
My opinion: no book should be banned.

Agreed.

Angela

 

[Klaus]

I think there are several reasons why a book should be banned.
Just because the writer of the book has a different opinion is definetly NO reason.

 

[BVS]

I think there are several reasons why a book should be banned.

Like what?

 

[sue4u2]

Just for the sake of understanding, klaus. I personally have problems with child pornography, but I don't read or look for it. But where does it end and who decide's what goes or stays? It's almost as if, when you open the door then someone has the right to tell me what other areas I should or shouldn't be looking into. While I still have a mind of my own I refuse to have someone dictate what I can read, write or listen too. With that said, I hate having it shoved in my face everyday when I log on at work - the number of ways I can enlarge it. So I just delete it.

 

[BVS]

Just for the sake of understanding, klaus. I personally have problems with child pornography, but I don't read or look for it.

But you can't categorize child pornography as free speech. Child pornography is something of non consent and something that's very harmful. I don't think we have an apples to apples comparison here.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Adult porn as a comparison, then. .

Angela

 

[Klaus]

BVS: i was thinking of publicatons that harm other people or harmed other people for creating the publications.
So Child Pornography, or when the aouthor is just trying to seed violence against groups or persons etc. was on my mind when i wrote that
Klaus

 

[BVS]

Adult porn as a comparison, then. .

Angela

You think we should ban it?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You think we should ban it?

No, I don't. I meant that instead of using child porn as an example, which most people frown upon anyway, we could've used adult porn as an example, because while some people may personally not like it, it shouldn't be banned, because some people do look at it, and it's their business.

But then again, now I see what Klaus was getting at with the child porn bit, so...

Angela

 

[BVS]

Right but what I'm saying is that anything that harms another being I don't believe falls under free speech. So given that parameter, is there any book that anyone sees that should be banned?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Right but what I'm saying is that anything that harms another being I don't believe falls under free speech. So given that parameter, is there any book that anyone sees that should be banned?

I can't really think of any. A book itself will not harm anybody, and nobody's ever forced to read a book whose views they may not agree with.

Angela

 

[Klaus]

Here's an interesting article about Censorship:

"Sharon praises 'art vandal' envoy
Israeli-born artist Dror Feiler (r): Mazel "tried to stop free speech"
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has praised his ambassador to Sweden after he vandalised an art exhibit featuring a Palestinian suicide bomber."

You can read the full story at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3407517.stm

are u Pro/Con censorship in that case?

Klaus

 

[nbcrusader]

Interesting case - is this censorship, or is the vandalism another form of speech?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

fahrenheit 451, anyone?

anyway, i don't believe any book should be censored. we have the first amendment to thank for that. it is great that people can make movies and write books debunking things our government tells us and dissing our president.

it seems so many people now can't just not read something or not watch something. omigor, it offends ME, so remove it! i wouldn't mind if people were just speaking out against it, but some seem to forget others have the freedom of speech, too.

 

[kobayashi]

while it is obvious this geologic group has no ground in calling for the book to be banned, they would have been much wiser to suggest it unwise to sell such a book in such an establishment. by the same token, it would be wise for the bookstore to offer a 'scientific alternative' of sorts...i cant see the article as im not a subscriber, apologies if these points of view are raised within it.

while the first amendment is great it should not be blindly believed to facilitate an entirely open discussion. market forces prevent a lot of information from being disseminated for the rightful reason that they would be poor products. but market forces can also stifle legitimate discussions on contentious matters. there is usually space for people on the fringes of mainstream consensus (m moore, n chomsky are 2 popular examples) but one must always be mindful of what else is out there.

 

[najeena]

Our local public library recently celebrated 'Read a Banned Book' week.

 

[beli]

Examples of books that should be banned:
Various how to make bombs and other killing machines.
Various hard drug cookbooks in countries where hard drugs are illegal.

 

[BVS]

Examples of books that should be banned:
Various how to make bombs and other killing machines.
Various hard drug cookbooks in countries where hard drugs are illegal.

See this is what I was waiting for someone to bring up. Something like the Anarchist's Cookbook.

To me this is an interesting debate here because there's a lot of gray lines here. Now something like this book does not tell you to kill, does not tell you to harm, does not tell you to do anything, but only gives the means by which to do so. But only if used in the wrong hands(remind you of a Charleston Heston quote?). Does this really cross the lines of free speech? What if someone calls out self defense? The book may show you how to set up traps to protect your house then you'll start crossing the lines that gun control sets up.

Plus the biggest problem you have with banning books like this is that they are all over the internet.

 

[indra]

Examples of books that should be banned:
Various how to make bombs and other killing machines.
Various hard drug cookbooks in countries where hard drugs are illegal.

I respectfully disagree. It's not the knowledge that's the problem, it's the putting that knowledge into action that would be offensive (and I'm not that bothered by your second example anyway).

 

[U2LipstickBoy]

....

The only books that should be banned are those written by disgruntled ex-employees of U2 Especially when these books claim that Bono had special shoes made to boost his height.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

LOL ^^^^.

I respectfully disagree. It's not the knowledge that's the problem, it's the putting that knowledge into action that would be offensive (and I'm not that bothered by your second example anyway).

Exactly. And ditto KhanadaRhodes and BonoVoxSupastar's posts, too. .

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

I respectfully disagree. It's not the knowledge that's the problem, it's the putting that knowledge into action that would be offensive (and I'm not that bothered by your second example anyway).

Along these lines, child pornography books should not be censored, the crime is in the making of the child pornography.

 

[BVS]

Along these lines, child pornography books should not be censored, the crime is in the making of the child pornography.

No because in the case of child pornography someone was already harmed in the making of this material. You would be viewing the real true to life of a child being harmed. It's very different than material that can be used to harm someone, because almost anything can be argued as something that can harm someone.

 

[nbcrusader]

Still, along this line of thinking, if you punished all those who created child pornography, would it be okay to publish the pictures taken or is this censorship?