<a href="

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/sep/24/ellen-hopkins-anti-censorship-poem">Torch every book.

Char every page.

Burn every word to ash.

Ideas are incombustible.

And therein lies your real fear </a>

 

 

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

— On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

 

 

 

 

Welcome to the Brown Ajah’s traditional Banned Books Week. During the next seven days we are going to have various activities related to censorship and freedom of speech.

 

Our event is meant to coincide with and draw people’s attention to the Banned Books Week that was founded by the late Judith Krug, a director of the American Library Association, in 1982, and has been held in America annually on the last week of September since then. The event is meant to celebrate freedom of speech, including freedom to express views that might be considered unorthodox or unpopular. It draws attention to the attempts to censor books all across the United States, but it should be relevant for everyone, even those of us who don’t  live in the US, as a reminder how precious and yet how fragile is the great achievement of modern civilization called freedom of speech.

 

Books are challenged for <a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/21stcenturychallenged/index.cfm">various reasons</a>: explicit content, profane language, politics, religion, unsuitability for a particular age group, being “anti-family”. Among the frequently challenged books are some of the most popular, widely read works of literature. To start the first BBW discussion I’d like to give links to the two following lists:

 

<a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/challengedclassics/reasonsbanned/index.cfm">Banned and/or Challenged Books from the Radcliffe Publishing Course Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century</a>

 

<a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/21stcenturychallenged/2008/index.cfm">Top ten most frequently challenged books of 2008</a>

 

What do you think of those lists? Are you surprised to see any of those books there? Do some of those cases stand out to you as particularly ridiculous, or do you, on the contrary, think that in some of those cases banning a book might be justified?

 

Personally I think *NO* book should be banned... and if people think something is wrong with a book, well then they just shouldnt read it!

 

And yeah i am quite surprised to see a lot of those books there, eg Catcher in the Rye.. Whats the point of banning that??

 

And all the books that were frequently challenged in 2008 to me just seem like every other book. I've read some of them and whats so bad? Its mostly just the truth.

Catcher in the Rye is incredibly boring, but would someone ban it on that point alone?

 

Please excuse me, I need to go back to reading the Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Hucklebery Finn.

Catcher in the Rye is incredibly boring, but would someone ban it on that point alone?

 

Please excuse me, I need to go back to reading the Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Hucklebery Finn.

 

That I could totally understand :P

 

But ey... It might not make much sense but its still a good book ;)

I think for the most part, that adult themes are no reason for banning a book. Children often read something without understanding it. For example, I read Jane Eyre when I was eight, fourteen and twenty-two. It was a completely different book each time.

 

Adult themes, unless they are explained graphically and in simple language (which isn't going to make for a good book anyway) are to a degree self-censoring.

 

Also, I love that Ireland banned James Joyce's Ulysses, and now every year there is a special day (Bloomsday) celebrating it!

It's interesting that the first case in that list happened in RJ's hometown, Charleston, SC:

 

The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald

Challenged at the Baptist College in Charleston, SC (1987) because of "language and sexual references in the book."

 

Strange, but I really can't remember anything about The Great Gatsby that would make it a likely candidate for banning. But then, I never really claimed to be good at getting into the minds of those people who challenge books.

 

An item from the news:

 

<a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/54283">Arab Who Vowed to Burn Israeli Books Still Leads Race to Head U.N. Culture Agency</a>

 

The Hosni controversy stemmed from an incident in May 2008 when, asked by Egyptian lawmakers about the presence of Israeli books in a library in Alexandria, the culture minister answered, “Let’s burn these books. If there are any, I will burn them myself before you.”

 

I must admit that the news is a bit old and that charming person <a href="http://cnsnews.com/news/article/54478">didn't win</a> the election, but still it would be interesting to see what you think of this candidate and the fact that someone like him could have a good chance of leading UNESCO.

 

I started to reply, but I got way too angry and emotional. I will just say that most of the reasons given to ban seem to me to be based on ignorance, or the assumption that "if we pretend they don't exist long enough, they will go away."

 

I wish all kids could grow up like mine did, with the understanding that people are people and have value, regardless of color, religion, sexual orientation, or what have you. When we stop hating people because of what they are, and take the time to find out who they are, we will reach a milestone. The world will be better. I hope to live long enough to see that day.

 

 

Unfortunately, no one paid attention to the article I posted a link to. *sigh* You know, it's almost a pity that he didn't win the election. In that case those who still have any illusions about the UN would have known the answer to <a href="http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israel+and+the+UN/Speeches+-+statements/Address_PM_Netanyahu_UN_General_Assembly_24-Sep-2009.htm">Israeli Prime Minister's rhetorical questions </a>that he asked the UN recently: No, they have no shame and no decency.

 

Another story for discussion. On August 18 the Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1910462">published an article</a> claiming that Israelis deliberately murder the so-called "Palestinians" in order to steal their organs. (Even the newspaper editor later as good as <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418683207&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">admitted</a> that they made up the outrageous claim that resembles the old anti-Semitic blood libels, and the mother of a "Palestinian" whose organs were supposedly stolen <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145107193&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">denied</a> she told anything like this to the Swedish journalist). Needless to say, that the outrageous article was condemned by Israeli officials. The Swedish reaction (with one notable exception) was no surprise either. Well, contrary to what one might expect from a Eurabian official (let alone from an ambassador to Israel) the Swedish ambassador condemned the article, saying it was "as shocking and appalling to us Swedes as it is to Israeli citizens. We share the dismay expressed by Israeli government representatives, media and the Israeli public. This embassy cannot but clearly distance itself from it... Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are freedoms which carry a certain responsibility. It falls on the editor-in-chief of any given newspaper."

 

But if anybody hoped that common sense and decensy would prevail he was in for a disappointment.

 

Bonnier's statement sparked intense criticism in Sweden, with the Green Party spokesman Per Gahrton saying she should be recalled and taught "the basics of Swedish freedom of speech," and the Swedish media questioning why a government-appointed official criticized an article in a newspaper based in a country where there is press freedom.

 

Swedish Foreign minister Carl Bildt quickly retracted the ambassador's statement and announced:

 

"Freedom of expression and press freedom are very strong in our constitution by tradition. And that strong protection has served our democracy and our country well," Bildt wrote. "If I were engaged in editing all strange debate contributions in different media I probably wouldn't have time to do much else."

 

Just one question: Do you agree with Bildt's et. al. idea of free speech or does he misunderstand something?

I think he might have overlooked the fact that "freedom of speech" ought not include making up lies, putting them in a newspaper and pretending they are news.

Some time ago, in Sweden, if I remember correctly, there was a minister, a Lutheran, I believe, who ranted and raved in church about some things the Muslims or the prophet Mohammed had done.  The authorities there arrested him and he was convicted of a violation of that country's hate laws.

 

In the United States the minister would not have been arrested at all, since we have the right to freely practice religion.  A minister, ordained or not, may rant and rave all he/she wants, and it is considered to be religious thought and free expression.

 

As for putting articles in the newspaper that might or might not be true, a religious organization may publish a newspaper of its own, and add in the foreword, that articles appearing in the paper are of a religious nature and may reflect the thoughts of the article writer, and may not necessarily reflect the policies of the newspaper itself.

 

In a secular newsapaper, the editor is free to edit the submitted article of words of an offensive nature, but the writer's intent will remain in the article, since people of many walks of life purchase and read the newspaper, and the editors understand this and are not taking anyone's side if there is a conflict of opinion.

I don't agree with censorship, I do agree with regulating somethings...i.e. internet.  When it comes to banning books....what is the point?  If you tell someone they can't read something that something is going to become the next big thing...everyone is going to rush out to read it because they are told they can't.  If you honestly don't want someone to read a certain book, don't bash it, don't ban it....just ignore it.  I remember being forced to read books that I didn't agree with when I was in highschool.  The excuse for making us read these books was "they are going to make you think."  Did I think...no.  The books that made me think were the ones I was told not to read.  The books that were banned in my highschool were the books that I found the most challenging.  Later in college, I took a class in critical thinking, one of our topics was freedom of speech.  The point that I had in our discussion on the freedom of speech is that the very idea of banning a book was in violation of our freedom of speech.  I'm a firm believer that I don't have to agree with what you say, I don't have to read what you write....as long as you agree that I have the right to not agree with you then all is fine.  I do however agree, that some books may not be appropriate for my fifth grader to read due to the mature content and the concepts that he may not understand....those very same books may well be just fine for tenth grader.  So perhaps regulating the books in the school library is a better option than banning a book. 

 

Some time ago, in Sweden, if I remember correctly, there was a minister, a Lutheran, I believe, who ranted and raved in church about some things the Muslims or the prophet Mohammed had done.  The authorities there arrested him and he was convicted of a violation of that country's hate laws.

 

In the United States the minister would not have been arrested at all, since we have the right to freely practice religion.  A minister, ordained or not, may rant and rave all he/she wants, and it is considered to be religious thought and free expression.

 

 

 

The hatespeech was aimed at homosexuals, not muslims. Among other things he referred to homosexuality as a cancer, and even Swedens arch bishop said the minister was out of line.

 

The minister was sentenced to 1 months prison, but the Supreme Court freed him, using a number of cases from the European Court to show that sentencing the minister to prison would be a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I always enjoy banned book week.  :D

This is certainly a very interesting topic! 

Edited:  Please stay on topic; this is a thread about banned books, not editorial mess-ups and religious slander.