Let's talk about book bans

[bondo_ba]

Banned books are something I don't often think about.  My position has always been that book banning is something that only subhuman morons are capable of.  Books represent ideas, and all ideas should be openly disucssed, even if you don't like them, and even if you disagree.  Yes, even those ideas that one finds disgusting must not be suppressed

Comments

[kmarkhoover]

I'm against banning any book. Period.

I'm a writer. Censorship isn't something I feel comfortable with at all.

[bondo_ba]

My thoughts exactly. I was truly upset by the effective banning last wek of the pedophilia kindle book on Amazon. I disagree with everything the book represents, but I still can't believe Amazon caved. I am seriously worried by that trend.

[bogwitch64]

It's a difficult question to answer. There is no one truth, but many truths. There are some who believe that there are certain subjects so vile that they should not be given voice--but who decides that? There is something objectionable in just about anything, something SOMEONE is going to find repugnant.

My own personal line is drawn when it comes to children. The book in question--I'm glad Amazon took it off their site. We're not talking about a vile idea or set of values; we're talking about what amounts to an instruction manual on how to harm innocents, on how to gratify adult needs by destroying a child's life. If I could burn every copy and slam the writer in jail for this one, I would. That is my PERSONAL feeling about this particular book and author.

That being said--I'm still against banning books. Yes. Even this one. Because it is a slipperly slope that, once you start sliding, there's no end in sight.

[peadarog]

Yup. All of the above.

[bondo_ba]

Just responded to the above...

[bondo_ba]

I agree. That book is completely disgusting (which is why I chose it as an example - it seems to be a book we can all agree is awful), but the slippery slope has just been greased further. The precedent has been set. The door has just been opened for book banning - by the very people who would argue hardest against banning, say, The Origin of the Species.

Anyone who came out publicly in favor of banning this book has lost all credibility to argue against a book ban in the future, and the people who want to ban other types of books will certainly use that in their favor.

That is what scares me.

[mylefteye]

Did Amazon actually ban the book or merely say "We are not stocking this title?"? There is a difference.

[bondo_ba]

Well, it was a book that was self-published on the kindle... So not stocking it is the same as banning it... for now, anyway. If I want access to that book, I cannot have it.

The awful part of the whole thing was that the online retailer that essentially stocks every book in the world, and should be the first line of defense against mob-mania censorship, caved at the first sign of pressure.

Of course, they have a business to run, and need to be leery of public opinion. But it's not a long road from what they did to "no longer stocking" The Origin of the Species... That is what scares me.

[ash_of_roses]

I agree with most of your post, however-- I don't think that refusing to stock/publish a book is remotely equivalent to banning it. Amazon has, after all, done NOTHING to prevent the author from finding another publisher, printer, or retailer.

The fact that they did stock it and then removed it was poorly done, and removing it after the fact is much more problematic than refusing to stock it in the first place; stocking it carries the implication that they had no problem with the content, but caved to public opinion. This takes their decision, for me, out of the realm of 'reasonable business choice' (refusing to be a platform for views one finds distasteful' and into the zone of definite sketchiness.

[bondo_ba]

Yep, you're absolutely right about that. On further thought (which took place after I posted that comment!), I revised my position on that particular point, since, as you say, the fact that it isn't available NOW does not mean that it has actually been banned.

I was wrong in the comment you responded to - but I don't delete comments, even when I look like a ninny. Thanks for taking the time to chime in!

[bondo_ba]

Oh, you're right. I think we all AGREE about this subject. I chose it specifically because it is so vile that only a very tiny proportion of the population of the world would disagree with us.

And I understand your point: if something is almost completely unanimous, then it should be in a different category, and not discussed in the same way as other "grey areas".

You may be right, but I don't see it that way (I could very easily be wrong, which is why I invite the discussion - I learn a LOT from my flist, every day).

The problem, in my mind, is that we're taking the argument onto the moral plane in the first place. It then comes down to "my morality against yours" and it simply means that people in the majority will always win that particular argument. Once you allow a single idea to be banned from all discussion, from then on it's just a question of degree. Who decides which ideas are too vile? The majority? The intellectuals?

And on whose authority?

As I said, the article I linked to made me think about this quite a

[mongrelheart]

I believe it's never OK to ban a book. If we're going to say it's OK to ban one book, then we have to be prepared for the next time somebody wants to ban something else. And so on. Like you say, greasy slippery slope.

It's easy to stand up for the freedom of authors whose books the uptight Church Lady doesn't approve of. But the real test of free speech is if we grant it even to people whose views we find horrifically objectionable and disgusting, like this pedophile author.

[bondo_ba]

Precisely. And I admit that the other examples listed in the article made me think as well. The Holocaust denial was especially hard to swallow.

But we can't start down that slope.