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

[skaldic]

I'm strongly against banning any book, even the ones I'm extremely (or even violently) opposed to. However, I don't think that we can take the opposite view either -- that we have to make all books readily available no matter what. In the case of Amazon -- while I don't necessarily agree with caving in to pressure, Amazon is a private commercial enterprise -- it is their choice what to stock. Not stocking it or removing it from the shelves altogether isn't the same as censoring it.

If you maintain that because the offending book was self-published for the kindle, removing it from Amazon is tantamount to banning it, I'd have to disagree. Sure, the kindle is Amazon's proprietary format, and that's the only place to sell it in that format. But saying that they can't remove it is equivalent saying that Amazon must offer it for sale. If Amazon was a government agency, that might be a reasonable idea. But they're not. The idea that it's equivalent to banning the book doesn't wash either because it was the author's choice to offer

[bondo_ba]

You're exactly right. Amazon is not remotely obliged to offer it for sale, and they chose what they probably saw as the best of two bad choices at the time. They are a private enterprise and need to choose what is best for their stockholders - no matter how much it might bug me personally

[skaldic]

I agree completely -- if they don't stand up for something that they themselves find utterly abhorrent, but only for things that they agree with, then as you said, they're just being hypocrites.

I found several things on that list -- especially the holocaust denial -- absolutely disgusting. But to protect my own right to write whatever I want, I have no choice but to protect the rights of others to write something that I would spend a life time arguing against at the top of my lungs.

[bondo_ba]

I admit that list made me look long and hard at what I believe, and it took me more than a week to fully digest the ramifications, but in the end, I came down on the side of free speech.

I can understand how some people will come down on the other side of the coin, though. A lot of that list was shudder-worthy.

[mikandra]

book bans book schmans. The ideas are out there. They'll find voice in another way. Honestly, is banning something the only way we can think of dealing with subjects we find uncomfortable?

[bondo_ba]

I honestly think that sometimes, people just don't want to think about things and believe that any offensive idea will just go away...

[bondo_ba]

That is a logical argument. My main objection to that point would be that many of the thinngs that are accepted today were illegal in an earlier time period, and the fact that writers flaunted these laws was instrumental in getting them changed.

Examples of this include most obscenity laws, Darwinism and homosexuality (up until VERY recently, sodomy was expressly punished by law in most of the Americas). And the debate about drug legalization would still be banned in most places according to your argument.

In my opinion, not defending the right of free expression to the ultimate consequences (in this case, "ultimate" means defending books we find disgusting) means that some subjects which are currently illegal (remember that laws are often centuries old) would never get a fair hearing.

That is the risk I perceive in the legality argument. (the other argument against it is that people are free to chose - if they build a bomb, it is not because a manual exists but because thay wanted to build a bomb. Books are just books).

[bondo_ba]

Actually, none of it makes you a hypocrite unless you go around saying that you are against banning ANY books and then turn around and say that you are in favor of banning SOME books. You have explained your position perfectly clearly, and there is no hipocrisy there.

I don't agree with banning #4, but I would agree to putting the author in jail if he was the one who caused the pictures to be taken. I would do the same with any other author who published photos a other crime he'd committed. I would not condemn an author or publisher who used the pictures of someone else's crime (unless they were specially comissioned).

As for intellectual property, as an author, I wouldn't ask for the book to be banned, but for my name to appear on it and royalties to be paid! No use wasting a good opportunity (although I see why others would ask for banning, and it was a good example).

[xanthalanari]

I'm against banning books in general. However, I do believe in a certain amount of parental guidance in respect of children reading books with potentially disturbing/difficult/challenging content. Eight years olds being guided away from grown-up novels featuring child abuse, for example.

That's not to say they should be banned, but that parents should exercise a certain amount of discretion as they would the content of a movie or computer game. In my opinion, books can do more damage than either of these things because the pictures aren't external. It's all in your head, and if it's written well it's personalTo use an example from my own life: one of my secondary schools had a "sixth formers only" shelf of books considered too difficult for the lower school. Once you were considered old enough to read them (16+), you had free access. I talked my way onto the shelf at 13, because my mum had suggested I read one of the books on it. That's the level of censorship (if you want to call it that) I mean. What gets particular books put on

[xanthalanari]

Sort of went off on a tangent there. Sorry. :D

[bondo_ba]

That's fine. Always glad to hear your opinion - and the point you make is one that is worth making.

[bondo_ba]

Oh, yes. I strongly believe in parental guidance as well as common sense. There are subjects that children are just not ready for in the least. I don't see this as "banning" but as a part of raising a child.

[clibanarius]

Indeed. Kids aren't ready for say, George RR Martin's work

[bondo_ba]

Of course. As I said above, the fact that books shouldn't be banned doesn't mean that we should actively expose children to them.

As for the Pedophile book - I haven't actually read it, so I can't really judge whether the author needs to be disciplined or not, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing so. As you say, once you start attacking the defenders of one book, others will immediately come under fire - it might be the bible or a different work. I don't think that is acceptable!