Book Banning and Censorship

[Eudaimonist]

I hope my upcoming book arguing for libertarian ethics from a Christian perspective annoys enough people to get banned. That's almost guaranteed to make it a bestseller.

It won't be banned, if the history of libertarian publication is any indication. It will be ignored, except by Christian libertarians.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JustMeSee]

Thanks for the to-read list. No, I don't believe that books should be banned or censored.
Edit: When it comes to suggested and required reading for students, age appropriateness IS a consideration. Of course, this thread is in regards to written text, not explicit photography.

 

[freezerman2000]

I was in the local Wal-Mart yesterday, and, low and behold, they have "Catcher in the Rye" on sale!

 

[justaguy78]

Book banning and censorship in general are ridiculous to me. It is basically saying people should not be allowed to decide for themselves what THEY want to read, see or hear. What gives people the right to try and control this? Sure, parents have the right to censor stuff for their children but for everyone? Sorry, that is pathetic. Can I start getting things I don't like or agree with banned? I don't like looking at facial piercings so bam, lets ban people from getting them. I don't like tattoos so bam, lets ban those as well.

What I find amazing is a lot of the people who go on about wanting to ban stuff (this from what I have seen in the media) seem to often be supposed Christians who are supposed to believe in free will...so they believe in free will among humans yet they don't want people to have the free will of reading something they don't like? Yeah that makes sense.

 

[selfinflikted]

What I find amazing is a lot of the people who go on about wanting to ban stuff (this from what I have seen in the media) seem to often be supposed Christians who are supposed to believe in free will...so they believe in free will among humans yet they don't want people to have the free will of reading something they don't like? Yeah that makes sense.

Well, I think it's more along the lines of some people think they ought not, should not, or cannot read/watch/participate in whatever, and they believe that if they "can't" do a thing (because of religion, personal morals, or whatever) then no one else should be able to do that thing either. But I do not believe that it's out of concern for the other person, but rather something borne from... jealousy perhaps.

 

[freezerman2000]

When censorship and banning of books began in Nazi Germany, it was innocuous...because it they were written by someone deemed "undesirable"(the entire Jewish race was deemed that)and they went against party ideals and lines. How many irreplaceable manuscripts, some from medievil times, do you suppose were lost..Religious, scientific, history, it mattered not...into the bonfire it went...
And ultimately, that mindset led to the worst human tragedy in recent memory.
THAT is NOT a path the world needs to see taken ever again!

 

[MacFall]

And ultimately, that mindset led to the worst human tragedy in recent memory.

Well, not the worst, just the most famous. The Soviets killed many times as many of their own people as the Nazis did. But since they were on "our side" and "our side" won, they seem to get a pass. And they banned far more books than the Nazis ever did.

 

[freezerman2000]

I stand corrected on that point about the Soviets killing more, but the part about the banning? I'll stand by that.

 

[Brak]

I don't like censorship, either, but my single biggest issue is selective anti-censorship. By that I mean, if a book comes out that's blasphemous, vulgar, racist, teaches how to molest a child, whatever...we don't ban that. That's censorship.

But ban a book because it's too Christian, too post-trib, outlines the science behind Creationism or the archaeology of the Bible, gives the Palestinian point-of-view in the ME conflict, or portrays Iran's or Venezuela's actions as understandable given the situation they're in--that's okay to censor. It's "misleading".

 

[Mling]

I don't like censorship, either, but my single biggest issue is selective anti-censorship. By that I mean, if a book comes out that's blasphemous, vulgar, racist, teaches how to molest a child, whatever...we don't ban that. That's censorship.

But ban a book because it's too Christian, too post-trib, outlines the science behind Creationism or the archaeology of the Bible, gives the Palestinian point-of-view in the ME conflict, or portrays Iran's or Venezuela's actions as understandable given the situation they're in--that's okay to censor. It's "misleading".

Keeping in mind that our government doesn't really ban books, when we talk about banning, we're only really talking about book stores and public libraries that choose not to carry certain books, religious organizations that tell their members not to read them, or school districts that don't allow their teachers to teach them.

So any "this is allowed but not that," needs to focus on an organization, not just on "somebody, somewhere banned this." I mean...of course, you can point out that an organization of skeptics promoted a religion-questioning book, while the KKK promoted a racist one, a libertarian group made a point of saying "I don't think this book is right but hey, it should be allowed," but a school didn't teach a book full of lies about science.

Can you give an example of a single organization that discouraged books specifically because they had Christian themes, but encouraged books that taught how to molest a child?

 

[Brak]

I was thinking specifically Amazon when I said that.

 

[Isambard]

I don't like censorship, either, but my single biggest issue is selective anti-censorship. By that I mean, if a book comes out that's blasphemous, vulgar, racist, teaches how to molest a child, whatever...we don't ban that. That's censorship.

But ban a book because it's too Christian, too post-trib, outlines the science behind Creationism or the archaeology of the Bible, gives the Palestinian point-of-view in the ME conflict, or portrays Iran's or Venezuela's actions as understandable given the situation they're in--that's okay to censor. It's "misleading".

Got examples?

 

[Belk]

I don't like censorship, either, but my single biggest issue is selective anti-censorship. By that I mean, if a book comes out that's blasphemous, vulgar, racist, teaches how to molest a child, whatever...we don't ban that. That's censorship.

But ban a book because it's too Christian, too post-trib, outlines the science behind Creationism or the archaeology of the Bible, gives the Palestinian point-of-view in the ME conflict, or portrays Iran's or Venezuela's actions as understandable given the situation they're in--that's okay to censor. It's "misleading".

So, you don't like censorship but your biggest problem is the lack of censorship of things you don't like and the (nonexistent) censorship of things you do. OK then, glad we cleared that up.

 

[Belk]

I was thinking specifically Amazon when I said that.

Ah, a clarifying statement. So your issue is not with censorship but that private company's have the right to choose which products they will or will not sell?

 

[Brak]

So, you don't like censorship but your biggest problem is the lack of censorship of things you don't like and the (nonexistent) censorship of things you do. OK then, glad we cleared that up.

Nope. My issue is the hypocrisy. If you insist on allowing really vulgar or blasphemous stuff because "that would be censorship"--but you silently ban certain religious stuff--that doesn't make you any shining beacon against censorship. It only makes you vulgar and blasphemous.

P.S. the author's name of the Pedophiles-for-Dummies book on Amazon is Phillip Greaves. I looked it up.

 

[OllieFranz]

Nope. My issue is the hypocrisy. If you insist on allowing really vulgar or blasphemous stuff because "that would be censorship"--but you silently ban certain religious stuff--that doesn't make you any shining beacon against censorship. It only makes you vulgar and blasphemous.

P.S. the author's name of the Pedophiles-for-Dummies book on Amazon is Phillip Greaves. I looked it up.

That's odd. When I went to Amazon, the only books they show written by Phillip Greaves are two out of print books with no descriptions: A Government of Service to All: A Free Country For a Free People, and The Grand Delusion: Or, What's God Got To Do With It? Neither one sounds like a book that promises to be a Pedophilia For Dummies

 

[JustMeSee]

That's odd. When I went to Amazon, the only books they show written by Phillip Greaves are two out of print books with no descriptions: A Government of Service to All: A Free Country For a Free People, and The Grand Delusion: Or, What's God Got To Do With It? Neither one sounds like a book that promises to be a Pedophilia For Dummies

I didn't hear of the book or crimal case before this.
Phillip Greaves arrested: Author of 'The Pedophile's Guide' faces obscenity charge in Florida - Orlando Sentinel

YouTube - Amazon.com Promote eBook by Philip R Greaves II Which Teach Pedophilia

Talk about pushing the limits of freedom of the press. :o