Banned Books

[Elric 42]

Every time I read something about the banning of books I think of the book Farenheit 451, where firefighters actually burned books. In the book, all books were banned from reading because it provoked thought.

 

Books are usually banned or challenged because they have offense material. Most of the time in other countries, the government mainly monitors what books are released to the public, because books provoke thoughts and if a book was released showing the negative aspects of the that certain government, it can provoke thinking and even rebellion against that (usually communist) country.

 

In looking through the eyes of a communist I would say that banning books is necessary because some books can provoke thoughts that could lead to the people uprising in that country and of course a dictator does not want that at all.

 

However I do not think in our case living in a democratic republic, no book should be banned. Mainly because we have the freedom of the press, and have the ability to think for ourselves without our government monitoring what we read.

 

I really don't think anyone should say what we can and cannot read, because its really up to yourself to decide what you want to do or read or say.

Edited March 17, 2012 by SDY

[FinalGamer 192]

If the book only offended one individual, everything's cool

 

But what if the said book offended a school?

Humiliating a Mosque, or a Church?

Degrading an entire ethnic group?

Blackmailing a nation leader?

 

Should the book still be allowed to circulate freely?

 

Then it shouldn't be published in the first place? I mean I'm pretty sure publishers look out for that stuff pretty carefully. Books are not exactly thrust into people's faces to read nowadays so in terms of non-fiction, it's just somebody's opinion, possibly backed up by theories and/or evidence as a thesis extended.

 

That said, free speech is free speech but that doesn't mean you get to use it JUST to stir up people. I also believe you are allowed to read whatever you like, so long as you do not do anything harmful because of it.

...though I would really like to punch whoever wrote A History Of The World in 10 3/4 Chapters, god DAMN was that the most pretentious-as-hell crap I ever read.

No I have not read Atlas Shrugged, I'm not judging what I've not read.

Edited March 17, 2012 by FinalGamer

[Starshine 16,330]

^you will be surprised on how many weird books got published these days. The publisher hardly ever care about the content if the book was a goldmine

[Flow 1,619]

I see no reason why books should be banned

[thesilence23 46]

People can have opinions but if a lot of people think a book is against there beliefs that doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned.

[Aureity 3,055]

The only books I am okay with being banned are those that are libel. Sharing your opinion is one thing. Outright lying about someone/something is another.

[Future Allie Way 185]

ttfn, ttyl, and l8r,g8r by Lauren Myracle.

Lauren tried to not 'sugar coat' things and the books ended up banned

[Sekr Gray 520]

There are plenty of banned books, and many people support banning those books when they become offended by what's written. However, those books that are deemed offensive simply because people are afraid of what's written, and are afraid to face the issue at hand, hoping that the issues will simply go away if you ignore it long enough.

 

Take for example, To Kill a Mockingbird. It was banned for containing racism and offensive language. Sorry, but, a book dealing with racism, containing racist ideas? I personally feel that if you can't handle talking about an issue such as racism, don't read a book based on that very issue. Even still, the idea is to make you feel uncomfortable about such things as that, and to promote discussion on how to fix it. Cutting off a book that promotes that discussion shows that you're nothing more than afraid of the responsibility of fixing it.

[SkyBurner's_Legion 63]

When it comes to books about real world problems like racism or violence, I don't think they should be hidden. Censoring books about things like that is almost like trying to deny it happened (which won't help). I remember in 8th grade we planned to read Of Mice and Men but some parents complained (ironically after signing a waver that we'd be reading and dealing with some mature material). You can't shield children's minds from the real world forever.

[Blackshirt Brony 415]

I'm usually reading a lot of the "offensive" stuff.

[Hovershy 3,813]

No books should never be banned. I don't care what book it is. In the United States we have a right to free speech and it needs to stay that way. I have a feeling we are slowly losing that right...

[gamecubeguy214 2,511]

It depends on the book. Informational ones should never be banned. When I was in elementary school, there was a book that was answering the question of ''How are babies made'', and it was banned, and I think it's pretty stupid because you need to know how sexual organs work so that you can be more successful in the future.

Edited November 29, 2015 by gamecubeguy214

[LeonShi500 155]

I love how on the list the OP provided, one of the band book series was Goosebumps.

 

Because that's what a nation should be afraid of, right? Lmao

[Midnight Seeker 302]

Here's a song about some of the people who love banning books

It's censorship and I will forever oppose that as a revolting control tactic. Let me put it this way, I am an employed 33 year old adult who pays tax and is of sound mind. Who the hell are you to tell me what I can and cannot watch?

Not to mention that censorship tends to done for utterly ridiculous reasons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/michael-gove-axes-to-kill-a-mockingbird-and-other-american-classics-from-english-literature-gcse-9432818.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty

A pox upon those who censor!


Although I do firmly support age classification.

[Jaxsie (Inactive) 1,343]

Books should never be banned. I would be offering my mind for shackles if I gave the government or church institution the power to tell me what I can and can't read...that is the beginning or tyranny. If you control the flow of knowledge you control the population. The fact that such iconic books as "Of Mice and Men" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" were banned speaks volumes to what knowledge or thought process they wanted to keep from the public mind.

 

By banning, the government essentially thinks you're too feeble-minded to choose what you should read, so they narrow the pool of thought that your allowed to explore in; like a parent putting up baby gates to keep a roaming toddler in a place where they can be seen. No -- I'm not the government's baby, thank you very much.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Jaxsie

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 2,732]

I will talk of censorship in general rather than book burning specifically. I support censorship in the specific case that it supports the stability of given country; if a country without censorship results in chaos or generally cause the country to be in a worse state than it currently is, then censorship should be promoted in my opinion. This doesn't apply to all/most western countries as they are already quite stable so censorship is unnecessary or detrimental if anything.

[Courageous Thunder Dash 7,809]

Depends on the content of the book. In highschool, I read a very unpleasant book that should've never been published. 

 

Basically, it was about a society that took a Bible verse WAY out of context. Nuff said. 

[Adash 193]

It's kinda funny when you think about it.  These books that were heavily challenged or banned for their "questionable" content and ideas are highly valued today and taught in most American schools without hesitation.  Books like these always find their way onto a reader's "top read list".  I'm no exception because The Catcher in the Rye is my second favorite book of all time (Watership Down is my first).  Simply having a history of being controversial makes it appealing to many people.  In no way, shape, or form do I support censorship, but having some books banned wasn't really a bad thing because it brought them to our attention, marking their place in history.  

[Don076 1]

All information should be available regardless of its quality. No matter what it is, a book or a porn site, it has to be available to everyone. I hate dictators who block any information.

[EpicEnergy 22,530]

I think books should not be banned no matter how controversial they are.

[TBD 17,231]

I think any books or texts should never be banned. I'm history nerd so I disagree with keeping anything historical under the rug just for the sake of keeping "safe" for the community, Books are books just as words are words. It's the people's choice to take it seriously or not. I see banning books/texts as ignorance toward history itself. 

[Yoshi89 5,291]

Reading should not only be about challenging yourself but the norm as well. Banning a book ironically makes it more desirable to be read.

[Splashee 28,538]

If anything other than books are allowed to be banned, then books should also be able to be banned.

[Jedishy 3,542]

No never. And those that want them banned should lose all rights to creative freedom, freedom of speech and expression. 

There is never a reason to ban information and it never has ANY positive result.

[Fluttershutter 2,180]

NO

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn