The Idiocy of Banning Books

Posted by Pariahjane

Books have probably been banned since the first one was written - and it's something that is still done today in some countries. According to this article, Tango Makes Three has once again been awarded the top slot for objectionable books. The story is about a penguin who has two fathers and some parents feel this book might give kids the idea that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable. Forget about promoting the idea of understanding with children that what makes up a family may be different from what they know. Just ban it because the content conflicts with their beliefs or they are too scared to face their own homophobia, not to mention complete ignorance. On a side note, having two fathers does not necessarily mean the parents are homosexual…but, again, understanding is not at the top of the agenda for these people.

Other books on the ALA's top 10 list include Maya Angelou's memoir "I Know
Why the Caged Bird Sings," in which the author writes of being raped as a young
girl; Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," long attacked for
alleged racism; and Philip Pullman's "The Golden Compass," an anti-religious
work in which a former nun says: "The Christian religion is a very powerful and
convincing mistake."

I don't see anything wrong with parents objecting to books but I do think some people go too far when they call for a book to be banned. If you don't feel a book is acceptable to your children that's your opinion and you have a right not to allow your child to read the book. Calling for a ban of the book so no one can read it goes beyond that.

There is nothing wrong with parents monitoring what their OWN children read, in fact, I think it is the responsibility of a parent to be educated and aware of what their child is up to, including which books they are reading. Objecting to books because their content is violent, such as 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings' is just plain ridiculous in my opinion. I understand that parents want their children to be protected from darker aspects of life; unfortunately that isn't going to change the fact that violence, such as rape, happens. Use novels like these to teach your children about life. Let them learn from it.

Same goes for 'Huckleberry Finn'. This novel is set in an American era where racism was still rampant. Rather than try to bury a dark part of American history, use this book to explain to your children that at one time racism was acceptable and then show them why that kind of thinking is wrong and leads to ignorance and hatred.

The literature that is chosen for schools is chosen because it provides a learning experience for your kid. Books are a safe way to introduce children to ideas, different cultures, different lifestyles... even different worlds. Schools have more pressing issues to deal with than whether or not the context of a novel is deemed violent of offensive.

UK wants to ban kinky porn

Posted by Pariahjane

Thought police, anyone? It appears that the UK is intent on rushing through a bill that would ban violent or 'extreme' pornography.

According to the article, violent or extreme porn could be:

As defined by the new Criminal Justice Bill
An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

First off, I can't take issue with the last two descriptions of extreme pornography and having a potential ban against such acts because a dead person or an animal can't really give consent to be a part of the sex act in the first place. One could argue that as long as everyone is acting in the movie than it would be ok. Yet the bill would still make it illegal since it has that nice little word appearing in it.

Secondly, what exactly is 'serious injury'. I'm sure there are some people who think that getting a bruise is a pretty serious injury. Who decides just how serious an injury must be to earn the label 'violent' or 'extreme'. I don't, for example, consider spanking in a sexual context to be violent or extreme but others may. So, who decides?

On a side note, if there is a porn movie in which someone 'seriously' injures another actor in the face but not the breasts, anus or genitals would that still be considered 'violent pornography' and thus be banned?

There are those who get sexual satisfaction out of rape fantasies or torture fantasies. Others get off by bondage or sadomasochism. The movies can be used as a sexual tool in the bedroom and whether we agree with their fetish or not, as long as they have permissive partners they should have a right to view this stuff.

But campaigners say the new law risks criminalising thousands of people
who use violent pornographic images as part of consensual sexual relationships.

People like Helen, who by day works in an office in the Midlands,
and enjoys being sexually submissive and occasionally watching pornography,
portrayed by actors, which could be banned under the new legislation.

Some people like it kinky and sometimes that kinkiness goes beyond a little spanking but as long as these people are performing these acts with consensual adults than I see no reason why they should not be allowed to continue. Of course, I realize that the bill is focusing on pornography and not necessarily what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Pornography is acting and actors get paid. The people performing these acts in adult movies are not being forced to do these things; they are paid for it.

This bill is just an attempt to control what people are watching. It's censorship, plain and simple. Just because the legislation was proposed with good intentions doesn't make those intentions right.

Five years ago Jane Longhurst, a teacher from Brighton, was murdered.
It later emerged her killer had been compulsively accessing websites such as
Club Dead and Rape Action, which contained images of women being abused and
violated.

One cannot blame pornography for one man's depraved act. There could be many consenting adults who watched the same movies as the murderer did but they did not go out and kill somebody. As Helen states:

"Mrs Longhurst sees this man having done this to her daughter and she
wants something to blame and rather than blame this psychotic man she wants to
change the law but she doesn't really understand the situation," says Helen. "Do
you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"

To be honest I would think that alcohol causes more societal problems than extreme pornography does.

Speaking from her home in Berkshire, Mrs Longhurst acknowledges that
libertarians see her as "a horrible killjoy".
"I'm not. I do not approve of this stuff but there is room for all sorts of different people. But anything which is going to cause damage to other people needs to be stopped."

To those who fear the legislation might criminalise people who use violent
pornography as a harmless sex aid, she responds with a blunt "hard luck".
"There is no reason for this stuff. I can't see why people need to see it.
People say what about our human rights but where are Jane's human rights?" (Emphasis added)

Now see, here's my problem with a bill such as this. Who gives Mrs. Longhurst the right to decide what others can and cannot view? There are many people in this world who use pornography to spice up their sex life and because Mrs. Longhurst doesn't like their tastes she feels it is within her right to have it banned.

I understand that perhaps there could be a darker element that is attracted to violent pornography but that does not give anyone the right to make it illegal for all the other consenting adults. Chances are there are many people just like you and me that get satisfaction from sex a little rougher than the average vanilla would prefer.

What next? Will pornography that contains sodomy be banned next? After all, sodomy could be considered an act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals. The point is, people are going to jump on this and use it as a reason to make illegal other forms of pornography.

Making 'violent' pornography illegal is censorship. It is not there to protect the people. If it was then violent movies would be banned, as well as television or music that depicts violent acts. After all, how many murders have been the result of watching pornography?

On Censorship

Posted by BGH

~
Throughout history of the written and spoken word there have existed efforts to deter or silence opposing viewpoints. This type of attitude, while having the appearance of protecting and insulating your stance from criticism, only indicates the insecurity of your position and gives others an open door to also squelch your ideas from being heard.

Once we start censoring ideas we don’t agree with, all ideas can be silenced, even our own, and nothing is beyond reproach. I don’t agree with the neo-Nazi, the 9/11 truther, the extremely far right, the extremely far left, or many other viewpoints for that matter, but they have a right to speak their mind.

I am strong proponent of free speech, defending the marketplace of ideas and protecting all speech, even that with which I strongly disagree. I feel I can make my case, defend my arguments and if someone can prove me wrong or convince me otherwise, I am willing to accept it. Censorship has no place in society, to wall up sensibilities from scrutiny and brand certain discussion ‘off limits’ pushes modern society backward, causing regression of thought and basically creates automatons from the citizenry.

Say what you will; say what you want, if we disagree, great! At least there is a discussion, and no one’s viewpoints are silenced. We learn best when being confronted with many varied and wide ranging viewpoints, we remain ignorant when only having access to like-minded speech.

On this blog we do not delete comments we disagree with, we let the criticism remain, we state our case in response but DO NOT expel differences of opinion.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” - The Friends of Voltaire (1906), written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre
----

The George W. Bush Aministration Doesn't Drop Knowledge, They Hide It!

Posted by BGH

~
It seems like every week we are posting something about new evidence of corruption in the Bush White House, why should this week be any different. Actually it is probably more appropriate now, a few days after April Fools, to assess once again how we have all been 'fools'. This is merely a piece of the greater puzzle that is our corrupt President, White House and Congress.

You see, once again evidence has come to light that, this administration is actively suppressing knowledge, this time in regards to abortion on a reproductive health website (link). Mr. Bush and his corrupt gang of 'Moral Majority' appeasers have seen fit to block the search term, "abortion", under a Reagan-era policy revival that keeps federal funds from any non-governmental agency that promotes abortion as a family planning method in other nations.

The material that is masked by blocking "abortion", and abortion-related terms, are not mad rantings by some internet blogger (like myself), no, these are health literature articles and papers from scientific journals that are indexed by the website.

In the grand scheme it isn't that big of a deal as I am sure the information is accessible from elsewhere. My argument is, like the picture of the dead soldiers that make up a larger portrait of Bush, this is another picture of a fallen liberty to add to the photo that is the corruption in this White House. Across the board, from every angle, they are corrupt. They suppress knowledge and get away with it at every turn, this along with every other incident should be brought to light. It needs to end and Bush/Cheney need to be charged with treason

Pretty disgraceful Mr. Bush, again we see why your legacy will be remembered as one of the worst (link).
----

Movie 'Sanitizer' May Have Diddled A Minor

Posted by BGH

~
Okay, so there are these ultra religious groups out there that take the 'naughty bits' out of feature films so that other ultra religous types can watch a so-called "clean" movie. One such group is Flix Club, who is not currently in business but at one time was owned and operated by Daniel Thompson.

Well here's the rub, Mr. Thompson is now accused of sex with and underage girl.

Police on Friday arrested Daniel Thompson, 31, and another man. Two 14-year-old girls needed money and decided to offer sexual favors, police said.

A third girl put them in contact with one of the men and he paid both 14-year-olds $20 for oral sex, police said. Later, the man took the girls to Thompson and the teenagers performed oral sex on him, according to police.

Well, I bet Mr. Thompson wishes he could clean up this story a little bit, or even make it just go away....

----

Offensive Artwork

Posted by Pariahjane

Original Article

A CONTROVERSIAL piece of artwork has been blasted by a Christian group - because it depicts Jesus with an erect penis.
The statue is one of 74 plaster models in exhibition 'Gone, Yet Still' by Chinese-born artist Terence Koh, which features sculptures from Michelangelo’s David to ET.
The artwork is being exhibited by the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead which was earlier embroiled in controversy when it was at the centre of a child porn probe over one of its works.
Evangelical group Christian Voice expressed outrage at the work, calling it blasphemous and saying it had created a “storm” of protest.
Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green fumed: "It's the Lord Jesus Christ being humiliated, ridiculed and villified.
"It's just so disgusting, pornographic and offensive, it's hard to find words to express the outrage.
"I have written asking for the statue's destruction."
Mr Green was planning to protest outside the gallery this weekend.
But the arts centre still plans to keep the exhibition open until the end of its run on January 20.
A gallery spokesman said: “Koh is trying to explain all the things which have meant something to him.
“It is a sort of mausoleum.”

Ok, some guy made a sculpture of Jesus with a big winky (hey, at least he didn't make it small) and a Christian group became offended. Any art that involves a religious figure is bound to ruffle a few feathers - I think an artist would be disappointed if this type of work didn't create controversy.

But someone found the piece so offensive they are calling for its destruction? Come on now, it's not THAT serious. Of course, people react to things of this nature in different ways. Had this been a statue of Muhammad I'd wager that Mr. Koh would be in hiding at this point since the fundamental Muslims seem a bit more proactive when it comes to destroying those who 'insult' their faith.

Not everyone will agree on what is offensive, pornographic, etc. And everyone has the right to voice their own opinion. In fact, I think it should be encouraged. We happen to live in a country that allows us to have our own voices so we might as well use them. People need to become a little less sensitive when people express views that differ from theirs.

Personally, I think the statue is pretty ugly.

Bill to ban swearing, obscene music and tabledancing in bars

Posted by Pariahjane

Original article

What the ...? A St. Louis-area town is considering a bill that would ban swearing in bars, along with table-dancing, drinking contests and profane music.

This potential bill should be filed under 'idiotic shit the government does when it could be doing something useful like funding stem-cell research'.

City officials contend the bill is needed to keep rowdy crowds under control because the historic downtown area gets a little too lively on some nights.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not the profane music that is getting the crowds all riled it up. It just might have something to do with... oh, I don't know... alcohol? Here's a novel idea - instead of banning people from saying 'shit' and replacing all the records in the jukebox with muzak, why don't they just kick out the people that are out of control? Single out the jackass who's swinging the beer bottle around like a club and kick him out. Then turn back on the heavy metal.

I highly doubt a bunch of cursing adults is causing a riot. Limit the alcohol intake - not their rights!

The proposal would ban indecent, profane or obscene language, songs, entertainment and literature at bars.

Absurdity aside, who decides what is indecent or profane in these instances? Will you get the boot for saying damn or do you need to drop the F-bomb to get in trouble? What's indecent literature? Will I be asked to leave for reading On the Road while sipping a jack and coke. These are adults, perhaps badly behaved but adults nonetheless. If someone is dancing on a table top, it's probably not because another patron said 'shit'. It's probably because of all the whiskey shots.

Banned Books Week

Posted by Pariahjane

I came across this interesting page while perusing the American Library Association. It has information regarding banned and challenged books, mostly through the 90's and 2000's. There are lots of links and a ton of information regarding banning books. For example, here is the list of challenged books for 2006:

The "10 Most Challenged Books of 2006" reflect a range of themes, and
consist of the following titles:
"And Tango Makes Three" by Justin Richardson
and Peter Parnell, for homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age
group;
"Gossip Girls" series by Cecily Von Ziegesar for homosexuality, sexual
content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive language;
"Alice" series
by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor for sexual content and offensive language;
"The
Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things" by Carolyn Mackler for sexual
content, anti-family, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;
"The
Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison for sexual content, offensive language, and
unsuited to age group;
"Scary Stories" series by Alvin Schwartz for
occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence, and
insensitivity;
"Athletic Shorts" by Chris Crutcher for homosexuality and
offensive language.
"The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky for
homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, and unsuited to age
group
"Beloved" by Toni Morrison for offensive language, sexual content, and
unsuited to age group;
"The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier for sexual
content, offensive language, and violence.

I am against all forms of censorship. If you don't like something then don't read it, or listen to it, or watch it, etc. I haven't read many of the books on this list and I gather that many of them are directed toward pre-teen and teens but that is no excuse for these books to be banned.

I have read Beloved and The Bluest Eye. They are both wonderfully written and very heartfelt. And yes, they contain sexual content and 'bad' language. The Bluest Eye was absolutely wrenching to read and I see no reason why a person should be sheltered from writing such as that. It's called life and it is not always pleasant.

It's a shame that people don't read books very much anymore. It's also a shame that parents feel the need to lobby and protest various books because they dislike the content or it goes against their beliefs. The more books that are not making it onto the shelves, the more information we are losing. This includes fiction. Fiction expands our minds, introduces us to new ideas, new cultures and new ways of thinking. Without this knowledge we cannot grow and educate ourselves.

Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and
receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for
free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a
question, cause or movement may be explored.

Intellectual freedom is the basis for our democratic system. We expect
our people to be self-governors. But to do so responsibly, our citizenry must be
well-informed. Libraries provide the ideas and information, in a variety of
formats, to allow people to inform themselves.
Intellectual freedom
encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas.

I understand that some parents are concerned about the content because they want to protect their children. However, I think it is intellectually stunting not to allow your child to read something because you feel the content is anti-family or homosexual. Granted, I know it depends on the age of the child but by high school I think most kids have enough maturity to be able to handle reading books that might contain uncomfortable content or foul language. Reading a book that has homosexual themes is not going to make your kid gay.

The primary responsibility for rearing children rests with parents. If
parents want to keep certain ideas or forms of expression away from their
children, they must assume the responsibility for shielding those children.
Governmental institutions cannot be expected to usurp or interfere with parental
obligations and responsibilities when it comes to deciding what a child may read
or view.

We cannot allow these books to be banned because someone doesn't like the themes. They can be challenged to the ends of the earth as any person has the right to do so but they absolutely should not be banned anywhere. No one has the right to choose what we should read.

This page provides some more information on intellectual freedom and censorship