Banning books

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Take a look at this list and spot the most ridiculous one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_governments

My vote goes to

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

Children's Novel/Adventure

Banned in the province of Hunan, China (1931) for the portrayal of anthropomorphized animals acting on the same level as humans.[3]

Can banning books be ever justified by religious or sexual prudery or for political reasons? Where are the limits of free speech with regard to banning books?

[Tigrul]

I am for free speech, completely. I even support the free speech of those retards crying "death to atheists". Although I am currently having a few discussion on where the freedom of speech should end, and I might change my mind a bit towards "it ends when it advocates for the violation of the rights and liberties of others". But for now, as I've said, I support the freedom of speech even for the idiots who use it to advocate the demise of the minorities I'm a part of. And, of course, I even support the freedom of speech of the idiots who want freedom of speech abolished.

As such, I don't agree with banning any kind of book.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Tigrul, what if someone would publish leaflets calling for the reintroduction of slavery? Or calling for the complete extermination of a certain ethnic / religious group?

[Juvenal]

I was surprised to see India near (maybe at?) the top of the list for banning books, mostly because they might embarrass the government.

[removeduser_052420]

I was surprised to see India near (maybe at?) the top of the list for banning books, mostly because they might embarrass the government.

Your Surprised by this? India bans ANYTHING which would make it look bad, Slumdog Millionaire was really close to getting banned too.

[UnitedIreland]

Tigrul, what if someone would publish leaflets calling for the reintroduction of slavery? Or calling for the complete extermination of a certain ethnic / religious group?

I assume you mean something like Hilter's Mein Kampf?

[Каие]

Tigrul, what if someone would publish leaflets calling for the reintroduction of slavery? Or calling for the complete extermination of a certain ethnic / religious group?

Well the former is controversial, morally reprehensible, and morally subjective, whilst the second one is illegal.

[Tigrul]

I would not ban their articles. I would encourage debate against their articles, I would encourage ridicule and heavy criticism of those articles, but I would not ban them. At the moment, part of my reason why I support complete freedom of speech is because I believe that it is very healthy to know who the idiots who'd advocate for slavery are. It's easier to fight against a known enemy.

But, of course, I don't know for certain which of the two approaches is better. I obviously don't agree with reinstating slavery, or with atheists getting murdered. So I don't want people to misunderstand me, my opinions are solely about the freedom of speech of everyone to say everything. I would do my best to criticize ideas which I'd consider evil or otherwise detrimental in any way. If avoiding the extermniation of an ethnic group, or avoiding the reinstatement of slavery, would be easier with a limitation of the freedom of speech, I'd agree to that limitation.

[basics]

In these days of the internet it is to my mind almost impossible to ban anything and perhaps that is a good thing. It is healthy to know what others think and of course it is even healthier to be able to reply. What one reads is a matter of personal taste and apart from the broadening of the mind, perhaps even disagreement of the contents, it can do no harm to the reader.

Of course governments are quite a different thing because their survival is about banning something, sometimes a lot of something, to keep their secrets of which we can discover to be many. Politics has become about control so obviously that which can overcome that must be banned. As we have found out in the UK there is much that our politicians would like banned, have indeed tried to ban, but to their disgust it was the written word that exposed them.

So freedom to write and freedom to read is one of our most basic rights as long as we make it so. There is no doubt that others would have it otherwise but as long as we ensure that they don't get away with what is in reality a creeping struggle for control of us, we should be OK. That means that the cranks get their say just as much as any other for it is just as important to know them as it is to know ourselves.

[Ummon]

Bad books should be banned: they are a waste of time. There is an open/close/open/close dynamic here. Evolutionary stuff, in reality.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Bad books should be banned: they are a waste of time. There is an open/close/open/close dynamic here. Evolutionary stuff, in reality.

Well, a lot of overrated books don't deserve the focus they get by popular media, but intelligent people can deliberately pick what they read anyway. Some books don't need advertisement to remain popular.

I would not ban their articles. I would encourage debate against their articles, I would encourage ridicule and heavy criticism of those articles, but I would not ban them. At the moment, part of my reason why I support complete freedom of speech is because I believe that it is very healthy to know who the idiots who'd advocate for slavery are. It's easier to fight against a known enemy.

But, of course, I don't know for certain which of the two approaches is better. I obviously don't agree with reinstating slavery, or with atheists getting murdered. So I don't want people to misunderstand me, my opinions are solely about the freedom of speech of everyone to say everything. I would do my best to criticize ideas which I'd consider evil or otherwise detrimental in any way. If avoiding the extermniation of an ethnic group, or avoiding the reinstatement of slavery, would be easier with a limitation of the freedom of speech, I'd agree to that limitation.

The first 3 stages of genocide (as suggested by this theory) are
1. Classification
2. Symbolization
3. Dehumanization

All of them involve the spread of dangerous ideas through hate speech.

I was surprised to see India near (maybe at?) the top of the list for banning books, mostly because they might embarrass the government.

And I was surprised to see (ex) Yugoslavia with more books banned than in India. Including Animal Farm by Orwell. But the most interesting book of them is A New Class by Milovan Djilas, that was the first to describe communist states as a new type of class society (in Marxist terms), in which the ruling class is even more dangerous than the old fashioned aristocrats of the ancien regime. One might ponder what prompted this harsh cultural policy, even if you consider that Yugoslavia was relatively free from the SU. I guess Tito thought they were independent from "West" and "East" and could do whatever they wanted to do.

[Tigrul]

The first 3 stages of genocide (as suggested by this theory) are
1. Classification
2. Symbolization
3. Dehumanization

All of them involve the spread of dangerous ideas through hate speech.

Yes, I understand that. As I've said, I don't approve of hate speech. But I don't think banning hate speech is the key. I think it's better to allow hate speech and to speak against said hate speech than it is to ban it. I believe it is more efficient to criticize genocidal ideas, to fight against them. Forbidding the expression of such ideas heavily limits debate against them.

And, as I've said, I find it healthy to know who the idiots are. It is important for me, when voting for our president, to know which candidates have which ideas. There actually is one person who has run for presidency a lot of times so far, who advocates discrimination against non-romanians, against non-christians, against non-whites and so on. I for one feel the need to know who such idiots are, so that, for instance, I don't vote for them.

[Tankbuster]

Which is a total misrepresentation of Islam that should be condemned. But why is it banned in India? It is not a Muslim country and acknowledges free speech.

Probably because the ethnic difficulties between Indians and Muslims are very, very prominent in India. Al Queda tried blowing up the Indian Parliament a couple of years ago. In fact, India was fighting Al Queda and similar Islamic extremists a long time before we were.

The first 3 stages of genocide (as suggested by this theory) are
1. Classification
2. Symbolization
3. Dehumanization

All of them involve the spread of dangerous ideas through hate speech.

Sadly, none of them will be stopped because the government places a ban on hate speech. That's not the solution, it's a recipe for disaster.

Adults are capable of deciding for themselves what they want to read. The government cannot and should not be involved in protecting grown-ups against things they might not want to hear. For one thing, they don't have to knowledge that would required.
I agree with Tigrul.

[Tigrul]

The problem with that attitude, Ummon, is that there isn't a really objective way of determining bad books and good books. I consider the bible a bad book, but I don't think that my opinion should be enforced by banning the bible.

I also think it's better to allow all books to be published and to be accessible, so that people may read them and offer their criticism, positive or negative. There's not much need to ban a bad book if said book receives a lot of negative criticism. Furthermore, it's a good thing for people to be exposed to bad ideas and to acknowledge that those ideas are bad.

[Ummon]

There isn't an objective way?

Compare contemporary publications with past ones, with an automated system: old equals bad.

[Ummon]

But fashion is not matter of reason, it is matter of archetypal dynamics. Should we be masters? Should we be slaves? Should we be good taskmasters instead?

[Ummon]

For reasons pertaining time economy, knowing cranks is a problem.

[Tigrul]

For reasons pertaining time economy, knowing cranks is a problem.

So warn people that they might waste their time when reading book x or book y!
There's no need to ban those books.
Plus, as I've said, there are many books for which it's a subjective reasoning. I consider the bible to be a waste of time full of stupid claims. You consider otherwise. Whose reasoning should be enforced? I for one believe neither of our opinions should be forced on others.

[Ummon]

So warn people that they might waste their time when reading book x or book y!
There's no need to ban those books.
Plus, as I've said, there are many books for which it's a subjective reasoning. I consider the bible to be a waste of time full of stupid claims. You consider otherwise. Whose reasoning should be enforced? I for one believe neither of our opinions should be forced on others.

Heh no. Dialogue takes time. And to which informed opinion do people listen? None but their own, even if it is not informed.

No, democracy works up to a certain point, in culture and science.

[Taxandrius]

No, democracy works up to a certain point, in culture and science.

and what would that point be then ?

In my opinion, banning books is against every human law: were is the natural freedom when we aren't even free to write down our thoughts because they are not the same as the general ideas ?