Banned Books discussion

This is a discussion for talking about whether limiting access to certain books for certain ages (e.g., under ten or something) is akin to censorship. In what context? Is it the same in a school library as a bookstore?

There are two issues here and I am going to address one at a time. First, I believe bookstores and libraries have different roles and should have different criteria. A bookstore is a business and as such has a different responsibility when it comes to selling material to minors. Much like movies or video games, books do contain subject matter that may be inappropriate to young children. A bookseller is within his or her right, in my opinion, to refuse to sell a particular adult novel, say "50 Shades of Gray" of "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" to an unaccompanied 12-yr old, no matter the child's reading level. In a public library, once a child is old enough to borrow books from the adult section without the consent of an adult, anything is fair game.

As to the issue of age restriction and censorship, no I do not believe this is the same thing. Stating that children under a certain age may not borrow books described as "adult" without parental consent is not the same as saying they are denied access to those books entirely. Now, pulling books that are written in an age-appropriate level because a person or persons do not like the content IS censorship. If your child brings home a book with a subject matter you don't approve of or agree with, then have the conversation with the child about WHY you disagree.

Christina wrote: "There are two issues here and I am going to address one at a time. First, I believe bookstores and libraries have different roles and should have different criteria. A bookstore is a business and a..."

I agree with you and I don't think I have much else to add, except that a library, a school limiting access to certain books librarians, parents etc. personally consider "18+" although the books are clearly marked as being for "12+" would smack a bit of censorship, as in this case, librarians, parents are imposing their own attitudes even though the books are/were earmarked for teenagers or older middle school students.

No censorship is justified.

What about classified documents that keep a country safe? What if a journalist gets a hold of them and wants to publish? What about censoring materials from people in circumstances where they've proven themselves dangerous, e.g., giving people in prison items that would incite them further and cause a riot, or that talk about how to stalk their victims or escape from prison? What if there is a dangerous threat to the public but publishing the actual danger in an article will cause panic and more deaths from that then not publishing it?

Just putting it out there for discussion, not asserting an opinion. :)

The world is not one of absolutes. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of "No censorship is ever justified" because it is a rather simplistic view of the world. The situations Kelly Maybedog illustrated are prime examples. I'm sure there are many more. There is a responsibility which comes with publication and journalism. There is no point where a writer can - or should - hold up his or her hands and claim "I have no culpability, I just write the material." I believe everyone should have any right to express their ideas. But I as a member of society have the right to say "that material should be made available under X or Y controls."

Christina wrote: "The world is not one of absolutes. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of "No censorship is ever justified" because it is a rather simplistic view of the world. The situations Kelly Maybedog illu..."

That's a very good point, Christina. I have real problems with those individuals who think that freedom of speech etc. is absolute, because with freedom also comes responsibility.

I like your last clause, Gundula. I think that a lot of the world would be a better place if people took to heart that all "rights" and privileges come with responsibilities.

This is a great discussion. Is there anyone who disagrees with Gundula and Christina?

I was referring to use of the library by citizens, not national security or other issues

Personally, I feel that my 'rights' end when they start to infringe on the rights of others. So books / publications that promote homophobia, racial hatred or religious intolerence or are an incitement to violence I have issues with.

Books such as Mein Kampf would fall into this group if their publication was pending. As it is, the book is historically significant because it demonstrates society's failure to recognise and restrain such extreme ideologies.

Hmm, interesting idea. Those kinds of books upset me, too. But then a devout Christian might say an anti-Christianity book is not okay. Or an atheist might, and do (Dawkins), say that Christian books infringe on their rights.

What do others think?

I guess there is a line between espousing another viewpoint and encouraging or inciting readers to hatred, abuse or violence towards that 'other' group.

Also, if I were taking a university or college level course on 20th Century German history, or the rise of German or Italian Fascism, reading and discussing a book like Mein Kampf could be, I think, an important, if not an essential aspect of any in depth discussion (or term paper, dissertation etc.). As much as I would despise having to read the book, it is (unfortunately) an important book for understanding the horrors of the Holocaust. Similarly, a book like The Turner Diaries could be important reading material for academic courses on terrorism or the rise of terrorism.

How can one fight extremism, if one has no knowledge of what makes the extremists tick, how can one know and understand modern German history without at least having the opportunity to discuss not only Nazism, but also some of its primary sources, no matter how anathema, how horrid that might be to the reader?

However, I do think that for books like Mein Kampf, modern (current) publications should also contain warnings, discussions, annotations and the like (simply publishing the book as text, without additions and admonishings, is and would be unacceptable to me).

I know. There's no easy answer, Kathlyn. It's why talking about it is good! And it's great that you both agree about Mein Kampf.

Kelly asked months ago: What about classified documents that keep a country safe? What if a journalist gets a hold of them and wants to publish?

Then that journalist may have to expect a jail term.

Gundula wrote: "Also, if I were taking a university or college level course on 20th Century German history, or the rise of German or Italian Fascism, reading and discussing a book like Mein Kampf could be, I think..."

One of the problems now is that, with the internet, it's going to be impossible to provide that context along with Mein Kampf. A neo-Nazi group could easily take Mein Kampf, delete the academic context, the annotations, and the discussions, and publish it again in eBook form as propaganda rather than as an insight into the mind of the world's most notorious fascist.

I know we're arguing the morality of limiting access, and not our functional ability to limit access, but the internet may render the argument a moot point. How can you provide context when anyone can access anything without any sort of centralized approval?

I've been seeing some interesting blacklash recently with the book Zealot by Reza Aslan (great book, by the way). We've been having lots of Christians comment that it offends them and the book should be removed. On the other hand, we can can't buy copies to fill holds fast enough.

IMO, a public library has the responsibility to provide materials for everyone. This means including works that are traditionally very controversial. Some people just don't seem to understand that just because they think a book is offensive doesn't mean someone else doesn't want to read it. This goes for everyone that comes to the library, child and adult. As far as I'm concerned it isn't the public library's job to monitor what kids check out. If a parent doesn't want their child reading something then the parent needs to make that call.

Now, in a different setting like a prison library, for example, I don't think it is censorship to deny inmates access to books that may cause more problems than they solve. But, in prison, you've already given up your freedom and I think, to an extent, that includes your freedom to read.

Other than that, I think Christina is spot on in terms of age restriction vs. overall access.