True but in the case of Shakespeare with schools here it was to remove the offensive bits lol Having said that we read the edited MacBeth but watched the Roman Polanski film in the same class My edited Jane Eyre glossed over the attempted Bigamy etc
I know this thread is a little old - but I am so confused! I thought the USA had freedom of speech and was against censorship Many of those books are on the English curriculum in Australia because of the controversial issues therein. Are you saying these books are not allowed in school libraries in America?
Go to Wikipedia and search up banned books (It should have a chart of international countries). You'll notice Australia has quiet a lot of its own. Though it appears to be a state, rather than federal issue. (More so).
I don't think "people will do it anyway" or ease of access are reasons why you should stop trying to mitigate the negative effects of a certain phenomenon. One wouldn't make murder legal because people do it anyway, or make fraud legal because modern technology makes it so much easier.
I am disappointed but somehow not surprised. I was actually working at a bookstore when American Psycho became restricted. It was very odd - one day we could sell it to anyone, the next it was shrink-wrapped and we had to check ID. If anything it made me want to read it... I think there is a case for some books to be banned (for example T.he T.errorist's H.andbook), but like others have said, many of the books on that list just made me go .
For sure. We are not to bad at the moment, but i can see it following the likes of the USA. We do tend to follow suit very closely.
Just went to that wikipage, Speedy. "Dick and Jane banned in the former Soviet Union for its obvious pro-Americanism." ~From Wikipedia I mean... I guess I kinda' understand, but... really? Dick and Jane? I don't recall the Dick and Jane books containing any passages to the tune of: Dick and Jane went to the capitalist market in order to procure non state sanctioned food items. Jane purchase much more than she could ever eat in a week. Dick bought new tires off of the black market... I guess it just shows to go ya' that anything can get read into anything.
Truly? The name in its original is just as likely to garner twitters and giggles from American boys and girls. We use the same word for the same meaning. Though I am aware of a few titles of franchises that were changed for the UK market that left me a bit puzzled. Avatar: The Last Airbender vs Avatar: The Legend of Aang and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles vs Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles
Americans don't approach double entendre in quite the same manner as the UK - my husband says we give it a new meaning he can send my friend and I off into fits over very innocent things. When you grow up with Carry On Films and Pantomime neither really US traditions it is very hard not to go into giggles over silly things. Ninja vs Hero was related to the watershed at the time - it used to before 9pm only level of violence, no sex and no bad language allowed. The word Ninja was deemed too much violence for before 9pm. The other have no idea but it is no weirder than Northern Lights/Golden Compass or Philosophers Stone/Sorcerers Stone.
I think books written by people like Katie Price and Russell Brand or Jamie Oliver or Lewis Hamilton should be banned. Whenever i hear a friend tell me how much they enjoyed Katie Price's new book and regard her as a genius or that Russell Brand is the funniest man alive or Jamie Oliver is a one man wonder or how Lewis Hamilton has a truly wonderful life having written a biography at 20 something!!!! :O ...a part of my hope for humanity dies a horrible blunt-forced-tool related death inside! . I'd include the Bible in there too but that would spark yeat annother annoying religious debate no doubt haha.
In other words, I'm going to state my opinion, but don't want to have to debate it. I can say whatever I want as long as I throw a winking emote after it. Then it's not so offensive, I guess. It's hilariously ironic that Fahrenheight 451 was banned at any point.
No book should be banned but everyone should have a right to state their opposition to a certain text and not be instantly ridiculed for doing so, or have their opinion discarded because of other opinions they hold. Listen to the message, not the messenger.
I agree that no book should be banned, and I agree that an individual's opinion on one issue should not be taken as reason for discounting their opinion on another issue. But that thing in between? I'm sorry, some - many even - opinions deserve to be ridiculed, because those opinions are ridiculous. There are far, far, far too many people in the world who have come under the impression that the fact that they're allowed to have an opinion also makes that opinion justified and of equal value to that of anyone else. They're not. Any time someone states something in public - opinion or otherwise - they open their statement to criticism or, yes, even ridicule. If someone doesn't want their ridiculous opinions ridiculed, they shouldn't share them.
I agree. As to whether a school or other entity should be ABLE to ban books due to ideas/content in the first place, it depends on whether the school is public or private. A bookstore can refuse to carry whatever they want for whatever reason they want, and I'm fine with that. Likewise, a private school can weed out any ideas or content they don't like or agree with. A public school, on the other hand, is less able to do so and that's how it should be. A public school is a government entity, and when the government is trying to eliminate works based on disfavored ideas or content, it is a problem.
I meant they should be given a chance to explain why they are opposed to a certain book and not be charged with being a philistine before their case has even been heard. The key was the word 'instantly'. I never said they shouldn't be ridiculed for their opinion. I said they shouldn't be ridiculed simply for opposing a book, although I should've made that clearer. The answer to: "I don't think this book is appropriate," should be "why not?" and not "you're an idiot for wanting to ban a book".
Actually, I do believe it is okay for schools to ban certain books. Children are influenced by all they see and hear. There is a reason why most kids are not allowed to watch R rated movies. The content is inappropriate for them. They do not have the necessary skills and life experiences to be able to deal with what they see. They are also more likely to believe something is true when they see it, even though it may be ridiculously fake. Likewise, some books have material that is inappropriate for children. In this stage of life, information is burned into their little heads. The stuff they learn may very stay with them for life. I can understand that parents and teachers want to make sure they don't digest anything that could negatively influence them. An example of how books influence children is the "Harry Potter" series. Now I know these books were banned from some schools, but that's not what this is about. After the author wrote the books, children were sending her letters, asking how they could apply to the school. Now most of us know that the school and it's characters are completely fictional, yet children believed it was real! Kids are so easily misled into believing what we tell them. If you ever interacted in with children at all, you can see how easy it is. While some books may be considered harmless, others not so much. The controversy with "Harry Potter" is that it is a completely inaccurate representation of real witchcraft. Though not everyone has a problem with that, some parents do. They don't want their children to believe that witchcraft is good and harmless. Yet so many children do. They see it as the author shows it, and believe with their whole heart that it is true. While "Harry Potter" doesn't generate the same response from everyone, it is undeniable that it greatly influenced many kids. Did you know that broom sales rose after the books were published? Of all things, brooms! All in all, children see, children do. There is a good commercial that represents that. You can find it be typing in "Children are Watching" on youtube. While this represents kids copying parents and older siblings, you can bet that they copy what they see in movies and read in books too.
I don't believe anyone is arguing that we should put smut on elementary school shelves. But, if students have questions about vital topics such as religion, politics or even more personal subjects such as sexuality, then it is our responsibility as a nation to provide them the pathway to an answer. I see it as similar to abstinence-only sex education: ludicrously outdated and outmoded to the point where it is detrimental to the youth.
Except that in some of those areas you intrude into the realm of the parent, and are no longer in the province of the State. But I don't think the libraries should get rid of books for such reasons; it is up to parents to monitor what their child is reading, discuss it with them, decide whether a book is improper, etc.
Oh, I absolutely agree then. Although, I don't see "why not?" and "you're an idiot for wanting to ban a book" as being mutually exclusive responses. Sometimes people just having it coming.
My older two are 7 and 4 if you read with them and explain things they have a good idea about the difference between reality and fiction. Sure they have broomsticks they love Winnie the Witch - they spend a huge portion of their time zooming round on them. It is a parents responsiblity to teach a child values, differences between fact and fiction etc not a schools. Why should my children be denied because someone else hasn't spent that time? My kids often sit and watch a variety of programmes with me I talk them through them. I was about 9 or 10 when my Mum watched Clockwork Orange and Naked Civil Servant with me.
I agree. Some areas are the realm of the parent but children do have minds of their own and if their parents are, (frankly) idiots, then they should be allowed to educate themselves in a safe environment. Well, supposedly safe. But that is or a different conversation
For public libraries, I can see why you wouldn't want to get rid of books, but for school libraries, parents have a feeling of trust. They don't expect their children to come home with a book about a murdering rapist. There has to be some degree of protection for the children. It used to be normal for the community to care for the children. Now I can't help but feel that everyone only cares about themselves. Parents can't always monitor what their kids are reading. Even the ones that do try. Unlike what some may think, parents are not with their kids 24/7. They can't always see what their children are doing. Some people seem to believe that everything is permissible. And perhaps everything is. But not everything is beneficial. You wouldn't eat a rotten rat corpse just because you were allowed, would you? Just because you know how to handle the rotten rat corpse, and treat illness you might get from it, doesn't mean you should give it to a child. You give them the good stuff, the things that will make them grow strong. When they're adults they can choose for themselves. While eating affects your physical health, reading affects your mental health. As for the organizations that are removing books they believe can be harmful to children, I have nothing but praise for them. They are taking a step to protect the children. The children are the future. We can remember things like global warming and pollution, but let's not push the kids aside.
Sheltering children does not make them strong. Whatever else it may do, it definitely does not make them strong. Children have the right to know as much as any of us do.
