banned book bleg

As I'm sure many of you know Banned Book Week is coming up at the end of the month. I think its only right that we celebrate it properly by coming up with a list of books that should be banned.

Now let's clarify. There is no censorship in this
country. Just because schools and public libraries don't have it doesn't make it unavailable. We're not going to go bookstore to bookstore rounding up books. So when I say 'banned' I mean books that no public library or school library should waste money or shelf space on. What books should any honest librarian just say no to, no matter how many requests for it? Is it depraved? false? useless? What? There are hundreds of books published each year. Most aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Which ones are worth less then even that?

I have a few in mind but I'd like to get some input before they get posted. Any help would be appreciated.

Comments

Re:Blinkers and misperceptions

That should be all the explanation he needs.

Ah! -- there's that right-wing response that proves the banality of Tomeboy and GregS*. Unable to resond to facts with facts, you merely dismiss the source as being invalid. This is the sort of thing that demonstrates the flaws in your positions. Thereby making it easier to deny the wholesale ineptitude and closet totalitarianism of the Republican party and the Holy State of Amerika while sneering at the rest of world and especially the Democrats and libertarians.

Which was exactly my point to Tomeboy in the first place. Your support of censorship is rank stupidity -- not to mention blatant hypocrisy -- and will always remain so. To reiterate: I do not support censorship under any conditions or pretend that "my party's" censorship is okay while that of others is not.

Using your definition of banned, I nominate...

Anything by Vladmir Nabokov. Anything. Novels, poetry, even his published correspondence with Edmund Wilson. Why? Because he was so painfully dull! I continue to deny him valuable shelf space in my own home.

Number One!

It's an easy choice! The Bible! A hodgepodge of weirdness, superstition, and depravity! Yes, I'm posting anonymously because I don't have time to answer all the death threats!

Blinkers and misperceptions

Now let's clarify. There is no censorship in this country.

Bullshit! Your federal government is engaged in censorship of sexuality based information on a wide scale. It buries reports about racial profiling, expurgates scientific studies that do not blindly support unchecked corporatism, and does everything it can to prevent American citizens from questioning actions taken in their name.

If you mean that the presidency or that congress is not passing legislation to censor books the way religious lunatics do or try to just about every day, that's a red herring.

Censorship: the effort to keep ideas, regardless of medium of transmission, out of the minds of people over whom you have no legal authority. --Michael Nellis, 22 May 2005

No one anywhere can legally have authority over a free person with the capacity to be a responsible citizen. Moreover, an idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

No books should be banned; access to all ideas is necessary if only for study so as to understand the fringe group.

Here's your mirror

And Canada has no obsenity laws that censor the import of books on gay/lesbian topics? They don't censor news stories in Alberta about partial-birth abortions and babies left to starve. Untrue are reports that Saskatchewan newspapers quoting the Bible can be sued for human-rights violations and the author sued. Ottawa public libraries would never filter. That customs agents would never censor material from the Ayn Rand Institute that dared to support Israel's right to exist. Ontario police would never arrest an investigative writer critical of their work. That materials cited for "undue exploitation of sex" or being "degrading or dehumanizing" can be censored for the protection of others. So to anything "promoting hatred" or "false news".

As for racial/ethnic profiling. There is very little "logical" about political correctness. You keep frisking those Muslim extremist Swedish grandmothers at the airport. At least you haven't offended anyone.

Number One!

It's an easy choice! The Quran! A hodgepodge of weirdness, superstition, and depravity! Yes, I'm posting anonymously because I don't have time to answer all the death threats!

Number One!

It's an easy choice! The Witches' Bible! A hodgepodge of weirdness, superstition, and depravity! Yes, I'm posting anonymously because I don't have time to answer all the death threats!

Re:Here's your mirror

And Canada has no obsenity laws that censor the import of books on gay/lesbian topics?

Canada certainly does; unlike you, however, I make no pretence about it. I don't deny the existance of those laws and actions or pretend that they are a good and proper thing to do because my segment of the political spectrum has some kind of magic power to invoke censorship and suppression correctly because it has all the answers and is some kind of infallible.

I'll leave that kind of stupidity up to the right-wing nuts. Wherever they might hail from.

Re:Blinkers and misperceptions

I think Fang has a valid point. There is censorship in this country. It may not be as effective or pervasive as it is in a totalitarian society, but it does exist. At the very least, determing that something qualifies as obscenity and is illegal does qualify as censorship.

As for Canada, I think that misses the point since the discussion is about censorship in this country.

Re:Blinkers and misperceptions

At the very least, determing that something qualifies as obscenity and is illegal does qualify as censorship.

Hence my inclusion of Canada. There you have a much different, many say more draconian, statute for determining what should be censored. Free expression specifically.

As for Canada, I think that misses the point since the discussion is about censorship in this country.

Au contraire. This is my point. Our Canadian Fang rarely passes an opportunity to impugn America's jackboot posse. It's only when this American reminds him that he's firmly squatted in a country with its own flavor of "censorship" that he takes the time to look at his own shoes.

Re:Blinkers and misperceptions

But that does not detract from his observation. Whatever the faults of his own country may be. Alexis de Tocqueville's insights into American Democracy are still taught today even though he was French. I think your comments would only have had validity if he had been comparing the Canadian experience with the American experience.

Re:Blinkers and misperceptions

Its Fang, Robert. Its Fang. That should be all the explanation he needs.

Re:Blinkers and misperceptions

To reiterate: I do not support censorship under any conditions or pretend that "my party's" censorship is okay while that of others is not.

Of course. And your homeland reticence shouldn't be construed as an implicit endorsement as well.

Friend you're living a pipe dream. You characterize facts about Canadian censorship as "banal"? Morphing from bellicose champion to impassive chump with self-exonerating, dribbled responses to my posts about your country's penchant for "saving the easily offended". But we all know this.

The truth is, in my judgment, you're an apolitical imposter Fang. An opportunist looking for a sympathetic ear among a liberal profession. Fine. But it's just not censorship you loathe, it's America. And I wouldn't refute the suggestion that your Yankee infatuation is really the manifestation of a Canadian inferiority complex. Who here recalls any journal entry authored by you that dared to besmirch the reputation of your beloved Canada? Of all the examples of Canadian censorship I’ve given you, how many had you written about beforehand? Or since? Why no jackboot hyperbole describing Paul Martin or meddling Mounties? But of course you make no "pretence" about Canadian censorship which leaves your country “off-the-table�. Well I too have no pretence about censorship in the U.S., particularly from the “left�, of which you also cannot bring yourself to rant about.

That said, it seems you can reserve any and all criticism about my country’s sniveling shits until you muster the fortitude to shine your beacon of self-righteousness in a mirror.

Re:Blinkers and misperceptions

But it's just not censorship you loathe, it's America.

BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, fuck! Oh, shit! That is so funny! The old "You anit-American," "Why do hate America" card!

Oh, my Christ!

BWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

As hard as it is for you to understand, you self-righteous hypocrite, there are people who can hate your government and its genocidal policies without hating all Americans or the country itself. Personally, I'll reserve my sympathies for American citizens who are as much victims of your government as Iraqis are. Cindy Sheehan and the disfranchised blacks of New Orleans come to mind.

Oh, and if you want samples of Canadian censorship you can find a few of them at my site. The catch is that you actually have to look for them. You won't do that, however, will you, since you have so often demonstrated the short-sighted prejudice of assessing information as valid or invalid due to its source, rather than due to its relation to reality.

As for American censorship, it is simply easier to report on since you American whiners bitch and piss and moan about everything that inconveniences you so much more than the rest of the world does. Not to mention that even while engaging in government endorsed, wholesale anti-intellectualism, you continue to tout yourselves as the example for the rest of the world to follow. Canada, at least, does not engage in that particular vice.

Oh, and your "implicit endorsement" line is just another bullshit red herring. It belongs in the same category as your bullshit idea that "there is no such thing as selection, it is all censorship".

Syndicate content