S/O Book Banning

[Mommy22alyns]

I don't support banning books in any way, shape or form.

 

If anything, banning a book, or trying to ban it, will only increase its popularity...and more children / teens / what-have-you will be wanting to read it *because* they've been told they can't or shouldn't.

 

 

:iagree: I used to have a shirt with 100 books listed on it that have been targeted for banning... I wanted to read 'em all. :D

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm totally against city officials deciding to ban books because they contain objectionable content. It's true that a library cannot contain *all* books and it's true that books on the occult are frequently stolen. Not having a book available in the library doesn't mean it's banned, nobody is trying to make that argument.

 

hsmamainva- Our local library recently got rid of some reading groups in favor of having a Guitar Hero night. There are plenty of books I put off for my kids to read when they are older.

 

Making a judgment about a book for your family isn't the same as lobbying to have it removed from a public library.

 

This book is an example of books that I believe have absolutely NO value except titillation.

 

Oh my gosh. I own that book (seriously)! I used it when writing a paper in college on how many Victorian stories (including Dracula) have the theme of sex forced upon people because Victorians were unwilling to take responsibility for their sexuality. Sexuality was too repressed which resulted in these tales of sexual frustration, repression and indulgence. It's a *rampant* theme in Victorian tales even when it isn't overt. Dracula, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and many other Victorian novels can be used as easy examples.

 

But the library IS a source of information, not only to their children, but to the community. It is completely within any parent's ability to ensure that their children do not access books they don't approve of. It's called going to the library with them. There may be books that I don't want my daughter to read, but I can make that happen without forcing a library to do it for me.

 

:iagree:

[Danestress]

But I think that's a lot different from most people's conception of banning. Just IMHO.

 

 

So many people said they were "totally" against it though. I guess that surprised me - if not buying offensive books is the "banning" they are talking about.

[Aubrey]

Until the comment on Ezzo got me to thinking . . .

 

There are books that exist as instruction manuals for human pain and suffering. I am thinking specifically of some "child training" books that IMO perpetuate child abuse. If it were in my power to make it so, those books would not exist. Sure, I'd like for them to be banned (or better yet, never published). But I don't see how that can happen without starting down a very slippery slope . . .

 

Okay, I guess I'm completely against book banning, but not above wishing some books would disappear off the face of the earth. Or at the very least, be returned to the library with strategically placed sticky notes left inside the book.

 

Man, that's a tough one, because there have been books like this that I wanted to *see* before purchasing, kwim? Or that I wanted to read for the sole purpose of knowing who to agree w/ here on the boards, lol.

 

But...I see what you mean, too. I don't want them in the hands of someone who doesn't know better than to ...beat their dc or... whatever said questionable book recommends, kwim? I know that sounds awfully...tyrannical of me...I guess it is, if I follow it through, but...I don't....:001_huh:

[Murphy101]

CHOW had to be edited and revised. Is that the same as banning?

 

I was reading a Raggedy Ann book to the dc last year and had to edit on the fly a couple of times due to ugly racial epitaphs. In Raggedy Ann!! I was surprised that part hadn't been revised/edited by the publisher.

 

I don't think Raggedy Ann should be banned, but I do think those phrases should be taken out by the publisher. Is that the same as banning or censorship?

 

Yep it sure is.

In fact, I hate that censorship far more than out right banning.

To change what someone else wrote to suit the perceived tastes of readers is flat out wrong. It's putting a lie in someone else's mouth.

 

By all means, ditch Raggedy Ann if one is offended by it. But if the author wrote a racial epitaph, then that is what the author wrote. No one has any right to remove or replace the author's words with words they'd prefer he have written or said. It may not even be a sign of the author's opinion, but a genuine example of the times the piece was written in. For example, those who would ban or edit Mark Twain are actually trying to rewrite history as prettier than it was. To rewrite it to be politically correct. Poor Mark Twain must be doing backflips of horror over that entire notion.

 

If the author found that years after having written something he wants to change the wording for some reason - that is find and dandy by me.

 

Think of it this way.

Let's say you wrote an editorial into your local newspaper.

Let's say you used strong language or language that is fine in your culture.

Let's say you open your paper to read it and find the editor of the paper decided to rewrite, edit, or flatout omit things without even consulting you on it. Would you be angry? I sure would. What about when readers read it thinking the words are yours and perceive you in a light that is not as you intended? Wouldn't that make you angry? I would me. What if you were responding to the article of someone else only to find out that those weren't even the words they used? Would you feel manipulated by the publisher or that the publisher was not to be trusted anymore? I would.

 

And yes, I'm well aware all these are problems in our media outlets.

And I think it's wrong.

 

Label it for strong language or whatever if we must.

but "editing" for the purpose of censorship or banning is something I'm totally against.:)

[TeacherZee]

Yep it sure is.

In fact, I hate that censorship far more than out right banning.

To change what someone else wrote to suit the perceived tastes of readers is flat out wrong. It's putting a lie in someone else's mouth.

 

By all means, ditch Raggedy Ann if one is offended by it. But if the author wrote a racial epitaph, then that is what the author wrote. No one has any right to remove or replace the author's words with words they'd prefer he have written or said. It may not even be a sign of the author's opinion, but a genuine example of the times the piece was written in. For example, those who would ban or edit Mark Twain are actually trying to rewrite history as prettier than it was. To rewrite it to be politically correct. Poor Mark Twain must be doing backflips of horror over that entire notion.

 

If the author found that years after having written something he wants to change the wording for some reason - that is find and dandy by me.

 

Think of it this way.

Let's say you wrote an editorial into your local newspaper.

Let's say you used strong language or language that is fine in your culture.

Let's say you open your paper to read it and find the editor of the paper decided to rewrite, edit, or flatout omit things without even consulting you on it. Would you be angry? I sure would. What about when readers read it thinking the words are yours and perceive you in a light that is not as you intended? Wouldn't that make you angry? I would me. What if you were responding to the article of someone else only to find out that those weren't even the words they used? Would you feel manipulated by the publisher or that the publisher was not to be trusted anymore? I would.

 

And yes, I'm well aware all these are problems in our media outlets.

And I think it's wrong.

 

Label it for strong language or whatever if we must.

but "editing" for the purpose of censorship or banning is something I'm totally against.:)

 

:iagree:

 

Books that have racial epithets that we would not use now is a good way of starting a discussion on WHY they were used then and why we do not use them any more. Also they will give fodder for discussions on the changing use of language. Look at all the learning opportunities

[Mrs Mungo]

Think of it this way.

Let's say you wrote an editorial into your local newspaper.

Let's say you used strong language or language that is fine in your culture.

Let's say you open your paper to read it and find the editor of the paper decided to rewrite, edit, or flatout omit things without even consulting you on it. Would you be angry? I sure would. What about when readers read it thinking the words are yours and perceive you in a light that is not as you intended? Wouldn't that make you angry? I would me. What if you were responding to the article of someone else only to find out that those weren't even the words they used? Would you feel manipulated by the publisher or that the publisher was not to be trusted anymore? I would.

 

Having had several letters to the editor published in newspapers, I can tell you that they almost *always* edit those. In my case, usually for length. They call and ask if it's OK to cut out this or that before they publish it. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'm just sayin'...

 

As far as outmoded views on race. Hm, this is a hard one. I think it *is* important to see how such things were viewed in the past and why we think differently about them now. On the other hand, they aren't necessarily appropriate for young children.

[sleepy]

depending on how "banning" is defined. I assume we are all against banning people from reading what they choose.

 

But I don't think every book belongs in a public library, and just off the top of my head, I'm not sure I want public money spent on books explaining how to set up and operate a meth lab or hijack an airplane, or kill your wife, or, say, a compliation of the PlayBoy centerfolds from the last decade.

 

I don't want to keep people from reading those books if they want to read them, but I have no problem with my library system saying, "With the limited resources we have, we can't buy everything, we don't have to buy everything, and we aren't buying those books."

 

Is that "banning?"

 

When I say I'm totally opposed to banning, I'm referring to definition #2 below:

 

from Merriam-Webster:

ban:transitive verb

1 archaic : curse

2: to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>

3: bar 3c <banned from the U.N.>

[Mekanamom]

I am against book banning and the defacement of books.

 

I used to work in a bookstore. I LOVE books. And it was my job to sell them, even the books I didn't personally agree with. The Ezzo book, for instance, *always* went mysteriously missing, only to be found turned spine backwards in the gardening section or something.

 

We had to keep extra copies in the back, ready to be brought out for those who wanted to read it. (Bookstores are on to those customers who try to hide the more controversial reading material.)

 

I dunno. I have faith in the (adult) reader's ability to read something and call it rubbish if that's what it is to them. Whether or not I personally liked or agreed with a book, it was my job to make sure it was available to others to read and form their own opinions about it. AND, I think a person looking for a book should be able to find that book free from comments from other people who don't like that particular reading material. (Even if I personally agree with the comments and disagree with the book!)

 

Another thing we had to do was a very tedious job. We had to go through all the philosophy books, the religious books, and any book that mentioned witchcraft or sex... and we had to pull out Christian tracts. Groups of people would come in and insert Christian messages into many, many books. It took hours of our time to get those tracts out. Multiple times a week. Those things are nearly as bad as permanent defacement.

 

Oh, and yes. Whoever was working in the children's section had to go in early every morning and make sure no idiot had put any books from the sexuality section in there. You know, the How-To types of books. Sheesh. Those books have their place, too- but not in the children's section.

 

Just as cutesy stickers have no place covering up certain parts of anatomy in the Art books for crying out loud!

 

As much as I loved working in the bookstore, I got to see some interesting sides of humanity there. My goodness, people have a hard time letting others think for themselves sometimes. I came away from that experience with a firm belief that book banning and book defacement is wrong, and an equally strong belief that it takes open eyes and constant parental supervision/observation to protect our children from impropriety. You know? If you don't want your children to read something- BE THERE and exercise your parental authority, but don't ban the book for everyone else. And if you don't like a book for yourself, don't read it, but don't deface it, hide it, or slip your religious beliefs in there to interfere with others who may want to read it.

[dymphna57]

See, I am starting off being honest. There are lots of books I would love not to have in my local library. Sometimes it is because they are simply poorly written but popular, others because I think they are based on lies.

I can't ban any books because someone could just turn around and ban my favorite books for being too difficult to read, based on out dated ideas etc.

I hope everyone keeps reading and our national reading level improves so that we all read enough to sort this one out for ourselves.

I admit to choosing libraries where the librarian and I like the same kind of books. I want to find Wodehouse, Forrester and Burroghs on the shelves for my boys to find.

I have a ton of books in my house because our local Irish Library had nothing but popular romantic fiction, popular trash for kids and hardly anything with substance. It is sad to see a generation of children with no access to beloved classics either in school or the public library.

I miss American libraries sooooo much!!!!

[cin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cin

This book is an example of books that I believe have absolutely NO value except titillation.

 

Oh my gosh. I own that book (seriously)! I used it when writing a paper in college on how many Victorian stories (including Dracula) have the theme of sex forced upon people because Victorians were unwilling to take responsibility for their sexuality. Sexuality was too repressed which resulted in these tales of sexual frustration, repression and indulgence. It's a *rampant* theme in Victorian tales even when it isn't overt. Dracula, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and many other Victorian novels can be used as easy examples.

 

Maybe I mistook that book for something different. But I think most of you get what I was going for. Maybe this one is more what I was trying to get at. No value at all except arousal.

 

If not banned, then at the very least not available to people under 18.

[nmoira]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cin

This book is an example of books that I believe have absolutely NO value except titillation.

 

 

 

Maybe I mistook that book for something different. But I think most of you get what I was going for. Maybe this one is more what I was trying to get at. No value at all except arousal.

 

If not banned, then at the very least not available to people under 18.

No value that you can see is different than "no value at all." That's the problem when we start making decisions for other people, especially when we do so based on the mere title of a book, as you did with the Victorian erotica anthology.

[Jill- OK]

...some of my post from the other thread.

 

"(I have a huge) frustration with the word 'censorship' being used to describe both governmental restriction of authors, and taking a wildly questionable book off of a school shelf. (Some of the books on the 'banned' books lists fall into that category.)

 

I'll go a step further and say I'm embarassed for us when I see a Mom's/community's request to remove an explicit book from a school shelf right next to a title of Solzhenitsyn's on a 'banned' book list.

 

The only lists of those sort that I pay attention to, in fact, are those that clearly differentiate, and explain the situation behind each attempted 'banning'.

 

I'm including a link to something I read recently that captures my frustration; a dad asking that Jodi Picoult's Nineteen Minutes be removed from a high school library. (That 7th and 8th graders have access to. In the article, it mentions towards that end that they've now started requiring 7th and 8th graders to have permission slips signed in order to check out books from the high school...I'm just wondering if that would have ever happened without a parent making a fuss.)

 

I don't support true censorship. But I also believe that not every situation that's labeled such in our society today fits that description. And...I believe that watering down the gauge might actually pave the way for more *real* censorship, or a society that can't be brought to make any kind of judgement about 'inappropriateness' for certain ages of children and situations.

 

JMO."

 

I have no problem with parents asking that a book be taken off of a school shelf. I don't know that every single request could be met, but I don't get how it's not their right to question decisions that are made with taxpayer's money. I don't know that I believe in being forced to support something at a school level anymore than I totally believe in everything being voted on. I believe we're slowly losing the concept of 'middle ground', as a country.

 

I'll risk shocking some folks by saying that I totally believe in keeping adult and children sections in the library separate.

 

I don't know that I agree that every child has a 'right' to read every book that's out there...I think that 'responsibilities' have to enter into it at some point.

 

I don't have definitive guidelines, but I believe that if responsibility is totally taken out of the picture, when it comes to children (especially children who may not have much adult guidance in their lives*), as in "No book can be off-limits", then we're heading in a much different direction that I would think is healthy, personally, as a society.

 

I also don't believe in either patrons, or the library staff having absolute say over what happens on a public library shelf. When we get to the point where we can't dialogue, or when one person's disagreement with what's appropriate isn't able to be heard without eliciting the cry of "Censorship!", then...well, see above about heading in an unhealthy direction as a society. :tongue_smilie:

 

Why did you guys have to start talking about this, lol? I've GOT to get off the computer!

 

*(I'm one of the kids who read Flowers in the Attic. I don't know that I ever had an adult in my life question what I was reading, and I don't believe that's completely a good thing. I'm almost positive that they were of the belief that if I got it at school or the library...it was fine. I've seen things (through countless hours of television) and read things that I believe have affected me, and not always for the better. (One particular r@pe scene in a movie and another in a book come to mind). The written word and the image are both powerful things, and just as I support movies having ratings that require a certain age of viewers--or adult permission--I'd support the same for books. School or public library.

 

Again...JMO. (You asked, lol).

[Jill- OK]

:iagree:

 

I can see children's books on homosexuality being very helpful for the parent of a young child who has a new friend with homosexual parents.

 

Would you support 'questionable' books being in a section that required parental checkout? Or in the adult section? (In the case of some novels).

 

My POV is that the kids without the kind of parental oversight/support we're all assuming deserve the chance to be 'protected', too.

 

We endeavor to do so much on the behalf of kids whose parents aren't taking full responsibility...I just feel that kids without much supervision should have at least a fighting chance at keeping some of the innocence that folks who are trying to keep certain things off their children's minds--for the present--are going after for their kids.

 

If a parent who needs access to material for their kids has made that decision, then, sure, have it available for them to check out, for their kids. I'm of the belief that there's a sort of reverse discrimination in the idea that if a kid doesn't have adequate parental supervision, they're afforded the rights of an adult. This seems to be some sort of murky midway point between "Some Parents Can Choose Differently For Their Kids" and "All Kids Have the Right to Read Whatever They Want, No Matter What Parents Say".

 

(We may not even be talking about the same thing. As I've said in other posts, people have all sorts of different ideas about 'banning'; I'm assuming that most who post about it are talking about it in reference to the 'banned' book lists that include requests for questionable material to be moved, or not made available to elementary-aged kids.)

 

(ETA: I'm not specifically speaking about books on homosexuality, or any one subject; that just happens to be what the post I'm responding to mentioned. I'm talking about any book that has content that might be objectionable to some, for certain ages)

[magistramom]

[mcconnellboys]

While I don't think books should be banned, I do believe that not every sort of book should be available in just every sort of venue. Some types of books should have parameters or limitations placed upon them, as with XXX rated movies, etc.

 

Video games are now beginning to carry ratings. Librarians used to supply that sort of info on books, but that sort of help is not always available now.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Totally against book banning.

 

I think it is absolutely none of my business what anyone else reads. Likewise, what I choose to read should be of no concern to anyone else.

Exactly this.

[HRAAB]

I'm absolutely opposed to book banning, although I reserve the right to ban books in my own home - to date this has happened once with a book my teenage daughter sneaked in the house. I'm not opposed to libraries putting certain books (i.e. s*xual nature) on a higher shelf or requiring the parents permission for young children to check them out. But not banning them.

 

Janet

[Jenny in Florida]

The one in which a talking head on TV accidentally says a naughty word? (It was something made up for the show, "shmoo.") The Baby, who happens to be watching TV with his dad, Earl, is so amused by the reactions of the adults that he spends the next several days shouting "shmoo!" at every opportunity.

 

Meanwhile, that little slip has caused such a controversy and gotten the TV network so much attention that they start introducing the word into all of their shows. This delights Baby and appalls the mama dinosaur.

 

Eventually, the parents get together with some other adults and decide that the solution to the problem is to get the word "shmoo" banned from TV. They go to the grand high council (or whatever it's called) and make their case. The word is officially banned, and all is well . . .

 

Until some other parents start mentioning other words they find unacceptable, and the council helpfully adds them all to the banned list. Earl gets more and more uncomfortable as more and more words get added to the list, even some that aren't "bad," but just things individual dinosaurs find irritating.

 

Finally, they decide that, since it's impossible to draw a clear line between what is unacceptable for everyone and what is just a problem for a few, they'll have to forget about banning any words at all.

 

At the same time, back at home, Grandma dinosaur has told Baby she won't read his favorite book to him again until he stops saying "shmoo." Since he cares more about having Grandma read to him than he does about saying the word, he quits.

 

Problem solved.

 

In other words, they figured out that the solution was for the parents to take control and enforce the standards considered acceptable in their own home.

 

Now, that got lengthier than it, perhaps, needed to be. But it's why I don't ever want to see any book banned for any reason by anyone. It's not a path I want to see our country start walking, because it would be very, very difficult to have us all agree on when to stop.

 

What's that quote? It's attributed to Voltaire, but apparently doesn't come directly from his writings: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[Mom to Aly]

I am totally against book banning. While I am not in favor of porn, I am in favor of freedom of the press, and do support the right to publish it, so I am not in favor of banning it. But, I do feel some of it is carried too far (extreme s&m, etc), I just don't know how to draw a line, and not violate civil liberties.

 

I do not like the way librarians, at least in my area, act as if they are in charge of everything, including what may or may not be read. A few years ago, I asked them to request a play by Joe Orton for me--first, they had never heard of him, which truly shocked me. Then, when it came in, I went in to pick it up, and two of them eyed me up and down, obviously disgusted I would want to read his play. Even if they didn't like his work, he was a brilliant playwrite, and there was nothing at all wrong with his plays! That is pretty much the reaction I've gotten from a few of them at one library here.

[anissarobert]

Between this thread and the other one today, I am not getting my work done.

 

Recently in a small city near me there have been several attempts to ban the books The Joy of S*x and The Joy of Gay S*x from the city's public library. I have followed the story in the newspaper because it is a difficult question. As many have posted here today I am against all governmental censorship, but I can understand the motivation of the parent who did not want children having access to these books.

 

The city refused to make the library remove the books, but they agreed to put them in a secure location, so that they would have to be requested. The librarians pointed out that it really didn't matter because the books were always missing. People would either steal them or check them out and never return them.

 

I have a major problem with our library getting rid of wonderful classics. I haunt the discard sale as often as possible to snap them up. If a book is not glossy and pretty or if it is out of print there is no chance of it being kept. They even discarded the Andrew Lang Fairy Books because they were too old. I bought two of them for .50 each, but I know there are some I missed, because I can't check them out anymore.

[Heather in Neverland]

I'm not into book banning. But, I am into censoring what is appropriate for certain ages! In other words, as a parent, I want to be able to decide what is appropriate for my dc and what isn't, not someone who doesn't know them. I don't want to decide for someone else's dc either.

 

:iagree:

[keroro]

Totally against book banning.

 

I think it is absolutely none of my business what anyone else reads. Likewise, what I choose to read should be of no concern to anyone else.

:iagree: Thank you for reading my mind and expressing exactly how I feel. :D

[OnTheBrink]

I don't agree with book banning.

 

And, every book donated to our library automatically goes for the library book sale. The money made goes to the library to purchase new materials. The library also purges old books that haven't been checked out in a long time.

[tibbyl]

Book banning is downright unAmerican and intellectually indefensible. It is one area where I will fight without compromise. Too many brave people have laid their lives on the line for our freedom to toss it away on what, at its root, is a desire to control another's thoughts. Censorship of informational and artistic conduits is one of the early warning signs of creeping fascism.

 

We need books of varying degrees of quality so that we can learn how to discern trash from treasure and in between. But the reader deserves the right to make that determinantion for himself, not anyone else. Of course, a parent has right to make those decisions for a minor if they desire. But that right does not extend beyond their own offspring.

 

It is revealing to see which people are truly dedicated to the principle of freedom of expression when a town attempts to put limits on pornography vendors. Back during the heyday of the Meese Commission on pornography, communities were cracking down on sales of girlie mags in convenience stores. In our community, already the magazines were behind the counter out of view of customers. But that was not enough for some of the more fascist "decency" crusaders. They wanted to prohibit convenience store sales of the magazines altogether. A feisty 70ish woman walked into her neighborhood store to purchase a nudie magazine and promptly threw it in trash, emphasizing that it her responsibility to define trash for herself, not the town's prerogative.

 

I do not support banning of "pornographic" books because the definition is too vague. Some would include the works of D H Lawrence, Henry Miller, Somerset Maugham, and other talented writers in the porn genre.

 

For an odd read, research to learn how many truck loads or pounds of porno the Meese Commission had shipped to their offices in their zeal to assess the depravity of the porn industry. As one writer said, if Meese had been born a few centuries ago, he would gleefully have examined the internal reproductive organs of accused witches in a search for the amulet.

 

I'm going to have to google why "A Separate Peace" was challenged. I am puzzled by its inclusion on list as well as other picks.

 

If you are the type of parent who feels the need to use a Sharpie to obliterate Michelangelo's David's penis, please purchase your own art history volume to mutilate and deface in privacy of your own home. Keep your Sharpies off the school library's books.

[pqr]

Censorship of informational and artistic conduits is one of the early warning signs of creeping fascism.

 

 

But that was not enough for some of the more fascist "decency" crusaders.

 

 

Tibbyl,

 

While I agree with most of what you stated and strongly believe in the adult's right to read almost anything, I must comment on the quoted sentences.

 

1. It is not just a sign of creeping "fascism". Censorship of artistic conduits was a hallmark of Communism. Stalin would personally censor works of art and woe betide the artist whose work raised Stalin's ire.

 

2. Those who would keep porn out of the hands of our children and even society as a whole are many things, but fascist is probably not one of them. While you may disagree, and I am not taking a side here, there is cetainly evidence to demonstrate that porn is not healthy for a society. Someone who accepts this evidence should not be called a fascist.

 

The decency crusaders railed against prostitution, but as to Communists...During the Russian Civil War, in those areas under Red control, "diseased prostitutes were summirarily shot and those not diseased were sent at once to women labor battalions" (Our Man in Crimea. Capelotti, 1990 pg 138).

 

My point is that while your points may be correct your characterization of those who oppose them as being "fascists" is not.

[Murphy101]

what is "porn" to you might be a great work of art to another or simple innocent pictures.

 

remember when everyone always took pictures of their little kids in the bathtub or running around the house sans diaper? Something that most parents used to think was a photo memento of blessed innocence and baby joy twisted into something sick. Pictures of nursing mothers used to be common too. It's not that I think everyone should want to do that. I just find it very sad that such things are now viewed as kiddie porn by some people. How sad that something so sweet and innocent shoudl be dirtied like that.

 

someone previously mentioned the statue David as yet another example. Can you believe it? Oh the scandal of a completely nude male statue.

 

Again I'm 100% against banning and censorship (even if done via unauthorized "editing").

 

Now if we just want to move some content from the children's section - THAT I'm perfectly fine with doing and would even encourage. If I want it or even if I want my kid to read it - all I have to do is go elsewhere in the library for it. No big deal.

[KidsHappen]

Would you support 'questionable' books being in a section that required parental checkout? Or in the adult section? (In the case of some novels).

 

 

I would support books of an adult nature being placed in the adult section of the library but I would not support any books requiring parental checkout. If you or any other adult wants to control what your children read then you can do that but I don't want other adults controlling what my children can read. Nor do I believe that libraries should be policing children's reading selections. That is a parents job.

[KidsHappen]

I understand that libraries can't buy all books nor would I expect them to. I would have a problem which anyone trying to remove book that the library already owns. I believe that people should worry about their children's and their own reading and let me do the same.

[Murphy101]

I would support books of an adult nature being placed in the adult section of the library but I would not support any books requiring parental checkout. If you or any other adult wants to control what your children read then you can do that but I don't want other adults controlling what my children can read. Nor do I believe that libraries should be policing children's reading selections. That is a parents job.

 

:iagree:

[Cricket]

Yep it sure is.

In fact, I hate that censorship far more than out right banning.

To change what someone else wrote to suit the perceived tastes of readers is flat out wrong. It's putting a lie in someone else's mouth.

 

By all means, ditch Raggedy Ann if one is offended by it. But if the author wrote a racial epitaph, then that is what the author wrote. No one has any right to remove or replace the author's words with words they'd prefer he have written or said. It may not even be a sign of the author's opinion, but a genuine example of the times the piece was written in. For example, those who would ban or edit Mark Twain are actually trying to rewrite history as prettier than it was. To rewrite it to be politically correct. Poor Mark Twain must be doing backflips of horror over that entire notion.

 

If the author found that years after having written something he wants to change the wording for some reason - that is find and dandy by me.

 

Think of it this way.

Let's say you wrote an editorial into your local newspaper.

Let's say you used strong language or language that is fine in your culture.

Let's say you open your paper to read it and find the editor of the paper decided to rewrite, edit, or flatout omit things without even consulting you on it. Would you be angry? I sure would. What about when readers read it thinking the words are yours and perceive you in a light that is not as you intended? Wouldn't that make you angry? I would me. What if you were responding to the article of someone else only to find out that those weren't even the words they used? Would you feel manipulated by the publisher or that the publisher was not to be trusted anymore? I would.

 

And yes, I'm well aware all these are problems in our media outlets.

And I think it's wrong.

 

Label it for strong language or whatever if we must.

but "editing" for the purpose of censorship or banning is something I'm totally against.:)

 

My sister-in-law is the granddaughter of Paul Hutchens, who wrote the Sugar Creek Gang books. Within the last few years, the copyright on those books was set to expire. In order for them to renew the copyright, the books had to be revised. My sil and her mother (the daughter of the author) decided to revise the books by changing some of the racial comments and words that today would seem offensive. That way they could put "revised" on the cover and renew the copyright.

 

Just something interesting I learned recently!

[6packofun]

I am against book banning in general, but I do feel that there are books that are really not books, but pornography. Those should be banned. I do believe that there should be a rating system for books. And alot of the new teen books should be rated *R*. Detailed s&x acts are NOT appropriate for young teens. Well, my PERSONAL opinion is that NO ONE should read them, but one should at least be an adult before reading that stuff.

 

 

Yeah...I don't agree with book banning--with *one* exception (I'll explain)--but I DO wish that there were a way to do a parental advisory type of label of some kind on library books. Not sure how it could be done without being intrusive or seen as censorship, but I'm seriously appalled at how often the children's librarian suggests books for young teens that have sex and other mature topics in them. Maybe not all genres, but definitely the Young Adult, Teen and Children's books could have a warning.

 

Not to mention that the high school reading lists have gotten trashier and less classy in a BIG way and I'm sure parents would like to know what their kids are reading. A tiny warning would help. Our pastor's dd was assigned Water for Elephants which is a good book but has quite a bit of sexual stuff in it! They just wanted a heads up so they could make a choice for THEIR child.

 

*My one exception to book banning is for those materials that give explicit instructions for carrying out a criminal offense, like building bombs, how to lure children (remember that book by the pedophile group???), etc. Those things should not even get PUBLISHED, but banning them is the next best thing, IMO.

[genie]

*My one exception to book banning is for those materials that give explicit instructions for carrying out a criminal offense, like building bombs, how to lure children (remember that book by the pedophile group???), etc. Those things should not even get PUBLISHED, but banning them is the next best thing, IMO.

 

I'm not sure exactly what I think should be done about books like that, but history has shown that banning books only increases their popularity. So I really don't know that it would be the next best thing.

[Murphy101]

*My one exception to book banning is for those materials that give explicit instructions for carrying out a criminal offense, like building bombs, how to lure children (remember that book by the pedophile group???), etc. Those things should not even get PUBLISHED, but banning them is the next best thing, IMO.

 

nope I don't even agree then.

for example MANY books that are actually about how to protect children from being lured into whatever are used by those who want to lure them away too. After all if one knows the defense mechanism, one can think how to navigate it. sick and sad I know, but nothing new about it either.

 

Also, there can be good in even that sick pedo book. It may have offerred a glimpse of how they think and others were able to write books about how to defend children against them? NOT condoning the sicko attitude of the book (never want to even touch that icky thing), but just noting sometimes great good can be gleaned even from the things we hate.

 

Building bombs isn't neccesarily a criminal offense. It's a science too. A very fascinating aspect in many career fields. (mining, building demolition, fireworks, bridge and road building... just off the top of my head.)

 

ANY thing can be twisted evil because of some yahoo's sick mind. That doesn't mean we need laws restricting those things. It means we need better laws to deal with those occassional sickos, imnsho.

[Jennifer3141]

I am against banning or labeling books in any way, shape, or form. It gives me the creeps just to think about it.

 

Jen

[Jill- OK]

That is a parents job.

 

So...what does that mean for kids that don't have parents monitoring what they read? Do you disagree with ratings on movies, as well? (I'm talking about rating systems that prohibit children under a certain age viewing particular movies without parental consent). Do you see that as censorship, too?

 

ETA: I'm going to add the same "Please don't think I'm doggin' you" postscript to this, that I just added to another post, lol. I don't know if I've read too many political threads or what...I just feel like being extra careful to convey tone in posts now. :-) (Not hatin'...just contemplatin'.)

[Jill- OK]

I ended up defacing the book by writing a note of warning in one of the front pages, and returning it to the library like that. As far as I know, that book is still in circulation.

 

...not because I don't understand the urge to add commentary to an Ezzo book, but...how would you regard someone doing the same thing to a book you thought was wonderful?

 

(I wish I could convey tone in posts...please don't imagine me asking in anything other than a conversational tone, lol...I'm not putting my hands on my hips or raising my eyebrows or anything. :-)

[Murphy101]

So...what does that mean for kids that don't have parents monitoring what they read? Do you disagree with ratings on movies, as well? (I'm talking about rating systems that prohibit children under a certain age viewing particular movies without parental consent). Do you see that as censorship, too?

 

As one of those kids myself... Who read and viewed some seriously messed up junk in her younger life....

 

It means that life isn't fair.

It means another wrong doesn't make a right.

 

It's not the gov't job, my job, or your job, to become a nanny for society. (this is the making of a nanny state!)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by ratings?

 

Putting a label on something so people have a a heads-up is perfectly fine by me.:)

 

Prohibiting use by someone because of the rating is another thing entirely and I'm not okay with that. Again, it's not anyone else's job to say what my kid shouldn't read.

 

Frankly, there is a LOT of stuff that I can't believe people would let kids my kids' ages read/watch. But there's also a LOT of stuff I let my kids read/watch that others would be horrified by. So if we're going to be prohibiting things... well now who gets to be in charge of what gets that prohibitive rating? You? Me? the nut down the street? the nut compound a few miles outside of the city? or only elected nuts?;)

[Jill- OK]

I'm not sure what you mean by ratings?

 

Prohibiting use by someone because of the rating is another thing entirely and I'm not okay with that.

 

...I was talking about movies.

 

Do you feel the same way about movies? That children shouldn't be restricted from seeing a PG-13 or R rated movie without an accompanying parent?

[Jill- OK]

So if we're going to be prohibiting things... well now who gets to be in charge of what gets that prohibitive rating? You? Me?

 

...who gets to be in charge of the prohibitive rating, my answer would be, at least for children...parents.

 

If the parents don't want them to read it, then I don't think they should be able to. I don't see how having something require parental approval is limiting other people's children's choices, if they want them to read them. (??)

 

I've said elsewhere that I see the "Children without parental oversight shouldn't be restricted" as a slippery slope of its own. I believe it's just a hop, skip, and jump from "these children who don't have parents nearby that either approve or disapprove can check out whatever they want" to "any child should be able to read/see what they want, regardless of what their parents say".

[Murphy101]

...I was talking about movies.

 

Do you feel the same way about movies? That children shouldn't be restricted from seeing a PG-13 or R rated movie without an accompanying parent?

 

well.......... remember you asked.

 

actually I don't think they should be viewing ANY movies without an accompanying adult. I mean really now, what parent drops their kid off at the movies and is thus basicly expecting the theatre employees to babysit for 2 hours?? Sorry. Worked the mall for too long. It was a peeve then. Now I have my own and can't imagine doing it either! See that thread about parents who leave their kids with total strangers to be babysat - it's just so not something I can comprehend doing willingly.

:leaving:

 

 

If they are 16+ and driving themselves? No. If they can't handle the movie seat, then for goodness sakes take them out of the driver seat and off the roads.:tongue_smilie:

 

If for no other reason than movies are a prime example of the problem.

Lately there's been far more less than R rated movies that I would not let my kids watch. And yet a few of the R ratings I've watched and thought, "what? really? an R for that? They could see worse than that on any Saturday afternoon tv show!":confused:

[Murphy101]

...who gets to be in charge of the prohibitive rating, my answer would be, at least for children...parents.

 

If the parents don't want them to read it, then I don't think they should be able to. I don't see how having something require parental approval is limiting other people's children's choices, if they want them to read them. (??)

 

It would mean that some other parent is saying to a parent who doesn't want to oversee their child's reading materials that they are going to do it for them. The vast majority of parents do not go to the library with their kids. My own parents had/have literally NEVER in their lives been in a library. My dad literally does not know what school I attended.

 

And let me assure you schools and libraries know this.

So what you'll end up with, best case scenario, is a one size fits all one time requested slip of paper to cover the libraries bum that the kid will forge and take in.

Or

You'll end up turning away kids entirely because they have to have a permission slip prior to getting a library card and thus they'll just not go at all.

 

Really now. How would you see it actually working? Do you really think it likely to have parents approval for every check out? Or if there is a "restricted" section...

who will police/enforce it?

who will decide what books go into it?

who will decide if the permission is for access to the entire section or just to certain books or just for certain ages or ???

 

I've said elsewhere that I see the "Children without parental oversight shouldn't be restricted" as a slippery slope of its own. I believe it's just a hop, skip, and jump from "these children who don't have parents nearby that either approve or disapprove can check out whatever they want" to "any child should be able to read/see what they want, regardless of what their parents say".

 

I agree it's a slippery slope! I just think it's a different slide.;)

 

I see it's a slippery slope of putting the supposed rights of children above the parenting rights.

 

I think it's a slippery slope from, "We have to protect the children whose parents don't" to going right into the muckiness of, "Parents shouldn't have rights over their children because we (the state/society) know best."

[Jill- OK]

I agree it's a slippery slope! I just think it's a different slide.;)

 

I see it's a slippery slope of putting the supposed rights of children above the parenting rights.

 

I think it's a slippery slope from, "We have to protect the children whose parents don't" to going right into the muckiness of, "Parents shouldn't have rights over their children because we (the state/society) know best."

 

 

You're saying exactly the same things I am. :)

 

I just don't see how allowing kids to read whatever they want, whenever they want isn't putting the supposed rights of children above the parenting rights.

 

And...why are books so different from movies? Why doesn't anyone have a problem with parents being required to attend an R rated movie with a kid...but doesn't believe the same child should be restricted from checking out the book it was based on from the library? :confused:

 

Most books have a suggested age level, already. (One of the specifics of the case where a parent objected to a 4th grade teacher reading "The Giver" out loud was that it was suggested for 6th grade and up). What would be so hard about labeling them more specifically? Folks act on age restrictions at video rental places, music stores and movie theaters all the time. It's not rocket science. I know that many folks object to movies or music/games being restricted from any age group, and that's cool if you feel that way...I know I'm living in the Dark Ages. :-)

 

I just don't like thinking of a society where parents are considered superflous. I think that requiring parents to parent is still a viable alternative.

[KidsHappen]

...who gets to be in charge of the prohibitive rating, my answer would be, at least for children...parents.

 

If the parents don't want them to read it, then I don't think they should be able to. I don't see how having something require parental approval is limiting other people's children's choices, if they want them to read them. (??)

 

I've said elsewhere that I see the "Children without parental oversight shouldn't be restricted" as a slippery slope of its own. I believe it's just a hop, skip, and jump from "these children who don't have parents nearby that either approve or disapprove can check out whatever they want" to "any child should be able to read/see what they want, regardless of what their parents say".

 

It seems to me that your real concern is controlling what your own children can read. You can accomplish this by controlling your child's access to a library card. Don't get your child their own card but make them check out their books on your card instead. That would give you complete control over what books they check out. If you can't control your own children, it's really not anyone else responsiblity to do so. You should be able to make your own parenting choices without restricting my ability to do the same.

 

I would like my children to be able to check out whatever they would like without them having to worry about what mom might think. I don't want to check out every book that my child would like to read because someone else has decided is not appropriate reading material for children. And what makes the adult list - Chaucer? Harry Potter? Alternative religions? Who is going to make these choices? You, me? I guarantee we would not make the same choices.

 

ALso requiring parental checkout would prohibit many children from checking out any books at all because many parents couldn't be bothered with going to down to the library to do it. Quite frankly, if such a child can fanangle getting a card, finding what they want in the adult section and read it, then I say more power to them. I just don't see a bunch of really questional material being available at a public library.

 

And no I don't see movies as the same thing. There are very few adult movies that have any redeeming value what-so-ever. No child is going to be poorer for not having watched a movie. Not watching movies doesn't have the potential to deter a child's ability and potential to watch movies in the future. On the other hand, it can be argued that preventing a child from reading can make them the poorer for it and could deter their ability and interest in reading life long.

 

I am not trying to be confrontational here but really expressing my opinion in the matter, even though it may not be a popular one.

[Murphy101]

You're saying exactly the same things I am. :)

 

I just don't see how allowing kids to read whatever they want, whenever they want isn't putting the supposed rights of children above the parenting rights.

 

Because some parents are fine with letting their kids read whatever they want when they want. So prohibitions do put what you think is the right of a child (the right to be protected from what you believe to be too mature a content) above the rights of parents who wuld disagree with you.

 

And...why are books so different from movies? Why doesn't anyone have a problem with parents being required to attend an R rated movie with a kid...but doesn't believe the same child should be restricted from checking out the book it was based on from the library? :confused:

 

Actually I did say I have a problem with parents being so required in either situation. I have no problem with labels that give buyers/borrowers some level of basic advisory of mature content. I think that is a good idea. If one disagrees with it, they can just go ahead and watch/check it out. If one does think it's valid, then they can limit their exposure.

 

I also have no problem with more mature content being placed in a seperate area from the children section at the library or bookstore. It limits unwanted exposure or temptation for young children, but if someone (kid or parent) wants those materials, then they can just go to the appropriate area to obtain it.

 

Most books have a suggested age level, already. (One of the specifics of the case where a parent objected to a 4th grade teacher reading "The Giver" out loud was that it was suggested for 6th grade and up). What would be so hard about labeling them more specifically? Folks act on age restrictions at video rental places, music stores and movie theaters all the time. It's not rocket science.

 

I notice the ratings, but I don't base my choices on them. Very often I've found more objectionable material in lower ratings or I've found that great literature was labeled too mature. For example, I own the "The Giver". It's a great book about social issues. I probably wouldn't have let my oldest read it in 4th grade, but my 3rd would be just fine reading that at that age.

 

I know that many folks object to movies or music/games being restricted from any age group, and that's cool if you feel that way...I know I'm living in the Dark Ages.

 

It's the word "restricted" that keeps catching me. Giving information labels so people can make a more informed choices is a great idea. Using those labels to actually restrict a materials use (be it book or movie) is another entirely.

 

I just don't like thinking of a society where parents are considered superflous. I think that requiring parents to parent is still a viable alternative.

 

I agree! Which is why I'm thoroughly stumped as to why you feel society should decided what materials someone else's kid is permitted to read. It's the parents job to to step up and decide that. Give them labels to help them make the decision. That's great. But if the parent doesn't want to restrict their child's reading, then that's their choice too.

:)

 

Note: That is not even a choice I would agree with. I actually limit a lot of my kids stuff. But that's my choice as their mother. It's not one I would make for another parent.

 

And as one of those kids who was never restricted...

Well, I wouldn't repeat it with my kids, but I didn't turn out too horribly crazy either. Well I did become Catholic, a homeschooling SAHM, and a "baby making machine". I sure someone might blame my parents lack of parenting for that?;)

[Murphy101]

And no I don't see movies as the same thing. There are very few adult movies that have any redeeming value what-so-ever. No child is going to be poorer for not having watched a movie. Not watching movies doesn't have the potential to deter a child's ability and potential to watch movies in the future.

 

hmm. firstly we should be careful bandying about the words "adult movies".

Frankly, THAT is a whole other topic. I am not okay with any 8 yr old sitting down to watch Debbie Does Dallas at some XXX peep show anymore than I'd be okay with them buying a hooker.:ohmy::svengo: In most places those things have their own little building with an "only over 21 years old" admission policy. And I'm very glad for that.

 

However, my older kids have watched some movies that were rated R. Pan's Labyrith, Batman Beyond (I think?). My dh and I watched all movies first and decide for ourselves if it's appropriate for any or all of the kids.

 

As for future abilities. hmmm, I can see that reasoning for restricting movies/video games, but not books.

 

But freedom isn't based on future ability. Either one has it or one doesn't. :001_huh:Just because one segment of society doesn't think a freedom worth using doesn't mean they are right to make that call for the rest of society?

[Jill- OK]

It seems to me that your real concern is controlling what your own children can read. .

 

...I'm feeling at a loss because I don't believe my posts/comments are being understood. I don't know any other way to state what I've been saying, so I'm guessing that it's just not going to be heard. What you've pegged as my concern isn't my concern at all; making sure parents have some authority left is what my main concern is.

 

At our library, the kids have to have a card that's 'authorized' by a parent. They don't get cards without parents. If something incurs a fine, the parent is ultimately responsible. What's the big deal about signing something at that time for kids under, say, 13 that says, "They can check out anything they want?"

 

And what makes the adult list - Chaucer? Harry Potter? Alternative religions? Who is going to make these choices? You, me? I guarantee we would not make the same choices..

 

Well, again, I'm pointing to movies. I know you said that you don't consider them the same, but quite frankly, I don't understand how the exact same content in a book isn't as concerning as a movie. You also said that you just don't see a bunch of really questionable material being available at a public library, but I don't agree. This sort of thing has become a battleground; folks feel the need to ban books (which, I know won't be noticed, but I've never said that I support; I just don't see labeling and restricting children's access as the same as true censorship) and other folks feel the need to make a statement, and ensure that anything is available to anyone.

 

Does Harry Potter have content that equals a rated R movie? All I'm talking about is a similar standard as that used for rating systems for movies. I know you mentioned that "There are very few adult movies that have any redeeming value what-so-ever", but...well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? Then we aren't having a discussion about freedom to have access to any manner of art, or 'restriction', or 'censorship'...we're just talking about making sure any and all books are available to anyone, of any age. I don't get making such a particular distinction, if we're talking about rights and access.

 

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. As I said, I don't really feel that I'm being understood, so I'll probably bow out, and call it quits; as much as I love discussing this subject, I'm leery of making too many folks mad, lol.

[Murphy101]

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. As I said, I don't really feel that I'm being understood, so I'll probably bow out, and call it quits; as much as I love discussing this subject, I'm leery of making too many folks mad, lol.

 

I just wanted to note that nothign you said made me mad. Not even upset. It's just a friendly discussion as far as I'm concerned.:)

[Jill- OK]

I'm thoroughly stumped as to why you feel society should decided what materials someone else's kid is permitted to read. It's the parents job to to step up and decide that. Give them labels to help them make the decision. That's great. But if the parent doesn't want to restrict their child's reading, then that's their choice too.

 

This is exactly my point, lol. I'm going to try and go back over my posts, and see where I've said otherwise, but...as I said above, I'm just feeling as if what I'm saying isn't really being understood, so, I'm off to school the kids! :D

[Jill- OK]

I just wanted to note that nothign you said made me mad. Not even upset. It's just a friendly discussion as far as I'm concerned.:)

 

Good to know. ;)