next »

[european]

In direct physical confrontation, that is an easy definition. However, it becomes difficult to define at exactly which point you're hitting a person's nose if you're not just swinging a fist at him, but rather creating the exact conditions that will lead other people to swing a fist at him. :)

[dellaroux]

True, there are nuances that the one-liner I gave doesn't get into.

But the main thing is that "freedom" doesn't equal "license," which is usually the basic confusion.

[european]

Well, your remark is certainly valid, but there isn't really an agreed upon definition of freedom. If one reads freedom how Spinoza defines it, freedom as social liberals use it, or freedom as libertarians use it... there are really significant differences in what they mean by it. Before attempting to use it as a normative concept, I think one better defines what one means with it.

[minnesotan]

You can't pick and choose. Freedom is an absolute.

No, it isn't.

Either speech should be free for all, or not at all.

You can repeat that as much as you want - it doesn't actually mean you're supporting it. The only absolute to me is human welfare. Freedom is merely a means to that end.

Freedom has limits and responsibilities:

Your right to swing your fist stops where the other person's nose begins.

That's not a limit on freedom so much as a protection of it, though. While I am free to swing my fist, you are free to not be hit. When one freedom infringes on the freedom of another, the offending action needs to be redirected. I can still swing my fist, and you can still not be hit, but I have to move my freedom to a safe distance to achieve this. 


Ack! I just saw how this analogy could be taken to support "Free Speech Zones" on overly authoritarian campuses, and I don't like it. I think you get the point, though.

[blacksun]

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
I hated the book, not that because it wasn't a good book or anything. My teacher loved the writer and anything that he wrote. So we had to spend all our time reading and writing about him. totally sucked.

[sidecarradio]

I never understood the reasoning behind banning/challenging books. So, you find a book offensive? Do not read it. Literature is there to help expand our horizons and cultural understanding. Sometimes this may make a reader angry. Some readers get angry and then calm down and contemplate the topic and then learn from it. Others just simply get angry and stay that way. But banning the book? Why???

I thought this country celebrates freedom of speech. I never understood why people feel the need to try and dictate what other people say/do/read/etc. It makes me sad (honestly) to think that people are like this. I don't understand it and the only way I can relate to how I feel is relating to how a child does not understand something. Make sense?

[yellowtractor]

I never understood the reasoning behind banning/challenging books. So, you find a book offensive? Do not read it. Literature is there to help expand our horizons and cultural understanding. Sometimes this may make a reader angry. Some readers get angry and then calm down and contemplate the topic and then learn from it. Others just simply get angry and stay that way. But banning the book? Why???

You can't be serious?  OK, you're serious.  Answer:  to prevent others from reading it, by denying access to the text(s).

You are presuming that "expand[ing] horizons and cultural understanding" is a unanimous goal of all individuals, cultures, and political regimes.  This is, at best, an unwise presumption to make.

I thought this country celebrates freedom of speech. I never understood why people feel the need to try and dictate what other people say/do/read/etc. It makes me sad (honestly) to think that people are like this. I don't understand it and the only way I can relate to how I feel is relating to how a child does not understand something. Make sense?

It makes sense, except that your final sentence involves a level of condescension (towards those who would ban books, i.e. they are childish and/or ignorant) that would likely only increase their hostility.

And of course this being a putative democracy even the childish and/or ignorant vote.

There is a brutal efficiency to limiting or preventing access to texts.  It's been going on for a long time.  It's more difficult to do in the age of the internet, but it's still quite effective in some societies.

[sidecarradio]

I never understood the reasoning behind banning/challenging books. So, you find a book offensive? Do not read it. Literature is there to help expand our horizons and cultural understanding. Sometimes this may make a reader angry. Some readers get angry and then calm down and contemplate the topic and then learn from it. Others just simply get angry and stay that way. But banning the book? Why???

You can't be serious?  OK, you're serious.  Answer:  to prevent others from reading it, by denying access to the text(s).

You are presuming that "expand[ing] horizons and cultural understanding" is a unanimous goal of all individuals, cultures, and political regimes.  This is, at best, an unwise presumption to make.

I thought this country celebrates freedom of speech. I never understood why people feel the need to try and dictate what other people say/do/read/etc. It makes me sad (honestly) to think that people are like this. I don't understand it and the only way I can relate to how I feel is relating to how a child does not understand something. Make sense?

It makes sense, except that your final sentence involves a level of condescension (towards those who would ban books, i.e. they are childish and/or ignorant) that would likely only increase their hostility.

And of course this being a putative democracy even the childish and/or ignorant vote.

There is a brutal efficiency to limiting or preventing access to texts.  It's been going on for a long time.  It's more difficult to do in the age of the internet, but it's still quite effective in some societies.

I did not mean that I did not "understand" why books are banned, I meant that it dumbfounds me. More like disbelief. Maybe I'm not making sense...

And what I meant by my last line was that I look at the whole subject matter through a child's eyes...innocent eyes. I wasn't trying to be condescending.

[parispundit]

You can't pick and choose. Freedom is an absolute.

No, it isn't.

Either speech should be free for all, or not at all.

You can repeat that as much as you want - it doesn't actually mean you're supporting it. The only absolute to me is human welfare. Freedom is merely a means to that end.

Freedom has limits and responsibilities:

Your right to swing your fist stops where the other person's nose begins.

That's not a limit on freedom so much as a protection of it, though. While I am free to swing my fist, you are free to not be hit. When one freedom infringes on the freedom of another, the offending action needs to be redirected. I can still swing my fist, and you can still not be hit, but I have to move my freedom to a safe distance to achieve this. 


Ack! I just saw how this analogy could be taken to support "Free Speech Zones" on overly authoritarian campuses, and I don't like it. I think you get the point, though.

Look, you guys should just read John Stuart Mill "on Liberty" and you will find all this discussed there very nicely. Better yet, make sure you get it in my edition

[powercrt]

Hal Leonard: Saxophone Technique, Level 1

This got banned? *scratches head*

[fizmath]

Just to be clear, what exactly is a "banned book".  Does it have to be banned by a government decree or can it be also kept out of school libraries and qualify as banned?  Also, some books are not re-printed after being sold out.  If there is a demand for the book such that the used price is in the hundreds of dollars, then I suspect there was pressure on the publisher not to print the book again.  Would that qualify as being a banned book?

[dept_geek]

The American Library Association (in the forefront of fighting censhorship) maintains a great site on challenged and banned books:
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm

You can see what books/authors were most frequently challenged in 2006 as well as view a historical perspective going back to 1990.

While this URL is no longer good, a quick search gets me to http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/index.cfm

So, fizmath, according to the ALA,

A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others.

In 1986, in response to inquiries from librarians facing book or material challenges for the first time, the Intellectual Freedom Committee developed the following list of definitions to clarify terminology associated with challenges:

- Expression of Concern. An inquiry that has judgmental overtones.
- Oral Complaint. An oral challenge to the presence and/or appropriateness of the material in question.
- Written Complaint. A formal, written complaint filed with the institution (library, school, etc.), challenging the presence and/or appropriateness of specific material.
- Public Attack. A publicly disseminated statement challenging the value of the material, presented to the media and/or others outside the institutional organization in order to gain public support for further action.
- Censorship. A change in the access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes.

[localgoogleguru]

What organization has the authority to ban any book?

Are we talking boards of education?

[thundering_m]

Anybody who has authority over the books that are bought, circulated,  but also sold, e.g Amazon.com and Walmart.

What organization has the authority to ban any book?

Are we talking boards of education?

.

[fizmath]

Banned author JD Salinger succeeds in banning a sequel to Catcher in The Rye:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8129782.stm