It scares me that books can be banned in th modern world in supposedly 'free' countries for the most trivial reasons. They can be banned because one person doesn't like it and says so, or because they dislike the general tone of the book but cannot find a specific reason.

Examples:

Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl Anne Frank. Modern Library. Challenged in Wise County, Va. (1982) due to "sexually offensive" passages. Four members of the Alabama State Textbook Committee (1983) called for the rejection of this book because it is a "real downer."

Brave New World Aldous Huxley. Harper. Banned in Ireland (1932). Removed from classroom in Miller, Mo. (1980). Challenged at the Yukon, Okla. High School (1988); challenged as required reading in the Corona-Norco, Calif. Unified School District (1993) because the book "centered around negative activity."

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee Dee Brown. Holt. Removed in Wild Rose, Wis. (1974) by a district administrator for being "slanted." The administrator also said "if there's a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it."

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Roald Dahl. Bantam; Knopf; Penguin. Removed from a locked reference collection at the Boulder, Colo. Public Library (1988), where it had been placed because the librarian thought the book espoused a poor philosophy of life.

The Complete Fairy Tales of the Brothers Grimm Jacob and Wilhelm K. Grimm. Translated by Jack Zipes. Bantam. Restricted to sixth through eighth grade classrooms at the Kyrene, Ariz. elementary schools (1994) due to its excessive violence, negative protrayals of female characters, and anti-Semitic references.

Different Seasons Stephen King. NAL. Removed from the West Lyon Community School library in Larchwood, Iowa (1987) because "it does not meet the standards of the community." Removed from the Washington Middle School library in Meriden, Conn. (1989) after a parental complaint. Challenged at the Eagan High School in Burnsville, Minn. (1992). This collection of novellas, which include the stories on which the acclaimed movies Stand by Me and The Shawshank Redemption were based, is some of King's best writing.

A Doll's House Henrik Ibsen. Penguin. Four members of the Alabama State Textbook Committe (1983)--presumably the same who objected to The Diary of Anne Frank --called for the rejection of this work because it propagates feminist views.

Earth Science American Book. Challenged at the Plymouth-Canton school system in Canton, Mich. (1987) because it "teaches the theory of evolution exclusively. It completely avoids any mention of Creationism...The evolutionary propaganda also underminds {sic} the parental guidance and teaching the children are receiving at home and from the pulpits." I guess their homes and pulpits didn't teach them how to spell "undermine."

Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury. Ballentine. Ironically, students at the Venado Middle School in Irvine, Calif. received copies of the book with scores of words--mostly "hells" and "damns"--blacked out. The novel is about book burning and censorship. Thankfully, after receiving complaints from parents and being contacted by reporters, school officials said the censored copies would no longer be used (1992)

Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck. Penguin; Viking. Burned by the St. Louis, Mo. Public Library (1939) on the grounds that "vulgar words" were used. Banned in Kansas City, Mo. (1939); Kern County, Calif., the scene of Steinbeck's novel, (1939); Ireland (1953); Kanawha, Iowa High School classes (1980); and Morris, Manitoba (1982). Challenged in the Greenville, S.C. schools (1991) because the book uses the name of God and Jesus in a "vain and profane manner along with inappropriate sexual references."

Hamlet William Shakespeare. Airmont; Cambridge Univ. Pr.; NAL; Norton; Penguin; Methuen. Banned in Ethiopia (1978).

James and the Giant Peach Roald Dahl. ABC-Clio; Knopf. Challenged at the Deep Creek Elementary School in Charlotte Harbor, Fla. (1991) because it is "not appropriate reading material for young children." Challenged at the Pederson Elementary School in Altoona, Wis. (1991) and at the Morton Elementary School library in Brooksville, Fla. (1992) because the book contains the word "ass" and "promotes" the use of drugs (tobacco, snuff) and whiskey. Removed from classrooms in Stafford County, Va. Schools (1995) and placed in restricted access in the library because the story contains crude language and encourages children to disobey their parents and other adults.

Le Morte D'Arthur Sir Thomas Malory. Scribner; Collier; Penguin. Challenged as required reading at the Pulaski County High School in Somerset, Ky. (1997) because it is "junk." Granted, Malory has problems with his narrative, but YOU try to translate Medieval French texts into comprehesible Middle English.

The Lorax Dr. Seuss. Random. Challenged in the Laytonville, Calif. Unified School District (1989) because it "criminalizes the foresting industry." Isn't that the de-foresting industry?

The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll Jim Miller, ed. Random. Challenged in Jefferson, Ky. (1982) because it "will cause our children to become immoral and indecent."

To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee. Lippincott/Harper; Popular Library. This novel has been challenged quite a lot due to its racial themes. Challenged--and temporarily banned--in Eden Valley, Minn.(1977); Challenged at the Warren, Ind. Township schools (1981), because the book "represents institutionalized racism under the guise of 'good literature'." After unsuccessfully banning the novel, three black parents resigned from the township human relations advisory council. Banned from the Lindale, Tex. advanced placement English reading list (1996) because the book "conflicted with the values of the community."

Twelfth Night William Shakespeare. Airmont; Cambridge Univ. Pr.; Methuen; NAL; Penguin; Pocket Bks.; Washington Square. Removed from a Merrimack, N.H. high school English class (1996) because of a policy that bans instruction which has "the effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative."

Where's Waldo? Martin Handford. Little. Challenged at the Public Libraries of Saginaw, Mich. (1989), Removed from the Springs Public School library in East Hampton, N.Y. (1993) because there is a tiny drawing of a woman lying on the beach wearing a bikini bottom but no top. Yes, but did they find Waldo?

Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings D.T. Suzuki. Doubleday. Challenged at the Plymouth-Canton school system in Canton, Mich. (1987) because "this book details the teachings of the religion of Buddhism in such a way that the reader could very likely embrace its teachings and choose this as his religion." The last thing we need are a bunch of peaceful Buddhists running around. The horror.


Credit and Thanks to Janet Yanosko
Source: The Forbidden Library

ALA.org has a section on "Banned Books Week" and information. Despite banned books week being in September, the info is still there.

Yes, the fact that literature has been banned is a concern, and more so that it isn't just a recent thing. But there are forms of censorship all over. Unfortunately, this is one such offense.

Few points:

1: Making something no longer required reading in class isn't really "censorship", unless the vast majority of books are censored;

2: Nothing should ever be removed from public libraries - that perverts their mission;

3: Works of art cannot be judged in moral terms.

Additionally, many of the items you list are only "challenged"; all that means is that one person wanted it banned, hardly censorship. I can "challenge" books all I like but it won't get them burned in the streets.

Isn't that a good thing?
Every school I've gone to has a section in the science books about How many rainforest and such are chopped up, and what we should do to stop it.

Another one that's on that site:

A Light in the Attic. Shel Silverstein. Harper. Challenged at the Cunningham Elementary School in Beloit, Wis. (1985) because the book "enourages children to break dishes so they won't have to dry them." Removed from Minot, N.Dak. Public School libraries when the superintendent found "suggestive illustrations." Challenged at the Big Bend Elementary School library in Mukwonago, Wis. (1986) because some of Silverstein's poems "glorified Satan, suicide and cannibalism, and also encouraged children to be disobedient."

Shel Silverstein's poems were all I would read when I was in elementry school. I think that these people are reading into this way too much, I mean, when I read all of those books, all I did was laugh. I Never Thought "yes, that's a wonderfull idea! If I break these dishes, then I won't have to dry them!" no. I knew that If I broke the dishes, I would be forced to clean up the mess, which is a whole lot more trouble than drying them.
Okay, I'll stop ranting now.

If they want to protect children then they should ban all fairytales over 100 years old. They're all sick, violent, and end with death or suffering. We need more traditional values, like the ones we had 100 years ago.

Yeah, and we should bane all Mother Goose stories, too. Because, they involve homosexuality, and lying, and stealing, etc, etc. Oh no, "Zigerman flew and -forgotten name- knew"- Turk 182. I know this has no real place here, but it's like.. a really crappy modern day Mother Goose rhyme.

Edit: I really hope everyone caught the sarcasm in that.

Sad thing is, it happens all the time, at least at the local level. Libraries are constantly selling off old books that are unread/unpopular in order to make space for other books that are more popular/more commonly read/judged to be more important -- or at least, in the modern North American library, this is an extremely commonplace practice.

Also, as a spammy sidenote, the Library of Congress, the National Library of Canada, etc., are supposed to keep copies of every published work in North America; I've always wondered if somewhere in a back room of the Library of Congress there's the world's largest porn collection.

Well, that's understandable - they can't all be the British Library. Selling off unpopular books to make room for more valuable materials is one thing, though - removing them from catalogue because of a moral judgment is not. It is not the place of a library to make such a judgment.

Mmm, true. However, it still fills me with a tinge of sadness whenever I go to library book sales. (And yet, glee for the cheap books! BOOOOOOOK!)

I believe that there are back-rooms somewhere in the British Library that contain the old black magic books, which must be a fascinating place. On the other hand, I could well just have dreamt that... It's a nice idea though, isn't it?

My local library has a scheme where instead of selling them when they become out of date or unpopular it ships them to a growing library to Nigeria.

Two years ago I tooka course in the origins of childrens literature. I always knew that fairytales (god thats hard to type!) were twisted but I was amazed to find out that Red Riding hood was originally raped by the wolf rather than eaten, that Sleeping Beauty woke up giving birth after the longest gestation period ever, or (alternative) was woken up by the prince Sh@gging her brains out!

Beats me why Walt disney changed it all!

It's all about teaching a lesson to the kids, innit?

"Don't go out wandering in the woods, or a big wolf, dressed up like an old lady, will rape you and kill you. Or kill you and rape you."

See? Keeps the kiddies safe. And...

"Don't go to sleep, or you'll be woken up by a prince coming in or out of of you."

Errrmm. Perhaps my hypothesis has a few wrinkles that need ironing out....

Not forgetting: don't give up your tail in exchange for legs on the promise of love, you'll end up spending the rest of your life in angonising pain and misery. (The Little Mermaid, a favourite of mine.)

When my grandparents where at Uni in Ireland half the books on their course where banned; it was really hard to get them and if you went through improper channels you could be arrested. Puzzles me really why the same people who banned those books prescribed them on the teachers degree course.

It's Ok to get rid of books from a library that no one reads to make way for new books that people will read, but it's something else to remove them because they're a real downer. If it's a book on evolution why should it have creationist views? For balance place it next to a purely creationist one. How exactly does Shakespeare encourage a gay way of life? At the time of his plays being performed sodomites were hung. And if your adults treat you the way James' aunts treat him then you should damn well disobey them. Also if the book on Zen is that convincing maybe the other religions need to try harder or concede defeat. And how exactly does Charlie and the Chocolate factory show a poor philosphy of life? I always thought it was quite moral and optimistic. Seriously, isn't the whole point of encouraging children to read to give them a broader understanding, not just the understanding you want them to have?

Grimms is deeply scary though (as childrens stories ought to be, seeing how they are meant to warn kids). The majority of female charactors are benevolent, it's more derrogatory to men than anything else, it's just the step mothers who are evil. (Who thinks the brothers grimm had issues?). However "The Jew among the thorns" is deeply anti semitic. Basic plot summary goes; it's OK to beat up Jews and steal their money. If they complain have them lynched. I would advocate having that removed from the childrens version, along with explicit references to sex, as long as the unabridged version is still around.

Religion deathmatch! Two religions enter, one religion leaves!

/spam

When The Bluest Eye was banned from my high school for containing "pornographic material" (not just challenged, banned), it had the opposite effect that the school board intended. The public library in town ended up with a wait list to borrow that book from them, because suddenly all the kids wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

Now at that high school, as far as I know, every book a teacher wants to use in-class has to be approved by the school board first. This makes for a really long wait when a teacher wants to use a new book. Among the books not allowed to be taught at that school anymore is Of Mice And Men and The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn (there are others, but at the moment they slip my mind, and those two were the most shocking to me). Things might have changed since I was there (it was 5 years ago), but as far as I know they haven't.

*plans* So... Ban the complete works of Shakespeare and you'll have the best-read students in the West! Brilliant! Seriously, when I was at uni I strongly suspect that only 25% or less of the people in the room had actually read the books they were studying. The annoying thing is that they still got a degree at the end of it!

The only book I didn't finish reading during my degree course was 'Lady Chatterley's Lover', which was banned in the UK when my mother was young because of its sexual content. I found it the most boring book I've ever read and I really couldn't give a duckflap about the poor little rich girl, her bit on the side, and her quest for self-knowledge. It just goes to show though, that even with a massively boring book, sex sells.

As a side-note: when the book was banned in the UK, my mother as a young woman came into the living room to see her father reading a book with a plain cover. 'What's that? Lady Chatterley's Lover?' she joked. It was.

I have a degree in english literature. A 2:1. Of the six books a week minimum I was required to read during my degree I think I read six a half term. Reason? I only had to refer to two in my essay and I only sat 2 exams during my university career. The only course I read every book for was my course in 20th century distopian literature and I'm still reading them for pleasure today. I feel that banning books from school libraries is apalling. I teach in a secondary school and find it difficult to get kids to read anything. Banning books because adults do not feel that they are suitable for young people is just absurd!!

My girlfriend just finished a research paper on Lady Chatterley's Lover. Apparently, it is widely considered to be one of D.H. Lawrence's worst novels, and really is very shallow in its introduction of the characters.

It's odd how many books are technically banned in the public school system in my county - the libraries essentially can't ban books, freedom of press, but they don't have to stock them. Like movies, no one can ban them but theatres can refuse to show them. Oddly enough, my high school had almost every copy of every so-called banned book in the county, uncensored and all. And we wrote papers or at least read 70% of them. By 11th and 12th grades, we weren't even getting parental signatures to have permission to read them. Most parents knew that their kids could just go to the local library as opposed to the school library and get it instead.

But really, there's no point in banning books. It's ridiculous, goes against one of the "greatest" Amendments in the American Constitution (for book banning in the States), hypocritical, and generally has the reverse effect anyways. Most places have ratings and the like for that type of thing nowadays - video games, movies, television shows. They have some sort of "rating" scheme on books here - ones you need parents' permission and ones you don't.

What about My Struggle, by Hitler? Should that be banned? (I canne remeber how to spell it in German.)

It's Mein Kampf, and no, it shouldn't. Partly because it's a valuable historical text, but even if it wasn't, banning something because the political opinions it contains are unpalatable to us sets a dangerous precedent.

When Aislinn and I were in high school, we took a course on contemporary literature. To cover her ass, our teacher opened the course up to only sophomores, juniors and seniors and we had to get a slip of paper signed by our parents saying that we were allowed to read the required texts (including The Green Mile, To Kill a Mockingbird, Farenheit 451, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and A Time to Kill, among others). Her fear was that since these books contained bad language and varying shades of suggestive themes, she could get fired should any teacher complain. I remember when we finished One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, she said it was extra credit to watch it and she just happened to have rented it (from a video store in Jacksonville since none in this side of the county carry it) and there would be pizza at her house on the day she planned on watching it (and we still had to bring permission slips even though it was out of the school's juristiction). Our high school was very "conservative." We needed permission slips for every class in which literature was involved.

THere was a big fuss several years back regarding The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn. They complained that it seemed racist with all of the slavary content. I find this interesting because it took place in the southern United States during the years of slavery.

Something disturbing my uncle told me once was that what people often do is check out "offensive" books and never return them or flat-out steal them. These are supposedly respectable members of the community who are doing this, bear in mind.


Damn skippy, Commie.

Semi-random thought: I recall in the movie Footloose when they were burning books, the pastor says, "Satan isn't in these books. He's in here. He's in your hearts."

EDIT: If you can, go to your local library and see if they have the book The Last Safe Place on Earth. It's meant for high schoolers, but it addresses a lot of what we've been talking about.

I find it ironic that a book series that children will read (J.K.Rowling's Harry Potter books) are banned or next to banned in some states in the U.S.A. (they promote witchcraft ) while the States claims to want to promote literacy.

I got in trouble about a year or two ago for recommending that K!77y read 'The Dice Man' by Luke Rhinehart. I described what it was about and why I thought it was a good book. The books that they were reading in her classes were bland and really not at all challenging. Personally I think everyone should read The Dice Man before they get too set in their ways to appreciate it... Or perhaps that's the best time... But I digress. Her teacher wasn't at all impressed that a grown-up on the other side of the world was suggesting challenging texts to a young teenager.

Oops.

Still, it turned out well in the end. The teacher got to recognise that her students, or at last K!77y, could handle something with a bit more content and K!77y read a great book.

Hooray for the interweb.
If a book is old enough, then chances are you will be able to find a copy of it SOMEWHERE on line.

Even if you need to wade through a mountain of Buffy and Xena fan-fic to get there.

On that note I have just ordered the book over amazon via the site.

Oo, good choice. It's fantastic. The first hundred pages are a little heavy going. Then it descends into chaos. Then it ends up zen. I think everyone should read it. Obviously you're old enough to make your own choices, but if anyone else is thinking about it, it does contain some quite disturbing violence, and there are sexual scenes too. Only read it if you're okay with that!

We're grown-up at our age? Oh rats.

Looking for The Dice Man at the library. Thanks, I was keen to find something else to read.

Odd how many well written, good books requiring some thought are on the should-be-banned list.

Challenging the brain with new ideas leads to COMMUNISM!

You heard it here first.

The funny thing about Steinbeck was that the city that had disowned him and hated him now has a multi-million dollar museum of his work. The only reason his books were banned was because the only people rich enough to fund libraries in Salinas were farm owners, which he portrayed as villians in many of his books.

In response to Fahrenheit 451 being banned, isn't this similar to books being burned and the limiting of ideas?

I don't think you should have to have parental permission to read books. That's rather like saying until you reach a certain age your parents have the right to prevent you from thinking or having opinions. It's a bit like saying you have no rights to a personality until you reach the age of majority. If books had a state age limit on them then that wouldn't be as bad because it would be the same for everyone, like it is with films. However allowing parents to make the decision allows them to only present bigoted and one sided world views to their children, who will in turn do that to their children (I am not saying this is true for all cases, just some).

This kind of outcry happens on a regular basis. It all stems from people wanting to do something... anything... about a perceived problem. I remember that Violence, rough language and unwelcome ideas were once blamed on Books. Then on comic books. Then they were blamed on the movies. Then it was TV. Then Cartoons. And, finally, Rap Lyrics. Each time, people were stirred up. Each time, they vented their wrath on some form of media that was only reflecting reality, not creating it. And then, satisfied that they had done a good thing, they rested until the next scapegoat was identified. Books were/are banned, or burned. For comics, they slapped together the comics code authority. For movies, it was the rating system. For TV, another rating system, and the 'V-Chip'. For Cartoons, they gutted the Saturday morning TV line-up with cutesy, friendly, non-violent cartoons for a year or two (And, a few of the networks no longer show cartoons at all...). And then, Tipper Gore arranged to have warning labels slapped on Rap Albums (Which, of course, only resulted in more kids buying the things...). Each time, It was considered a cure, and each time, the problems continued unabated. You'd think they would have learned, at some point, but I guess they never will...

Or it's like saying that your parents should be able to adjust your learning to fit their personal belief system. Taken the other way - it would be irresponsible for a parent to allow their child to read Mein Kampf at an impressionable age, the parent is best able to judge the maturity of their child.



So, whose world views should we pass on? I understand that some parents may be bad at it, but who are we to pass judgement?

pgrmdave got to it before me.

It's a parents responsibility to protect their children. In some cases it's making sure that what they are watching/reading is suitable for their age limit and maturity level. Obviously, in some cases this could be detrimental to the child if the parent is hammering a certain way of thinking into said child.

My son has just starting taking in what he sees on the television. It would be seriously irresponsible for me to sit here watching a slasher movie with him in the room. As it is he takes a little too much pleasure in explosions in films then I'm entirely happy with.

I present to you a selection of books deemed the most harmful books of the 19th and 20th century!

Note: Expect the rambling of ultra-conservative types.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591

That's right. They include Mill's On Liberty.

And... Darwin? URGH!

The Nietzsche-bashing really annoyed me.



And Nietzsche hated Nazis. He despised Germany, loathed anti-Semitism and was anything but a racist. He admired many things about the Jews. His writings were twisted after his death by his pro-Nazi sister to appear to support Nazi theories. But I guess it would be expecting just too much for these people to do the most basic of research, eh?

I love this short write up of some of the candidates. Pretty much sums up my disgust. More or less every book they have condemned is simply guilty of the crime of questioning the status quo. Giving rise to investigation into questions that have overthrown the prior established thought through its own MERIT. I'd have thought that many of the works they are condemning have actually given rise to many of the institutions and ideolology that most conservatives would cling onto tooth and nail. Oh well.

The British Library has the Table or Corner of shame. It is where you go when reading books deemed to be morally reprehensible like the Marqui De Sade's 180 days of Soddom, or the 1st issue of Playboy magazine. They don't seem to mind people reviewing the old black magic books as the bulk of their collection deals with people writing about the subject, rather than practical guides to the art itself...
__________

Why not? Certainly morailty can be used as a means to judge events, actions or even ommissions - why not art? The UK artists Dinos and Jake Chapman, and Marcus Harvey have all challenged the public with controversial art which scrapes against morality - then you get other artists like the Polish bloke (I forget his name) who's work for the record cover of a NeoNazi heavy metal band depicted the gang rape of Jewish children and the forced abortion of heavily pregnant Jewish mothers (by use of SS ceremonial daggers).

Then there are books, plays and films that actively promote peadophilla, racism, homophobia, sexism and violence against women... the list goes on. How can we not judge these works of art without refering to some form of morality that states that children shouldn't be abused, that there's nothing wrong with people of a different colour / culture, that homosexuality isn't evil, and that women aren't second class humans or possessions to be abused...


I have a problem with certain texts such as Mein Kampf... Its all very well having them but if society is going to allow the publication of dangerous ideas (that may well influence others) then doesn't society then have a duty to counter those ideas - or at the very least present the alternatives alongside works like Mein Kampf?

I read Mein Kampf when I was 13 as part of my history studies, I also read the rise and fall of the third riech, as well as Holocaust Memories. I was concerned that some of my fellow pupils actually saw some merit in Mein Kampf, and felt that they could empathise with some of Hitler's views... however by the time they finished reading Holocaust Memories they were adamant that Mein Kampf was a load of bollocks. There are some very intelligent people who will still fall for well crafted evil like the Nazi Party message, and without something to counterballance that, then society is failling them and itself. I agree Mein Kampf is important, and shouldn't be banned, but I believe there should be a proviso that if it is to be made available to school children then they must also read the truth and see for themselves just how wrong Hitler's ranting really is.
__________


I always found the linking of Nietzsche to the Nazis quite sad... He came up with a few ideas that they really loved becasue it gave some of their philosophy credibility, then his evil sister perverted his other stuff and it looked like he was their high philosopher general. Personally I don't agree with his teachings - but that is on a purely philosophical basis, though you really have to work hard to find the real Fred these days as so little of his orignal work wasn't perverted and the perverted crap is still out there being peddled as the genuine deal.

His mad sister went on to found a commune of like minded nutters in Brazil during the 20s and 30s... its assumed that this is why so many Nazi party and SS types headed to Latin America after the war rather than other neutral countries closer to home...

I agree, and I have just emailed the editors to that effect. Partly because I like annoying people of that ilk and partly because by misrepresenting Nietzsche they are doing exactly the same thing that his sister did, and by perveting his message they are contributing the the smearing of a great thinker.

So would you say that it was morally wrong for him to make those covers?



You don't think there are already alternatives presented? Every historical account of the time I've seen has taken a clear anti-Nazi stance. The sheer wealth of anti-racist literature out there, both fictional and non, practically beggars belief. A rejection of Nazi values is inherent in the norms and values of our society. I hardly think we need to worry that there are no alternatives to Nazism.

I feel that those images are morally wrong - and I'd honestly be quite interested to hear any arguments to the contrary; so yes he was morally wrong in drawing those images, (censorship of these and other morally wrong artistic works however is another matter).




Yes there are alternatives represented - quite clearly. My point isn't bemoaning the lack of this information - but the need to present it in careful conjunction with articles like Mein Kampf.

Books like Mein Kampf become dangerous when taken at face value and on their own; you may have experienced historical accounts that take a clear anti-nazi stance, but these accounts are useless unless people actually read them.

The BBC coverage of the recent memorial to the liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp showed an interview with a series of A level students (kids aged 16 to 18) here in London, and on the whole they seemed quite ignorant to the true extent of suffering at places like Auschwitz. One bloke going so far as to say that memorial services are pointless as society has moved on since 1945 and we just don't do that kind of thing anymore. For someone who is clearly educated and articulate that is a worryingly innacurate and complacent view to take. It's clear that all the anit-nazi stance hype hasn't worked, and in this climate where we are now two clear generations away from the suffering of the Second World War, dangerously well crafted political ideologies like Nazism still hold the potential to cause damage to various sections of the population.

The rise of neo-nazism across Europe and America clearly points to the danger of these ideas and the failure to advance a clear and appealing alternative.

I'm not advocating that Mein Kampf should be burned - but that if our schools are to read this then it must be in conjunction with acurate and factual reportage of the affects of Nazism and why it is always going to be so wrong.

This reminds me of a sobering anecdote that Kat tells about when she was nannying for a family in the US. The youngest was 4 or 5 when 9/11 hit. He was watching the breaking footage of the towers being hit, jumping up and down, and generally thinking it was incredibly cool. Like Independance Day, or something.

Life imititating art, imitating life? I get confused.

Generally speaking, those who are in favor of banning a book have never read it. THey rely on the opinions of others, who never read the book. And THEY rely on the reputation given a book by... you guessed it... others who avoided reading the book, because they didn't like the Author, or the author's politics. Bah.

The far (and sometimes religious) right are now addressing this, and now actively scrutinising books, plays, films - even cartoons, for what the deem to be unethical, or morally corrupt content. The number of websites that go into great detail in listing the various crimes against God in this film or the examples of un-American bias in that book, are on the steady rise.

The problem is that their religious, political, ethical or even societal view points (which I hasten to add they have every right to hold), shouldn't be forced on people who don't hold those views - at the very least , not without a very good reason.

The whole issue of censorship is a tough one, and I certainly favour some forms of censorship - so long as they are very carefully thought out and applied in only the most dire of circumstances...

But, isn't this forcing your view on other people?

I hate my computer.

I just drafted a lengthy response to your suggestion and then it failled to post and I lost the lot

Oh well here's a condenced version.

1.
Yes it is

2. Just as an aside - If you read my original post I included:



3. It's all down to getting the right kind of balance.

4. One approach is to look at rights. Which right is more important?

a. My right to think what I like

OR

b. Your right to force me to think what you want me to think.

In this case there is an inherent conflict of which person's right should be followed. Given that I favour freedom of thought I'm naturally going to side with option a. To follow option b. would also cause havoc in determining who get's top rights at forcing others, whereas option a. allows for everyone to think their own thoughts.

An example of this problem can be seen in some Evangelical religions such as in certain denominations of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism - where it is within the religion to (sometimes even forceably) convert non-believers to the faith. To deny these religions the abilty to do this is to deny them a right to worship freely - but that is within keeping of our Western Liberal(ish) form of Democracy, as the rights that these religions seek to destroy are valued more highly.

5. Which leads on to the issue of Democracy and the Rule of Law. As citizens we are free to do what we like so long as we abide by certain laws - these are passed by our duly elected and (supposedly) accountable representatives, and should only constrain our freedoms for the most necessary of reasons. When passing these laws, legislators must take into concern the rights of any minority that will be affected by this law and do everything within reason to protect their rights.

If non-governmental organisations like the Church can then impose their own rules and regulations (in effect passing their own laws) then this is contrary to the Rule of Law and is an unlawful and unfair inhibition of the rights of society. As such it should not be allowed.

6. To conclude, care must always be taken when dealling with the issue of rights and wrongs - in this instance I believe I have chosen the path that is correct - though I admit that I may have gotten it seriously wrong - I would appreciate your thoughts on which right you wouuld choose as more important a. or b.?