100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Censorship | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am offended!!
Ban it! Remove it!! Roll out the thought police... Here is an opinion piece from a southerner who has got it right. It's no secret to anyone who has read my posts that I find the censoring of material whether it is spoken, written or images a vile, cowardly and loathsome activity. I have zero respect for those that engage in it or advocate it. Offended or challenged by facts or opinions that are not yours? Use the off switch, don't read it, change the channel...but do not presume to limit others access to that same material. Ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and hate all thrive when the censors and those who embrace it have their way. Cowardly pukes all of them. With that said I give you this great piece from Birmingham, AL about an incidence of censorship. Seems someone was offended by a book that portrayed Lynard Skynard in a negative light and wanted the local library to remove it. That's where this journalist stepped in. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Carsen -No one qualified to pull library books; don't presume to limit what others can read Sunday, March 29, 2009 DAN CARSEN On the rainy morning of March 11, over my morning tea, I read a shocking story on the front page of the The South News, normally a refreshingly sleepy section of this big, brawling, urban paper. After rereading the report and doing enough triple-takes to further loosen an already jarred brain, I couldn't understand why the article wasn't on the front page of the paper proper, leading the A-section under a banner headline. But then a worst-case scenario hit me: Maybe the story wasn't all that unusual. According to the report, a patron of the Vestavia Hills Public Library didn't agree with a book's negative portrayal of the band Lynyrd Skynyrd. That, in itself, isn't all that surprising. What's more surprising is the individual thought he had the right to have the book removed from the library so other people couldn't read it. But what's even more surprising than that - I'd go as far as "disturbing" - is the fact the library has a policy to handle these requests. How naive I was. Based on a few phone calls I made after reading the story, it turns out many area libraries have similar policies, which basically translate into filling out a form or writing out a complaint, followed by a review of the offending book by library directors or board members. Apparently, these procedures come into play more in libraries that serve smaller, more homogeneous locales. In other words, it happens more in a place like Vestavia Hills, less in a place like Birmingham. Obviously, libraries of all sizes should try to be responsive to patrons' wishes, to a point. And now that I've calmed down a bit, I realize these policies really are what one local librarian called "a fact of life." I'm sure they grew from many demands that books be pulled, but here's the best policy for situations like these: no. Unless a book has been put under court order to be removed or destroyed (and even then, it's a slippery slope, because courts and the governments behind them can be wrong), it should stay on the shelves, period. People appeal to the Founding Fathers to support any argument imaginable - many of them contradictory to each other - but it's beyond debate that those geniuses were very big on the free flow of information (see "freedom of the press," "freedom of speech," "freedom of assembly," etc). They were notably not big on "freedom from bad, misleading or offensive books." There are countless examples of bad, misleading or offensive writing out there (for this essay, plug in your particular definition of "offensive"), just as there are many examples of the opposite. As a reader, it's up to me - no one else - to determine which is which. It's certainly not someone's job to make sure we're not even exposed to something he or she doesn't favor. And it's completely unfair to put librarians in the position of making those decisions. It's unfair to them personally and professionally, especially in highly charged situations, and it's unfair to the rest of us, because even the best librarians aren't qualified to make those decisions for others. No one is. Imagine if a successful college football coach had been doing something immoral or illegal while his team was winning games. Now imagine that a book came out about it. How many people would come down to the local library to fill out a complaint form? Ten? Ten thousand? Ditto for a community or church leader, or anyone beloved by his or her community. But published fact shouldn't be subject to a popularity contest, or to the opinion of a librarian who's only human and stuck in a no-win situation. And comparing a disputed book to other books on the same subject doesn't provide an answer either, because it's possible that one book is right, and the others are wrong. The safest, easiest and smartest thing is not to remove books at all. A book is not a billboard or a TV show; it's very hard to read one by accident. If there are multiple complaints, slap on a sticker if absolutely necessary, but do not take the book off the shelf. No one is qualified to make that decision, and it's outrageous that some guy who doesn't like the portrayal of a band thinks he could deny me or anyone else the opportunity to read that book. Put very simply, living in a free country means accepting the fact there's stuff out there you don't like. Dan Carsen is a freelance writer and editor who lives in Birmingham. E-mail: dancarsen@hotmail.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am offended!! Ban it! Remove it!! Roll out the thought police... Here is an opinion piece from a southerner who has got it right. It's no secret to anyone who has read my posts that I find the censoring of material whether it is spoken, written or images a vile, cowardly and loathsome activity. I have zero respect for those that engage in it or advocate it. Offended or challenged by facts or opinions that are not yours? Use the off switch, don't read it, change the channel...but do not presume to limit others access to that same material. Ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and hate all thrive when the censors and those who embrace it have their way. Cowardly pukes all of them. With that said I give you this great piece from Birmingham, AL about an incidence of censorship. Seems someone was offended by a book that portrayed Lynard Skynard in a negative light and wanted the local library to remove it. That's where this journalist stepped in. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dan Carsen -No one qualified to pull library books; don't presume to limit what others can read Sunday, March 29, 2009 DAN CARSEN On the rainy morning of March 11, over my morning tea, I read a shocking story on the front page of the The South News, normally a refreshingly sleepy section of this big, brawling, urban paper. After rereading the report and doing enough triple-takes to further loosen an already jarred brain, I couldn't understand why the article wasn't on the front page of the paper proper, leading the A-section under a banner headline. But then a worst-case scenario hit me: Maybe the story wasn't all that unusual. According to the report, a patron of the Vestavia Hills Public Library didn't agree with a book's negative portrayal of the band Lynyrd Skynyrd. That, in itself, isn't all that surprising. What's more surprising is the individual thought he had the right to have the book removed from the library so other people couldn't read it. But what's even more surprising than that - I'd go as far as "disturbing" - is the fact the library has a policy to handle these requests. How naive I was. Based on a few phone calls I made after reading the story, it turns out many area libraries have similar policies, which basically translate into filling out a form or writing out a complaint, followed by a review of the offending book by library directors or board members. Apparently, these procedures come into play more in libraries that serve smaller, more homogeneous locales. In other words, it happens more in a place like Vestavia Hills, less in a place like Birmingham. Obviously, libraries of all sizes should try to be responsive to patrons' wishes, to a point. And now that I've calmed down a bit, I realize these policies really are what one local librarian called "a fact of life." I'm sure they grew from many demands that books be pulled, but here's the best policy for situations like these: no. Unless a book has been put under court order to be removed or destroyed (and even then, it's a slippery slope, because courts and the governments behind them can be wrong), it should stay on the shelves, period. People appeal to the Founding Fathers to support any argument imaginable - many of them contradictory to each other - but it's beyond debate that those geniuses were very big on the free flow of information (see "freedom of the press," "freedom of speech," "freedom of assembly," etc). They were notably not big on "freedom from bad, misleading or offensive books." There are countless examples of bad, misleading or offensive writing out there (for this essay, plug in your particular definition of "offensive"), just as there are many examples of the opposite. As a reader, it's up to me - no one else - to determine which is which. It's certainly not someone's job to make sure we're not even exposed to something he or she doesn't favor. And it's completely unfair to put librarians in the position of making those decisions. It's unfair to them personally and professionally, especially in highly charged situations, and it's unfair to the rest of us, because even the best librarians aren't qualified to make those decisions for others. No one is. Imagine if a successful college football coach had been doing something immoral or illegal while his team was winning games. Now imagine that a book came out about it. How many people would come down to the local library to fill out a complaint form? Ten? Ten thousand? Ditto for a community or church leader, or anyone beloved by his or her community. But published fact shouldn't be subject to a popularity contest, or to the opinion of a librarian who's only human and stuck in a no-win situation. And comparing a disputed book to other books on the same subject doesn't provide an answer either, because it's possible that one book is right, and the others are wrong. The safest, easiest and smartest thing is not to remove books at all. A book is not a billboard or a TV show; it's very hard to read one by accident. If there are multiple complaints, slap on a sticker if absolutely necessary, but do not take the book off the shelf. No one is qualified to make that decision, and it's outrageous that some guy who doesn't like the portrayal of a band thinks he could deny me or anyone else the opportunity to read that book. Put very simply, living in a free country means accepting the fact there's stuff out there you don't like. Dan Carsen is a freelance writer and editor who lives in Birmingham. E-mail: dancarsen@hotmail.com.  I agree and I am totally oppossed to any form of censorship as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most, if not all, libraries have these procedures in place. I know our local libraries and school district do. I called about it once and was informed that while the policy is in place, as people do have a right to protest, free speech and all that, the libraries as a matter of informal policy have never banned a book. The schools do have a section of books that have age limits imposed (i.e, 16 years old or something) but younger students can check them out with parental permission.
I don't agree with censorship either. I think it's up to me to decide what I and my child read. I have yet to not allow him to read anything he wants to read, I keep the option open for something I think may be wildly inappropriate for his age or maturity but my thought is, he knows better than anyone one what he is ready to read and can comprehend. (I do draw the line at porn, however). Music, I was a little more restrictive but he'll be 14 next month and as much as I don't agree with some things he listens to, I realize I can't stop it either. I try to listen to what he's listening to and if I feel it's worthy of a discussion, we'll talk about it. But other than that, censorship has no place in my home. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well **** me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well to play devil advocate here if no material were ever censored then why are their age limits to porn or soft porn or places where this cannot be obtained? Why are some books pulled out of circulation due to protest? Why are some books not sold in certain bookstores or areas of the country due to protest? Why has the professor here in Boulder been fired for a controversial write? It goes on and on.
What it comes down to is people believe in "censorship within reason". Who is the decider of reason depends on the power structure in the area of the censorship. Complete utter non censorship has never existed in this country at any level. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I had thought about my love of libraries I would never have moved to a small town where the library is the last place I want to go because of the selection of books. I have to literally drag myself now and spend hours trying to find one decent book to read.
That said I do think my library censors books, all 'interesting' books.. LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering how much pres hussein is trying to censor, control and altogether stifle so many sources, like talk radio, get used to a LOT of censorship. Not that it would be anything the public didn't approve of or had any overwhelming out cry over. Just the stuff he is trying to hide from us. Otherwise, he wouldn't be attacking the sources that he is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well to play devil advocate here if no material were ever censored then why are their age limits to porn or soft porn or places where this cannot be obtained? Why are some books pulled out of circulation due to protest? Why are some books not sold in certain bookstores or areas of the country due to protest? Why has the professor here in Boulder been fired for a controversial write? It goes on and on. What it comes down to is people believe in "censorship within reason". Who is the decider of reason depends on the power structure in the area of the censorship. Complete utter non censorship has never existed in this country at any level. No, non-censorship as whole will never exist, it is always within a person/community's responsibility to self-censor to some extent. Some communities within a larger whole will be more strict in their interpretation of what's acceptable, just as some families within that community will have stricter or looser standards. When done at a community level, as in your examples above, it is up the community as a whole to decide whether such censorship is "right." People are free to move, or protest or take some other (legal) action to make their view known. If they choose non-action, then that, too, is taking a stand, albeit not necessarily what they intend. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is a privately owned site...so they can censor as they see fit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should have read the rules prior to posting. Again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should have read the rules prior to posting. Again. Agreed, go back and read/re-read my post on community censorship You may not agree with it, but them's the rules of this here community, which most of us agree with to a large extent. If you don't, you are free to leave and find another community which is more attuned to your needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I posted this so people would think about the issue of censorship.
Offense...it's not hard to find someone who is offended by almost anything. If the sole standard for editing or removing material is that someone took offense there wouldn't be a single book in any library. Both my parents are librarians. This issue was oft discussed around the dinner table. It's an issue I feel passionately about. Those who censor material and those who cry out for it are despicable, typically small minded and nearly always threatened by any idea or concept or belief other than their own. Now, I have no problem what so ever with someone having strong personal values...they might not to read say, Jimmy has Two Daddies, and that's fine when they want to prevent me from reading it I have a problem. In fairness I likely wouldn't choose to read Great Hero's of NASCAR as I find the sport offensive (joking a little) but would I ask that the book be pulled? Never. When these situations arise I nearly always wonder if those that seek to censor's belief system and values are so tenuous that the mere existence of another persons values might some how tempt them into abandoning their own? Do they find comfort in suppressing information and quashing descent or alternative views? Is it confidence that theirs is the only right view or fear that it isn't that makes quashing other voices so appealing? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
However, it is the right of any person in a privately owned establishment to censor whatever they wish, if they so choose. The first amendment only applies to censorship by the US government. Nowhere else. Nor should it. There are plenty of things we shield our children from, for good reason. Are you suggesting that we stop that now because censorship is bad? I think there is a time and place for everything, censorship included. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee call me unreasonable but I don't think books should be pulled from libraries just because some parents are too damned lazy to effectively parent.
If you don't want your kids to see some content then go to the library with them, learn to use the off switch on the tv radio and internet and...now here is a concept...know your children and instill in them the power to assess materials presented to them. Don't pull stuff off the shelves or the airwaves so that they are unavailable to other adults. That "what about the children" argument is complete idiocy. What is the standard? What I deem right for my children, who are and were well informed, someone else might not deem right for theirs. Fine...but the library and the airwaves are public. Should they be dumbed down and diluted because some parents are too threatened by ideas other than their own or too lazy to parent. The answer to that is a resounding no. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Wed 04/01/09 08:40 AM
|
|
Gee call me unreasonable but I don't think books should be pulled from libraries just because some parents are too damned lazy to effectively parent. Neither do I. I think they should be following the American Library Association's Bill of Rights: Library Bill of Rights The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. Adopted June 18, 1948, by the ALA Council; amended February 2, 1961; amended June 28, 1967; amended January 23, 1980; inclusion of “age” reaffirmed January 24, 1996. A history of the Library Bill of Rights is found in the latest edition of the Intellectual Freedom Manual. http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm They are after all publicly owned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fine...but the library and the airwaves are public. I think any entity that receives tax money to operate is considered public. There is a huge difference between what I said and advocating censorship in public mediums. However, it is the right of any person in a privately owned establishment to censor whatever they wish, if they so choose. The first amendment only applies to censorship by the US government. Nowhere else. Nor should it. And the "what about the children?" argument is completely appropriate in some situations. Just not this one. |
|
|
|
|
