|
I just took an honors English course and we read controversial novels, analyzed them, and basically learned what we actually believe on the issue. This is the last piece I wrote for the class.
To ban or not to ban, that is the question. That is something prolific playwright William Shakespeare probably never would have said, but it remains extremely relevant for the modern century. As society grows in depth, books constantly force us to take new perspective on issues we are uncomfortable with. One of the easiest ways to deal with a book is to simply censor it and then forget about the issue. However, this is a weak response to the deeper quandary of how to respond to ideals which stand at odds with the values society holds. Remarkable contingencies should remain the only area where literacy restriction is possible. The only significant time when censorship is permissible should be when it threatens the physical well-being of others. Books that teach people to implement violent acts should be suppressed because they increase the possibility of violent acts, teach the wrong idea of utilizing violence to enact change, and no longer encompass the protection of free expression.
Teaching someone how to commit an illegal act is like placing a gun in the hands of a person who simply has to load it. It allows the facilitation of crimes where normal people would not have had that knowledge. It is often said that people who commit crimes because of violent books would have committed the crimes anyway. While they certainly may have been more predisposed to do so, the possibility of the crime itself is magnified because of the information they received from novels. The work The Anarchist Cookbook is a clear example of admissible censorship. A quick look at www.anarchistcookbook.com shows that when you teach people how to commit crimes, they quickly become more infatuated with the possibility of violence. The Anarchist Textbook not only taught people to commit violent acts, but inspired them to talk about it with others. With the knowledge they receive, people become able to more realistically commit crimes which they could have only thought of beforehand. Crimes have therefore become more likely with the advent of these instructional exposés.
Additionally, books that teach violence as an answer to life’s problems should be discouraged in democratic countries. We are past an age where we need to use violence to accomplish political goals. Violence is sometimes necessary in non-democratic countries because people are systematically abused and unable to influence change through any non-violent means. That is not the case when you have a vote and a platform on which to speak in countries such as the United States. Political participation is executed through governmental systems. Additionally, one has other means of expression. Social media sites and internet forums exist for the purposes of communication. Today’s generation encompasses people who are able to influence their contemporaries in methods previously unthinkable. In the Information Age, any opinion you have can be discussed. The fact you can enact non-violent change means that violent change should be discouraged in society because it promotes extremely unnecessary harm.
Finally, these kinds of novels cannot be protected on the grounds of literary expression. Works of art lose their protection status when they teach people to commit illegal acts. Grounds for this can be found in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the shield of freedom of speech was cast aside when it incited imminent lawless action. This is necessarily a subjective field, so it should be limited to only when an author describes technical details on how to commit an act. The thought of committing a crime, and the philosophical questions which can arise from them, are valuable and not subject to censorship. When a book however acts as a guide for lawless acts, this means it is no longer merely philosophical and instead acts as reality. This narrow focus permits the possibility of censorship while securing the abstract importance of freedom of expression.
Novels can be controversial. They forge the thoughts of our mind and help mold our hearts as we grow up in the 21st century. While the nature of their words can be consistently debated, certain books should be prohibited when they teach people how to commit violent crimes such as rape and murder. Democracy and peace are simultaneously threatened and undervalued when these books are allowed; these novels should not be guaranteed absolution from suppression. In the question of to ban or not to ban, the answer of even unintentional violent instructional books should be the former.
Feel free to discuss
 
|
I believe that the banning of a book is a sign of fear. I don't believe that it is ever ok. Proliferation of knowledge and debate is important to the development of humanity.
Also,
+ Show Spoiler +Wow, that FBI watchlist bait.
NOPE
|
very difficult question/topic, which certainly doesnt only applies to books.
there has been some recent discussion about it in germany due to some law issues regarding "Mein Kampf".
imo, novels should almost never be banned, despite them possibly "teaching" people how to commit criminal acts.
|
I've read a lot about making improvised weapons and I will never use that knowledge to do anything morally wrong. I know that there are many people who may be inspired to do violence by things like The Anarchist Cookbook, but does that really mean that people like me should not be able to see such things as well?
+ Show Spoiler +FBI/NSA/Illuminati watchlists etc etc
|
I'm not quite sure what you mean with "teach people how to commit violent crimes such as rape and murder". If I'd be interest to commit a murder, a killing spree or whatever, I'd find ways to do so, with or without tutorials. That's exactly the same arguement I heard in the past ten years whenever another school shooting popped up: blame video games. Blame the music. Blame the movies. Never blame the society around it, which missed the warning signs, or in case of 'murica, is nice enough to hand out guns. Never blame the media to build a throne for the best and most successful killers. Never care about the victims instead of the shooters. Etc. pp.
Censoring is never a solution. Paljas mentioned it: "Mein Kampf" is discussed, but not whether or not it should be banned, more like who should publish it and in what form. The obviously best solution is to answer 'problematic' books is education. A lot argue that the financial ministry of Bavaria (iirc the copy right holder) should publish it on their own behalf with a commented section to educate and inform about context, so that the danger of it being abused a second time is minimized. Anyhow, if you ever read parts of that book, you'd soon realize that it gets mystified. Almost no modern person would actually get most of what it says, either because of the language or the completely weird ideas behind it. It's a lot talking about things which don't exist anymore anyway. Might be I never got to read 'the interesting dangerous part', but it sounded more boring than anything else.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
|
Really cringeworthy introduction imo. Also are you really serious here ?
Additionally, books that teach violence as an answer to life’s problems should be discouraged in democratic countries. We are past an age where we need to use violence to accomplish political goals.
Always fun to see what anglo-saxon country ask as writing though^^
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
I have more thoughts on this issue but I'm on a cell phone so I will reserve them for later. For now, your high school interpretations are deeply flawed at best and demonstrate a dangerous level of authoritarianism at worst.
|
When that book is called 50 shades of grey.
|
On December 03 2013 03:37 GeckoXp wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean with "teach people how to commit violent crimes such as rape and murder". If I'd be interest to commit a murder, a killing spree or whatever, I'd find ways to do so, with or without tutorials.
This isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Not everybody that sets on to committing a murder or going on a killing spree actually goes through with it.
Humans are insecure in nature, and every time they face a non-trivial obstacle (whether it comes to obtaining a weapon, learning how to use it correctly, learning how to commit a crime cleanly or from a comfortable distance, learning how to get away, etc.), they are prone to giving up on whatever criminal activity they had in mind. The more obstacles you put up, the more people will become insecure about what they're doing and quit along the way.
It's a filtering process. It may not deter the most severe of psychopaths, but it will deter enough others to make a significant difference.
|
On December 03 2013 04:17 Ovid wrote:
When that book is called 50 shades of grey.
I think you mean twilight.
But in all seriousness, nope, never appropriate.
|
Norway25712 Posts
Banning books is dumb and does not accomplish anything. You can learn more about aquiring guns, killing and injuring from watching a couple documentaries on TV, or tuning in for the 9 o'clock news. If someone wants to make a pipe bomb, they'll find out how to make a pipe bomb, whether the anarchist's cookb is banned or not in his country. It accomplishes nothing.
It's a filtering process. It may not deter the most severe of psychopaths, but it will deter enough others to make a significant difference.
Honestly, if a person will go on a crime spree because a book functioned as a trigger for them, then they shouldn't even be allowed to watch tv. Books are the least of anyone's problem.
|
On December 03 2013 04:16 itsjustatank wrote:
I have more thoughts on this issue but I'm on a cell phone so I will reserve them for later. For now, your high school interpretations are deeply flawed at best and demonstrate a dangerous level of authoritarianism at worst.
Will be excited to hear them.
Also it wasn't high school, it was Honors College, but not that that would impact the strength of the statements anyway.
I do believe that the only time books should be banned is when it more acts as a guide for violent acts(not just illegal ones imo); violent acts are almost always wrong in domestic society. There's no reason literary expression should protect guides to bombing and murder, why pamphlets on how to Rufi someone should exist, or other things. It passes the line of artistic expression and instead infringes on the physical status of others.
|
Banning is generally bad, but I would like to see a moratorium on "to be or not to be" constructions. All in all, OP, content notwithstanding, Id watch the overly flourishing language. When a two, three, and four syllable word will all do, the three and four are not inherently superior and in many ways detract from the persuasive capacity of your writing. I can already guarantee that your teachers probably don't mark you hard for ornamental language, but if you want to keep writing and see it improve, I'd work on moderating the fancy. You will run into teachers who don't like mouthfuls, and in terms of writing for the general public, this becomes even more true.
|
On December 03 2013 04:21 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 03:37 GeckoXp wrote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean with "teach people how to commit violent crimes such as rape and murder". If I'd be interest to commit a murder, a killing spree or whatever, I'd find ways to do so, with or without tutorials. This isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. Not everybody that sets on to committing a murder or going on a killing spree actually goes through with it. Humans are insecure in nature, and every time they face a non-trivial obstacle (whether it comes to obtaining a weapon, learning how to use it correctly, learning how to commit a crime cleanly or from a comfortable distance, learning how to get away, etc.), they are prone to giving up on whatever criminal activity they had in mind. The more obstacles you put up, the more people will become insecure about what they're doing and quit along the way. It's a filtering process. It may not deter the most severe of psychopaths, but it will deter enough others to make a significant difference.
Yah, that's a very bold statement you do there. You simply assume there'd be less murders, rapes, or whatever if there'd be less books with certain content. The same way that less (no) alcohol would lead to less crimes, I guess, to a more healthy life style and whatnot. Guess what, look at history of your own country and tell me what you'll find.
You're talking about people, which are anything but the standard, ordinary every-day person you'll meet. Anyone who commits any form of really violent crime does this due to many variables. Reading a book might give him a target or what crime to commit, maybe which method to use, but it will for sure not kick an on/off switch. A healthy person will not do shit, only because he once read about it. If that was the case, crime records would go up, everytime the latest hollywood horror/slasher/murica-style movie came out, or whenever books like the Hunger Games would be released. Every single time. It just doesn't happen. Censorship is just a cheap scapegoat for morons.
|
On December 03 2013 04:34 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 04:16 itsjustatank wrote:
I have more thoughts on this issue but I'm on a cell phone so I will reserve them for later. For now, your high school interpretations are deeply flawed at best and demonstrate a dangerous level of authoritarianism at worst. Will be excited to hear them. Also it wasn't high school, it was Honors College, but not that that would impact the strength of the statements anyway. I do believe that the only time books should be banned is when it more acts as a guide for violent acts(not just illegal ones imo); violent acts are almost always wrong in domestic society. There's no reason literary expression should protect guides to bombing and murder, why pamphlets on how to Rufi someone should exist, or other things. It passes the line of artistic expression and instead infringes on the physical status of others.
The problem here is that you have not shown how the books or the ideas contained within are themselves what infringes on the "physical" status of others (which, I'll add, isn't as clear as it could be to begin with); you are just hoping that everyone else jumps from book to actor as seamlessly as you do.
|
Just to throw something into the ring, I know it's not the same as a "book" but in the UK certain extremist groups have magazines that are banned.
Surely a book or magazine explaining in great detail on how to build a bomb and spreading extremist views and a desire to use aforementioned device should be banned?
Not because of the extremist views but because of the security threats it poses?
|
On December 03 2013 04:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 04:34 Pandain wrote:On December 03 2013 04:16 itsjustatank wrote:
I have more thoughts on this issue but I'm on a cell phone so I will reserve them for later. For now, your high school interpretations are deeply flawed at best and demonstrate a dangerous level of authoritarianism at worst. Will be excited to hear them. Also it wasn't high school, it was Honors College, but not that that would impact the strength of the statements anyway. I do believe that the only time books should be banned is when it more acts as a guide for violent acts(not just illegal ones imo); violent acts are almost always wrong in domestic society. There's no reason literary expression should protect guides to bombing and murder, why pamphlets on how to Rufi someone should exist, or other things. It passes the line of artistic expression and instead infringes on the physical status of others. The problem here is that you have not shown how the books or the ideas contained within are themselves what infringes on the "physical" status of others (which, I'll add, isn't as clear as it could be to begin with); you are just hoping that everyone else jumps from book to actor as seamlessly as you do.
I'm not saying we should censor books really ever on the sole basis of the ideas contained; even novels like American Psycho(which is actually anti-serial killer and conserumism) which seem to promote violent acts can be useful for expression and I think it's expression enough and not enough definitive to point that it motivates violent acts.
Only when they instead start to act as a guide for murder. Even if it glorifies it, that's okay although wrong. But if you teach someone, give commentary, best ways and worst ways. Well that's pretty unacceptable in any society and objectively wrong.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On December 03 2013 04:44 Ovid wrote:
Just to throw something into the ring, I know it's not the same as a "book" but in the UK certain extremist groups have magazines that are banned.
Surely a book or magazine explaining in great detail on how to build a bomb and spreading extremist views and a desire to use aforementioned device should be banned?
Not because of the extremist views but because of the security threats it poses?
this information will be obtainable in by other means
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
