|
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 Kong9151 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 Kong9151 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
|
On December 03 2013 04:48 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 04:42 farvacola wrote: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.
Boy, you should never read Chuck Palahniuk or you're going to suffer a heart attack.
|
On December 03 2013 03:16 remedium wrote: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
Unless you believe that freedom of expression should take precedence over any kind of perjury, privacy or secrecy it is not possible.
When that is said, the OP seems to have concentrated on "teaching of crime". Unfortunately criminal descriptiveness is too easy to find in fiction. If you wanted to ban descriptions of crimes from writing, half the novels at a library would be at risk. The line-drawing there seems very penible.
When that is said, my line is closer to perjury of a real life person or showing everything about a person without their consent. Those would be very destructive to a persons image and may lead to unfounded blackballing or worse.
There may be things like the launch codes to the US nuclear arsenal or whereabouts of weapon depots, soldiers in a warzone etcetera where state secrecy should trumph the first amendment or free speech.
In other situations, you may argue that discussion will clear any issues, but books are not on their own social activities and discussion of books may be sparse. Online or in daily newspapers the problem doesnt exist if there is a possiblity for people to debate.
You may argue that a book may need some analytical support or political counterweight to avoid people getting trapped in a violent and dangerous mindset, but that is again an extremely hard line to draw.
To make it a more interesting debate:
Is Bering Breiviks manifest reasonable to read without some counterbalance?
Is Adolf Hitlers "Mein Kampf" fine without some contextualisation?
Is the bible or quran fine to read without some history and knowledge of interpretation techniques or common interpretation?
Is Silvia Plaths "Arial" harmless enough for people to swallow, without falling into her trap?
Is "Candide" by Voltaire a reasonable book to read without some moderation?
"The Peaceful Pill" by Nitschke and Stewart a handbook to euthanasia. Teaching murder?
|
On December 03 2013 04:05 itsjustatank wrote:
Never. Full stop.
What this nigga said
|
There's books teaching violent methods, what shall we do?
We'll make rules banning their sale and distribution.
But how will we enforce these rules?
Hmm, good question... I've got it! We'll threaten them all with violence!
*facepalm*
|
This just in: The internet makes banning books impossibru. Printing stuff is very easy nowadays.
Reading is never a problem, the problems start when actions are taken. Actions can be prohibited, (written) ideas can't and should not be. Frowned upon, yes (ideally argued against) - forbidden, no.
I'd also like to hear who should "accuse" books? Who should do the ruling and how will those bans be enforced?
|
Hungary11267 Posts
On December 03 2013 04:36 farvacola wrote:
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.
When reading your essay (with a very interesting topic!), I had similar thoughts. For example, "Remarkable contingencies should remain the only area where literacy restriction is possible." does not say much more (in my mind) than: "books should only be banned under very specific circumstances". Not that my sentence is the best ever, but your version expresses a simple point in very complex words, which is unnecessary.
.
Regarding the content, I find your initial axiom "The only significant time when censorship is permissible should be when it threatens the physical well-being of others." hard to maintain and overly simplistic. First, physical well-being is hard to define - say, a book promoting soft drinks could directly threaten our well-being through comsuming too much sugar. Second, if any book was directly endangering the psychic well-being, of a group of people, I would be similarly - or even more - worried. Third, I believe people will easily find ways to hurt each other. The important part is, why they do it. The ideology which justifies violence ("we need to defend ourselves" "they are inferior", ...) is more dangerous than the "knowing how". (on a sidenote, many who practice martial arts are very peaceful people, despite knowing exactly how to hurt people). That still doesn't build a conclusive case for "censorship of ideology" instead of "censorship of tutorials", but I find it more important to consider than the case you discuss.
|
United States24615 Posts
I'm not clear on whether you want us to discuss your essay, or whether you want us to discuss the topic and the essay was provided merely to share your opinions and offer talking points. I'm guessing it's the latter.
Despite reading the essay, I cannot really tell what the 'prompt' was. Your italicized introduction implies that you are somehow supposed to discuss the morality of banning 'controversial' novels, but a more specific description of the assignment would be helpful because us readers are basically left to guess what the topic of discussion is, exactly.
Many people in this thread are discussing book banning, in general. Without any more specifics or context, it seems like a useless discussion to me. If you want my opinion on whether or not book banning is okay, the first thing I want to know is who is doing the banning, and what does a 'ban' actually mean. Without specifics as to what we are actually discussing, not much can come from this thread, or at least not what you intended.
The only thing I could say given such a non-specific topic, is that banning of books is usually a bad thing, but I can't rule out a possible situation where it becomes necessary. Anyone giving an extremely 'absolute' response is probably being naive or at least idealistic.
|
The prompt was:
"Discuss the most important reasons there may be for banning a text", but I thought that this can also be a more general thread/blog about when and where are the limits of book banning. Most people seem to say none at all, which is a fine opinion but I disagree with.
My argument was the only one I felt had real legitimacy for banning a text. I disagree with Aesop that the idealogy is the more important thing. Words are words, but actions are actions and I think opening possible actions rather then just new thoughts are the most important thing.
Someone made a good point that I had already thought of but has great legitimacy: what is describing a crime?
Honestly I was only supposed to write two pages, but had I gone more in depth I would probably have said that that is the baseline for a court interpetation should it go to court. So if the court decides it acts as a guide enough(with information a normal person would not have been able to guess), it may threaten the safety of the public.
Of course that brings in new discussions of why should a court decide it and the dangers of that.
I also welcome critiques on my writing. Usually I'm very simple actually, I was motivated by my more eloquent peers to try fancier writing. My original sentence for the quandary phrase was actually basically what you described Aesop: "There's only one real reason why a book should be banned".
I just feel like it's not powerful if it's simple but I can see I'm wrong.
|
I'll harshly criticize the essay but I'm sure some of my complaints are unfounded. These are basically things I've noticed.
Nitpicking:
1- William Shakespeare: Why'd you plug that and the "to be and not to be thing". So cheesy! Maybe teachers like it, but at this point it's overdone and cliché.
2- William Shakespeare probably never would have said: Was Shakespeare particularly opposed to censorship? I'm not too familiar. But if not, it's just a goofy remark like "Socrates probably never designed a very efficient jet engine".
3- modern century: Is that a thing? It might be, but I'd phrase it differently.
4- As society grows in depth: Does it? (I think so but I'm sure some would argue that society is becoming more shallow.)
5- books constantly force us: Books have no power of coercion
6- censor it and then forget about the issue: I'd argue that censoring something in many cases reinforces the ideology that's carried in the censored material.
7- is like placing a gun in the hands of a person who simply has to load it.: Peculiar and sloppy comparison.
Actual concerns:
8- The only significant time when censorship is permissible: This is never justified.
9- 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. : Do you have some sort of study showing this? Are "quick looks" a substitute for social sciences and psychology?
10- We are past an age where we need to use violence to accomplish political goals : You say that violence is not necessary in “democratic countries” but I’ll have you know that Mexico is a democratic country. Also, democracies have armed police, so that’s violence. Also, democracies use violence in international conflicts. You say we don’t need violence but we certainly use it all the time. Are we mostly allowed to use violence against countries which shouldn't use it against us because they're not democratic?
|
good writing should be simple and direct, especially academic writing. If you have an idea that's worthy of more complex phrasing, you'll know. Otherwise dressing up your sentences do not make them any more profound, often it suggests you are compensating for a lack of something.
|
The prompt is asking for important reasons, not legitimate ones (subjective terms, in any event). Approaching the prompt from an imagined banning authority's perspective, there are many important reasons for banning a text. These include (1) the suppression of free and public debate, and (2) the containment of information and communications that the banning authority does not wish to see spread.
Nailed it. Gimme dat A.
|
Upon a glance, I'm not seeing this flowery writing that others are proclaiming he has used. Are the words he has used not apt and concise enough for the writing he is going for? Are they not all part of common speech?
His writing style is not periphrastic.
|
On December 03 2013 06:36 Ovid wrote:
Upon a glance, I'm not seeing this flowery writing that others are proclaiming he has used. Are the words he has used not apt and concise enough for the writing he is going for? Are they not all part of common speech?
His writing style is not periphrastic.
I'm trying to decide if this is tongue-in-cheek.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
I do not believe that banning books is ever okay, just as I do not believe that banning film or music or any other kind of media is ever alright. Providing warnings like "Contains X kind of content" is great, forbidding some (graphic) material from being shown or distributed in schools, cool - I can get behind that, but completely banning them? No. I'm firmly against censorship.
|
Zealously, snuff films /end
|
Hungary11267 Posts
On December 03 2013 06:36 Ovid wrote:
Upon a glance, I'm not seeing this flowery writing that others are proclaiming he has used. Are the words he has used not apt and concise enough for the writing he is going for? Are they not all part of common speech?
His writing style is not periphrastic.
I wouldn't call it flowery but rather a bit stiff and formalistic instead of using simple, direct speech.
|
Isn't formalistic the approach for maximum marks, correct me if I'm wrong here but he's not trying to push the boat out on the field of censorship he's trying to adhere to a curriculum and achieve a good grade.
So I would've thought formalistic is the way to go?
Edit: Even more so in a field where marking is less precise than in a field such as maths?
|
By formalistic, I'm almost certain that Aesop is more referencing "formal" in the sense of "formal wear" or a dressing intended to appear professional or elegant. In this sense, dialing back the "formal" constructions in favor of something a little more "casual" would cut down on some of the clunky sentence flow.
|
Hungary11267 Posts
On December 03 2013 06:54 Ovid wrote:
Isn't formalistic the approach for maximum marks, correct me if I'm wrong here but he's not trying to push the boat out on the field of censorship he's trying to adhere to a curriculum and achieve a good grade.
So I would've thought formalistic is the way to go?
I should have said "formulaic" probably  .
But anyway, in my mind learning to write is less about incorporating all the fancy words you learned, but more about maintaining a certain simplicity of speech while expressing complex concepts. I think some of the points in this article could be phrased more directly and thus made more accessible and precise at the same time.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 03 2013 06:48 Ovid wrote:
Zealously, snuff films /end
The issue with snuff films wouldn't even be the material in itself, but rather the fact that acts of serious violence were commited during the film's production.
|
My inner pedant is appeased. Slightly.
My only qualm with your statement is the accessible part since this is supposedly a university piece therefore by definition I would assume the reader is well read and has a good vernacular.
I think the OP needs to clarify what we're meant to be critiquing.
|
Zealously but the films still become distributed and therefore subject to censorship.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:25 Ovid wrote:
Zealously but the films still become distributed and therefore subject to censorship.
Then I don't believe they should be censored either. There are video tapes of famous executions available, and while I find both executions and especially snuff films morally wrong, I don't think they should be censored. The fact that other people can watch such material is, for me, a very minor issue compared to the fact that someone was actually killed, for whatever reason.
Like, obviously snuff films shouldn't exist. Their very existence is wrong. But it's not the recording itself that disgusts me, it's the fact that an act of lethal violence was committed that does. The distribution of snuff films is a minor issue to me. The fact that they can exist at all, that people actually murder someone and think to videotape it, that's a serious issue. Whether or not we can watch the material is insignificant in comparison.
|
On December 03 2013 07:02 Aesop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 06:54 Ovid wrote:
Isn't formalistic the approach for maximum marks, correct me if I'm wrong here but he's not trying to push the boat out on the field of censorship he's trying to adhere to a curriculum and achieve a good grade.
So I would've thought formalistic is the way to go? I should have said "formulaic" probably . But anyway, in my mind learning to write is less about incorporating all the fancy words you learned, but more about maintaining a certain simplicity of speech while expressing complex concepts. I think some of the points in this article could be phrased more directly and thus made more accessible and precise at the same time.
When you are in lower level classes with a writing component the writing is often as much about demonstrating that you can write in a flowery manner as it that you can make a logical argument. Actually in a lot of classes the argument, as long as it isn't completely batshit, won't be marked against as long as the author defends it in a semi-valid manner. Blame the grading system, I guess.
Banning books seems stupid to me. I would have thought that most people at this point would realize that their own views are not necessarily the only valid views possible. Every time that you change your mind on something serves as evidence of this. I mean, the fact that we almost never concede intellectual defeat when in a direct argument indicates that consciously we do not like to recognize that our world-view is flawed, but if you think back to what you believed 10, 5, even one year ago as compared to now you surely would have to admit that your views have changed. Banning books is just a way for people to eliminate opposition and halt change because they don't like it.
For example, in many countries any sort of neo-Nazi ideology is highly censored. While many facets of the Nazi movement were quite destructive I think that in the future, when the Nazi taint over certain subjects has sufficiently faded away, we will again see the rise of certain subjects that now are considered taboo, specifically in some aspects of genetics. However, by banning books you destroy knowledge now without regard for the validity and usefulness of that knowledge for the future, mostly because of muh feelins.
Additionally, books that teach violence as an answer to life’s problems should be discouraged in democratic countries.
It is a person's own decision to either accept or reject the contents of a book as a valid argument, not yours. Why are you so insistent on deciding things for other people?
Also I think that violence does have some pretty valid arguments, even in democratic societies. Obviously it is not the best default solution but there are some scenarios where I think violence could be justified, even beyond immediate self-defense. Everything has a time and a place and by simply banning opposing opinions all you accomplish is a sort of false victory over something that you dislike. Most arguments have some merit in them.
|
But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available?
The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored.
There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated.
|
Banning books is okay when the government can be trusted to censor appropriately. Which, at this rate, is going to be never. Knowledge is amazing, terrifying power, and the wrong kind of knowledge may be good to censor, in that if it is censored the world will be a better place.
+ Show Spoiler +Note that any debate on this issue involves weighing an objectively better world against the right to learn and the right to know. As you can tell from my post, in my opinion the right to learn and the right to know should be sacrificed if their demise means a better future for our kind.
|
On December 03 2013 07:21 Ovid wrote:
My inner pedant is appeased. Slightly.
My only qualm with your statement is the accessible part since this is supposedly a university piece therefore by definition I would assume the reader is well read and has a good vernacular.
I think the OP needs to clarify what we're meant to be critiquing.
Good writing is a matter of writing clearly. Good english prose doesn't look like clumsily translated Greek or German. Good writing avoids painful cliches... mangled quotes are the second worst form of this error (referencing dictionary definitions is the worst).
That said, it's not bad for a school piece (I wasn't clear on whether it was high school or university). It deals with a tricky problem, and it takes a brave stand. It's almost certainly incorrect, but still a praiseworthy effort for a school paper.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On December 03 2013 07:40 Ovid wrote:
But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available?
The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored.
There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated.
People don't need access to it, but people don't need access to a lot of things that are still taken for granted, things that'd make the public flip if they were banned. The loss from something being removed is restricted freedom, and I don't like the idea of letting the government tell me what I can and cannot watch (provided I harm no one). If the government is allowed to say "Hey, you're not allowed to watch this", then there is a risk - however small, that they'll also decide that "Hey, you actually can't watch this either". Do I want to watch snuff films? No, most certainly not. But the freedom to do so should I desire to is something I value highly.
As a side note, most films claimed to be snuff films are actually proven to be fake eventually. It's hard to know if what is being shown in a video is actually real or not, sometimes. Should we censor based on whether or not we think the material is authentic? There are films - fake, openly declared to be fictive, that look more real than a lot of (supposedly) snuff films on the internet. Should the ones claimed to be real be censored, or the ones that look real? Both?
|
On December 03 2013 07:40 Ovid wrote:
But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available?
The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored.
There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated.
Perhaps we disagree on what morality is? I am of the opinion that morality does not exist and is a poisonous term. I do not think that there is some moral law set somewhere in this universe that is static and to which we should hold all people accountable. I don't want to get into the semantics of the definition of morality, but to me simply calling something "immoral by the extremes" is not specific enough to ban something from public knowledge and preservation. Morality varies from person to person and culture to culture and I find it naive to think that the one that you subscribe to just so happens to be the only right one.
If politics should not be censored then what should be censored? Pornographic novels? Instructions on how to build an atomic bomb? It was my understanding that any discussion of book banning had to do with the dissemination of ideas related to politics or technical prowess.
On December 03 2013 07:43 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Banning books is okay when the government can be trusted to censor appropriately. Which, at this rate, is going to be never. Knowledge is amazing, terrifying power, and the wrong kind of knowledge may be good to censor, in that if it is censored the world will be a better place. + Show Spoiler +Note that any debate on this issue involves weighing an objectively better world against the right to learn and the right to know. As you can tell from my post, in my opinion the right to learn and the right to know should be sacrificed if their demise means a better future for our kind.
What are the criteria for making the world a better place? With such a broad goal, literally anything could fall under that category. In my opinion the world would be a better place if people were not so eager to dismiss opinions which challenge their own...
|
On December 03 2013 07:58 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 07:40 Ovid wrote:
But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available?
The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored.
There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated. Perhaps we disagree on what morality is? I am of the opinion that morality does not exist and is a poisonous term.
You need to read this book, it's pretty fun !
|
On December 03 2013 07:58 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 07:43 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Banning books is okay when the government can be trusted to censor appropriately. Which, at this rate, is going to be never. Knowledge is amazing, terrifying power, and the wrong kind of knowledge may be good to censor, in that if it is censored the world will be a better place. + Show Spoiler +Note that any debate on this issue involves weighing an objectively better world against the right to learn and the right to know. As you can tell from my post, in my opinion the right to learn and the right to know should be sacrificed if their demise means a better future for our kind. What are the criteria for making the world a better place? With such a broad goal, literally anything could fall under that category. In my opinion the world would be a better place if people were not so eager to dismiss opinions which challenge their own...
I believe the world is a better place when:
1: The overall amount of happiness in the world has increased
2: We are moving closer to a perfect society, which is defined as a society where we as a race have finished learning and every human is mentally and physically powerful enough to ensure the stable existence of a post-scarcity utopian society built on the foundations of perfect fairness and absence of unnecessary suffering.
2 is a necessary criteria because the purpose of a person's life from an objective standpoint (rather than, say, a Christian standpoint) is to ensure that the world would have been a worse place without them in it.
None of us will ever live to see the perfect world we all dream of. We will all die before we know what it will be like, or even if it will be there at all. All we can do is sacrifice as much as we can to make this unreachable dream possible for some distant generation of humans.
The perfect society, the end stage of an intelligent species, is built on the bones of every previous generation of that species, whose comparatively boring, brief and painful life made possible the sublime existence of our final generation. Every preceding generation died before they could truly enjoy the fruits of their labors, and though death will be abolished in our perfect society, we will never be able to bring back from oblivion the countless trillions of dead who truly deserve the utopia they were responsible for, those who lived and died imperfect.
The more we sacrifice to fulfill 2, the sooner utopia will come, and thus less people will live and die building utopia without ever experiencing it.
|
On December 03 2013 07:54 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 07:40 Ovid wrote:
But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available?
The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored.
There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated. People don't need access to it, but people don't need access to a lot of things that are still taken for granted, things that'd make the public flip if they were banned. The loss from something being removed is restricted freedom, and I don't like the idea of letting the government tell me what I can and cannot watch (provided I harm no one). If the government is allowed to say "Hey, you're not allowed to watch this", then there is a risk - however small, that they'll also decide that "Hey, you actually can't watch this either". Do I want to watch snuff films? No, most certainly not. But the freedom to do so should I desire to is something I value highly. As a side note, most films claimed to be snuff films are actually proven to be fake eventually. It's hard to know if what is being shown in a video is actually real or not, sometimes. Should we censor based on whether or not we think the material is authentic? There are films - fake, openly declared to be fictive, that look more real than a lot of (supposedly) snuff films on the internet. Should the ones claimed to be real be censored, or the ones that look real? Both?
Your rhetoric is good but would implicate you in having watched a snuff film for your statement to have validity.
Because I'm tired I will respectfully bow out of this discussion leaving the OP with the thought that if his blog has garnered this much attention from the cynical blog community something has been done right.
Whether that's down to his writing or the subject matter is for you to decide.
I will give a more informative response tomorrow assuming this blog is still afloat.
|
On December 03 2013 08:31 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 07:58 Chocolate wrote:On December 03 2013 07:43 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Banning books is okay when the government can be trusted to censor appropriately. Which, at this rate, is going to be never. Knowledge is amazing, terrifying power, and the wrong kind of knowledge may be good to censor, in that if it is censored the world will be a better place. + Show Spoiler +Note that any debate on this issue involves weighing an objectively better world against the right to learn and the right to know. As you can tell from my post, in my opinion the right to learn and the right to know should be sacrificed if their demise means a better future for our kind. What are the criteria for making the world a better place? With such a broad goal, literally anything could fall under that category. In my opinion the world would be a better place if people were not so eager to dismiss opinions which challenge their own... I believe the world is a better place when: 1: The overall amount of happiness in the world has increased 2: We are moving closer to a perfect society, which is defined as a society where we as a race have finished learning and every human is mentally and physically powerful enough to ensure the stable existence of a post-scarcity utopian society built on the foundations of perfect fairness and absence of unnecessary suffering. 2 is a necessary criteria because the purpose of a person's life from an objective standpoint (rather than, say, a Christian standpoint) is to ensure that the world would have been a worse place without them in it. None of us will ever live to see the perfect world we all dream of. We will all die before we know what it will be like, or even if it will be there at all. All we can do is sacrifice as much as we can to make this unreachable dream possible for some distant generation of humans. The perfect society, the end stage of an intelligent species, is built on the bones of every previous generation of that species, whose comparatively boring, brief and painful life made possible the sublime existence of our final generation. Every preceding generation died before they could truly enjoy the fruits of their labors, and though death will be abolished in our perfect society, we will never be able to bring back from oblivion the countless trillions of dead who truly deserve the utopia they were responsible for, those who lived and died imperfect. The more we sacrifice to fulfill 2, the sooner utopia will come, and thus less people will live and die building utopia without ever experiencing it.
1. is again quite nebulous and unspecific. You cannot quantify happiness and for all we know some people's happiness may be predicated on the misery of others. For example, what if the greatest overall happiness existed under the criteria that part of the population exists subservient under another part? What if Bob's happiness only comes from destroying and demeaning Joe? I think there is also a short story written about this very subject, in which there exists a perfect town for literally every single inhabitant except one, which is doomed to an eternally miserable existence. It's called "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas." I'd argue that such a situation perhaps maximizes happiness without being just (in my opinion, anyway).
2. No, I disagree. There is no specific, objective purpose of any person's life. Nobody has any obligation to better the world. I'd also argue that your dream is indeed unreachable, wishful thinking. You are essentially replacing a religious heaven with a technological one. There is no guarantee that such a dream is possible, that a utopia can exist. Also, nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be born and help you build this future. Count me out.
Just because you subscribe to this specific creed does not mean that the rest of the world must, and therein lies the problem with censorship: every person will be seeking to only let their voice be heard.
Your rhetoric is good but would implicate you in having watched a snuff film for your statement to have validity.
Oh no, alert the presses!
|
Just stating that would be a hypocritical stand point to declare something was immoral and be highly opposed to it but do it anyway.
No need to hide behind cynicism and humour to deflect a strong point in regard to his statement.
Now I really am tired
|
On December 03 2013 08:45 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2013 08:31 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On December 03 2013 07:58 Chocolate wrote:On December 03 2013 07:43 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Banning books is okay when the government can be trusted to censor appropriately. Which, at this rate, is going to be never. Knowledge is amazing, terrifying power, and the wrong kind of knowledge may be good to censor, in that if it is censored the world will be a better place. + Show Spoiler +Note that any debate on this issue involves weighing an objectively better world against the right to learn and the right to know. As you can tell from my post, in my opinion the right to learn and the right to know should be sacrificed if their demise means a better future for our kind. What are the criteria for making the world a better place? With such a broad goal, literally anything could fall under that category. In my opinion the world would be a better place if people were not so eager to dismiss opinions which challenge their own... I believe the world is a better place when: 1: The overall amount of happiness in the world has increased 2: We are moving closer to a perfect society, which is defined as a society where we as a race have finished learning and every human is mentally and physically powerful enough to ensure the stable existence of a post-scarcity utopian society built on the foundations of perfect fairness and absence of unnecessary suffering. 2 is a necessary criteria because the purpose of a person's life from an objective standpoint (rather than, say, a Christian standpoint) is to ensure that the world would have been a worse place without them in it. None of us will ever live to see the perfect world we all dream of. We will all die before we know what it will be like, or even if it will be there at all. All we can do is sacrifice as much as we can to make this unreachable dream possible for some distant generation of humans. The perfect society, the end stage of an intelligent species, is built on the bones of every previous generation of that species, whose comparatively boring, brief and painful life made possible the sublime existence of our final generation. Every preceding generation died before they could truly enjoy the fruits of their labors, and though death will be abolished in our perfect society, we will never be able to bring back from oblivion the countless trillions of dead who truly deserve the utopia they were responsible for, those who lived and died imperfect. The more we sacrifice to fulfill 2, the sooner utopia will come, and thus less people will live and die building utopia without ever experiencing it. 1. is again quite nebulous and unspecific. You cannot quantify happiness and for all we know some people's happiness may be predicated on the misery of others. For example, what if the greatest overall happiness existed under the criteria that part of the population exists subservient under another part? What if Bob's happiness only comes from destroying and demeaning Joe? I think there is also a short story written about this very subject, in which there exists a perfect town for literally every single inhabitant except one, which is doomed to an eternally miserable existence. It's called "The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas." I'd argue that such a situation perhaps maximizes happiness without being just (in my opinion, anyway). 2. No, I disagree. There is no specific, objective purpose of any person's life. Nobody has any obligation to better the world. I'd also argue that your dream is indeed unreachable, wishful thinking. You are essentially replacing a religious heaven with a technological one. There is no guarantee that such a dream is possible, that a utopia can exist. Also, nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be born and help you build this future. Count me out. Just because you subscribe to this specific creed does not mean that the rest of the world must, and therein lies the problem with censorship: every person will be seeking to only let their voice be heard. Show nested quote +Your rhetoric is good but would implicate you in having watched a snuff film for your statement to have validity. Oh no, alert the presses!
You seem to be overly technical. I shouldn't need to write my statements with the technical precision of a legal document or scientific paper to stand up to scrutiny in more casual conversation like this. Yes, I believe in justice and equality, so no slavery. No, I don't think killing somebody, which unintentionally saves a dozen lives down the line, makes you a hero.
In regards to 2, though, that is basically just an arbitrary end-goal for the progression of society and thus, alongside 1, a rubric by which your worth to the world can be judged. Either you help society progress, thus making people in the future happier, or you make people happier.
edit: Meh, don't have time in my life for the massive debate that wall of text was sure to spark.
That last bit about the problem with censorship is a fair point, though. Let's assume that the government can be trusted to censor us in order to improve the world, rather than to abuse censorship for power. Censorship is at its heart a method of control.
Whatever the censor's definition of improving the world is, whether or not the censor is right or wrong about any given issue he is arbitrating, whether or not the is correct in that his actions will improve the world; he will always be acting according to what he thinks is right. Thus, we face the twin problems of whether or not the censor can be trusted to control society better than society can control itself (by censoring the more objective stuff like lies about climate change) and how we should censor subjective issues (i.e. abortion).
An intelligent but unseen censor could probably do great good with the objective issue censorship, if we could trust him with that kind of power. In the modern world, though, we can't trust anybody with that kind of power. The status quo is a better alternative.
edit: Oh, you're one of those guys who believe there is no such thing as "objectively true". No offense, but there's absolutely no point debating with you then. I'll be bowing out of the thread anyways, though. Important things to do.
|
It was completely inane, poorly argued with no hard evidence to back it up and very childish in its assumptions ("you don't need violence in a democracy!"). I mean really, this kind of stuff is what you're basing your argument on:
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 introduction was cheesy and had no relevance to the original Hamlet quote. You consistently make ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims like this one:
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
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.
[citation needed]
Violence is sometimes necessary in non-democratic countries because people are systematically abused and unable to influence change through any non-violent means
But this *never* happens in democracies, right guys?
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.
Last time I checked, you don't get legislation passed by having a top submission on /r/politics.
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.
Here you've committed the cardinal sin of conflating legality with morality. "It's bad to smoke weed because it's illegal!" This is extremely simplistic thinking.
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
Who needs to be taught how to commit rape or murder? I mean sure, you can learn how to improve your chances of getting away with it, but no sane person needs a book on how to rape somebody.
Sorry for being harsh, but I think it's important you understand why your argument is extremely weak, especially if you're going to be arguing for something as dangerous as censorship.
|
I am overly technical because I thought that your statements were too vague. Yes, the vast majority of people will claim to want to benefit the world or just make everybody happy. Likewise, it is not revolutionary to state that we should try to maximize happiness; Bentham and Mills (among others) beat you to that idea. It is very easy to say empty hopes like "let's make a utopia" and "we should make everybody happy" but they are just that: empty, unless there is some sort of actual means coupled with that end. Also, it's actually quite problematic to advocate taking rights away from people (the right to have access to the works of others) simply to fill some vague, indeterminate hopes.
I understand your views on self-worth, but I disagree. I maintain that I still have no obligation to society. You seem to be taking a kind of existentialist approach to life in which case you should remember that just because you pick some specific goal or person to follow doesn't mean that it is the best or the only right one. You want to live on forever through your contribution to civilization but that simply does not appeal to me (and many others), sorry.
In any case I'm glad that you understand where I'm coming from regarding censorship. But still, remember that the status quo is still not a state of 100% freedom of information.
|
I forgot to mention - you also completely neglected to address any counterarguments or even discussed the feasbility of your proposal. You kept talking about the 21st century and the internet age, and yet completely mentioned how impossible censorship is nowadays. The deep web is literally 5 minutes away for any remotely competent internet user. That's not even mentioning factors like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effectStreisand Effect.
|
On December 03 2013 11:01 Chocolate wrote:
I am overly technical because I thought that your statements were too vague. Yes, the vast majority of people will claim to want to benefit the world or just make everybody happy. 1. Likewise, it is not revolutionary to state that we should try to maximize happiness; Bentham and Mills (among others) beat you to that idea. It is very easy to say empty hopes like "let's make a utopia" and "we should make everybody happy" but they are just that: empty, unless there is some sort of actual means coupled with that end. Also, it's actually quite problematic to advocate taking rights away from people (the right to have access to the works of others) simply to fill some vague, indeterminate hopes.
I understand your views on self-worth, but I disagree. I maintain that I still have no obligation to society. 2. You seem to be taking a kind of existentialist approach to life in which case you should remember that just because you pick some specific goal or person to follow doesn't mean that it is the best or the only right one. You want to live on forever through your contribution to civilization but that simply does not appeal to me (and many others), sorry.
3. In any case I'm glad that you understand where I'm coming from regarding censorship. But still, remember that the status quo is still not a state of 100% freedom of information.
1. Never claimed to be original. The annoying thing about psychology and philosophy in the modern day is that every time you figure something out, you soon learn somebody else has already done it before your mommy's mommy was born.
2. I have a bad habit of using "objective" in a way that wasn't intended. When I say "from an objective viewpoint" or something similar, I usually mean "from a viewpoint where you discard everything that is subjective, irrational or based on emotions of any kind, leaving only the facts as you know them". From a completely emotionless, unbiased perspective, your actions and thus your life had no real objective meaning beyond short-term self-gratification if the world would not have been a worse place without you.
Not saying we can't be happy about all those little illogical joys we get out of our lives, though, like unnecessarily risking your life in a sky dive or taking part in an unwinnable debate on the internet. We are people, after all, not robots.
3. Only the uneducated and the foolish would think otherwise, and I like to think I'm neither. Information flows faster and easier than ever before, but there's still censorship. I was saying that the status quo in areas like the U.S. is preferable to formal censorship a la China because we can't trust the men in power to not abuse the hell out of that.
4. Dammit I couldn't help myself.
|
Never.
+ Show Spoiler +Also ugh, I hate your opener. Dirty dirty dirty, Shakespeare doesn't belong.
|
To argue for censorship is to argue against democracy. It really is that simple. Censorship has occurred countless times throughout history, always in a totalitarian context.
The only place where censorship can (and does) legitimately exist in democracies is in matters of the Police and Military. This is because these particular state institutions are de-facto undemocratic, due to their basic functions; we do not (nor should we) vote for our favorite generals and police commissioners. We also do not want those particular 'texts' (schematics for nuclear weapons systems, ongoing criminal investigations) made public, for obvious reasons.
|
your naive perspective on the subject makes your essay not worth reading.
You should think about different perspectives and not just try to be the good guy.
I say try, because your measures would be as democratic as putting billion of people under surviellance just to prevent an imaginary terror attack while terror attacks are probably one of the rarest causes of death ever.
this is discussing your essay, not the book banning thing, which is totally irrelevant anyways since you have the internet almost everywhere in the world.
|
Thanks sanddbox, I appreciate it.
However, the essay was only meant to be two pages, and I hit nearly three, so I was already going way over what I needed to explain for my essay; if I had written more, my professor will probably take points off.
To explain my view to you, however:
1. The Anarchist Cookbook brought people together of similar interests. That website is pretty scary. It has probably promoted at least one or two crimes, or allowed someone to. If for instance they had not been brought together by the information in the book, then that information would have been spread across other websites and more difficult to find.
I do think that even making crimes more difficult to commit is a good thing. I mean, you can't stop anyone from shooting people either, but you can control who owns a gun. And you should be able to control equally dangerous material that really no one should be using (how to rufi someone). The extra 30 minutes it takes to find information can be a deterrance, and it's not like this has backlash as I layed out it should only be used in specific ways.
My professor was talking about a pamphlet that went around campus just for that purpose. It's the basis of my argument and thinks like that should be censored, not just in schools but everywhere.
For the legality/morality thing, I only limited this to violent crimes. Because hopefully, we all accept that violent crimes like forced kidnapping, murder, and rape should be illegal anywhere and everywhere. I purposely left out other violent stuff like battery because I think that's up for debate.
Your point about the relatively weak nature of public opinion is true, but also still irrelevant. If you can make a change through non-violent means, then you should do it through non-violent means. It won't be a post on r/politics, but instead a long campaign. And you'll find out if you really are as committed to the thing as just committing a violent act would be, because you have to constantly defend yourself. And that sort of thing should be encouraged.
However, the second point is actually pretty weak in my opinion. It's true, but not a reason to ban a text. The main thing is the first point, and then the third point means it shouldn't be granted absolute protection.
And I really don't mind the opening to be honest. Yeah quotes may be "cheesy", but I really liked it because
a. It was a twist on a famous saying
b. It pinpoints the question I'm trying to get the reader to frame
c. I elaborate on it further
It wasn't just like I couldn't think of something and then read my Introductions guide and chose option c.
I don't know, but it didn't make me cringe, I swiftly transitioned out of it and I thought it read fine for the introduction.
|
On December 03 2013 12:11 LaNague wrote:
your naive perspective on the subject makes your essay not worth reading.
You should think about different perspectives and not just try to be the good guy.
I say try, because your measures would be as democratic as putting billion of people under surviellance just to prevent an imaginary terror attack while terror attacks are probably one of the rarest causes of death ever.
this is discussing your essay, not the book banning thing, which is totally irrelevant anyways since you have the internet almost everywhere in the world.
My response is extremely limited in only one area where censorship can be permissible.
|
On December 03 2013 07:40 Ovid wrote:
But if something is morally wrong then should it not be censored. If it's immoral by the extremes it is then why do people need access to it? What loss is there if it's not available?
The core argument in regard to this is the worry that the tendrils of censorship will arrive in politics or other things that should not be censored.
There's governing bodies to regulate censorship who are in turn regulated.
Morality has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you have a society that has become 'immoral', it has only become so by the actions and policies of the dominant political, cultural, and economic institutions (that is to say, governments, churches, and corporations), which are the same ones that would necessarily administer any censorship.
A striking examples lies in the rise and fall of soviet communism in eastern and central Europe. When Czechoslovakia elected their first president after liberation, the man they chose was a writer who had been imprisoned by the regime as 'ideologically subversive'. That mans name was Vaclav Havel. I would recommend anyone to read some of his many essays on the subject of censorship; oppression, and the many ways the very fabric of society is torn by it.
edited for grammar
|
i think its a really complicated question and impossible to answer.
believing that any form of censorship is wrong/bad/etc. i think will eventually lead to irresponsible and dangerous things, but at the same time any time you begin to censor things you venture into similarly dangerous territory.
|
|
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Is freedom of speech more important than the right to privacy? Should a book containing all your personal and private information (passwords, signatures, humiliating secrets) be censored or not?
Reductive reason yes but it's kinda silly when people just say "nope, never" and not consider all the possibilities.
|
well banning books was ok in the 1940's i guess, if burning jews is ok then banning books is ok. I mean, if you're just lynching nigs every weekend, whats wrong with banning catcher in the rye or to kill a mockingbird? ya feel me dawg?
|
On December 03 2013 12:17 Pandain wrote:
To explain my view to you, however:
1. The Anarchist Cookbook brought people together of similar interests. That website is pretty scary. It has probably promoted at least one or two crimes, or allowed someone to. If for instance they had not been brought together by the information in the book, then that information would have been spread across other websites and more difficult to find.
Firstly, I would disagree with your initial statement of opinion: that the Anarchist Cookbook "brought people together of similar interests". If you are talking about the website promoting the book, then yes, perhaps. However, seeing as how the books have been out for decades, and there was no major publicity campaign on the part of a publisher, I would argue that the book itself was disseminated through networks of people that already shared common interests (underground political activists or revolutionaries, criminal organizations, etc.). This may seem a "chicken-and-egg" argument but we must be careful of making assumptions and presenting them as fact, especially as the basis for limiting citizens' rights.
Ironically, the most instructive literature currently available on these topics is typically pulled from US Army field manuals. There is little point to banning commercial publications with ISBN registration, the information will still be out there. It is impossible to control.
I do think that even making crimes more difficult to commit is a good thing. I mean, you can't stop anyone from shooting people either, but you can control who owns a gun. And you should be able to control equally dangerous material that really no one should be using (how to rufi someone).
No, you can't. You can only control legal purchases. Do you see the difference? People who want something bad enough are going to get it. That's why prohibition creates black markets. There may be a few historical incidences of this that you could reference.
One of the consequences of prohibition is ignorance. During alcohol prohibition, thousands of Americans died of ignorance: either attempting to mix up their own batch of homebrew booze, or drinking someone else's dangerous concoction. Today we have the same situation with pseudo-legal homebrew synthetic drugs and have kids dying on Bath Salts - also due to prohibition of their safer, but currently illegal, alternatives.
Your average law-abiding citizen is not affected either way, because he will be following the rules anyhow. Even if he bought a book describing various methods of violence - he isn't likely to commit any of those acts because he already respects the law.
The only people you are worried about are the types more likely to break laws against violence, correct? But if someone has the potential for violent crime, do you not also think they have the potential for theft or trespassing? If I'm plotting a murder, what's to stop me from illegally obtaining a text on how best to commit the crime? Do you not see the futility of this argument?
|
only as a publicity stunt
|
Hong Kong9151 Posts
I promised a larger post, so here we go:
On December 03 2013 03:09 Pandain wrote:
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.
Let's get rid of the low-hanging fruit. Your writing style is extremely pompous and full of unnecessary flourish. We'll get into your allusion to Hamlet and Shakespeare here in a moment, but first, read some Strunk & White before you get marked down by a proper grader in university for your writing.
With that gone, let's go to the line-by-line.
Your advocacy is at once self-defeating and ironic. You cannot critique the idea of banning books in favor of free expression at the same time as legitimizing the suppression of free expression for the thinnest of reasoning.
Let's get into the 'dangerousness' of media. You claim that certain types of media should not be protected because you believe that some media can "[teach] someone how to commit an illegal act" and "increase the possibility of violent acts" as well as indicate that "utilizing violence to enact change" can be okay. You rely on a few assumptions: - Text necessarily becomes action
- Violence is not necessary in democratic countries
- That the Brandenburg decision legitimizes your line of thought.
Your argumentation is terrible for a number of key reasons: - Absolute lack of citations. You make a number of significant claims here, but none of them necessarily follow or are backed up by any legitimate sources at all. This allows you to make leaps of logic such as X media exists, and it talks about Y violence, so it must lead to violence and we should ban it. This does not necessarily follow.
- You misinterpret Brandenburg completely. To even begin to win your argument, you necessarily must win that media directly leads to actions that are a clear and present danger to the peace. The words "clear and present danger" are important here, because they establish the Supreme Court's test for determining where to draw the line for First Amendment protections. Your citation of Brandenburg is thus very ironic, as that court case established strong protections for just the kind of media you are afraid of and want to ban. The Court did not create a precedent for preemptive censoring of material. It is up to you, the book burner, to prove that things are a clear and present danger. With the ubiquity of media in the present day and its ability to stand up to that test, I'd like to see you try.
- Media does not necessarily lead to your described potential action. We can debate about this all day, but let me state the following: I have read both The Anarchist's Cookbook and Hamlet and both, by your own words, talk about violence. I'd even concede that Hamlet acts as a sort of textbook to violence, and tells the story of violence being okay as a means to establish change. It certainly establishes an excuse for terrible advocates to attempt to allude to the material in a vainglorious attempt to feel good about having an education. To wit, I aver that I am not a criminal, that I am not a felon, and that I am not out and about to wreck homes. I certainly do not present a clear and present danger to society, despite being a tank. That was easy.
- No bright-line. You establish no credible bright-line for determining what is, exactly, protected speech, and what is not. You mention potentialities for violence multiple times, but your reasoning is shaky. Others in this thread have alluded to this. In the world in which we allow banning, it is a situation in which the banner has full control over what is banned and what is not. There is no oversight. I would much rather have society self-regulate what media they see and read rather than rely on the ideas of one person to establish a will upon society as a whole. The prospect for the creation of an oppressive, uniquely non-democratic, society in the world of your choosing is quite likely.
- Double turn. The previous point brings me here. At the same time where you extol the virtues of democracy in the digital age, you seek to burn down the tools by which said democracy can flourish.
- Democratic peace theory is bogus. At the point where modern democracies both intentionally and domestically use and advocate force as a means of creating change, and at the point where many of these democracies were established exactly by using force to establish change, your idea is quite moot. Additionally, take a look at nominally democratic states where there are, today, violent movements to establish change, and you will see the failure of your ideal in actuality.
- Your impact is systemic, inevitable, and ongoing. You don't solve it, and you create a terrible world in the failed attempt to solve. Empirically, human violence has existed since even before the creation of media. It persists despite the creation of what you feel is the more civilized governance arrangement, democracy. People have killed each other in the past, they kill in the present, and they will continue to kill in the future. No amount of censorship changes this fact, and your advocacy of censorship is blind to the idea of actually fixing some root causes of violence such as poverty, economic circumstance, mental health, education, and much more.
|
To ban, or not to ban, the question you pose
Whether tis nobler the people are deaf
To words from arbitrary works thee chose
Or to take heed that people aren't best served
Through judg'ment from an honors English student.
|
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.
You can make that argument against self-defense guides too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
