Do you think that the banning of certain music from stores or books from libraries is ever justified?

Not really. This applies to books more than music but I wouldn't have a problem with banning books on how to make bombs, etc. Yeah, I know with the internet that's not hard to find but that doesn't mean we have to make it that easy. I have a bigger problem with the government keeping track of who reads what.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Not really. This applies to books more than music but I wouldn't have a problem with banning books on how to make bombs, etc. Yeah, I know with the internet that's not hard to find but that doesn't mean we have to make it that easy. I have a bigger problem with the government keeping track of who reads what.

^This this this! I got into an argument with somebody the other day who says the FBI doesn't waste their time watching anybody who isn't guilty. Well then explain the Patriot Act, or better yet, explain just what books terrorists are going to be checking out that they need to be able to track us by what we read.

Don't really care for bannings. The list will just inevitably get longer.

I'm surprised this hasn't happened, but you wait, now that I've mentioned it somebody probably will. In 1931 China banned Alice's Adventures in Wonderland because animals should not talk with people, they should not be on the same level as people, etc. But WHY is it that nobody has ever tried to get this book banned because at the tea party the March Hare offers wine to Alice who is what, about 7 years old? Never mind the fact that there isn't any wine, as they point out, but he still offers it to her. I'm surprised one of these stick-up-their-butts parent groups that looks for evil in everything hasn't tried having it banned for that reason, and yet they have Little Red Riding Hood since she was taking a jug of wine to her sick granny. Go figure.

I'm agin it.

When I was in high school a group of religious fanatics wanted to ban the Tarzan books because Tarzan and Jane weren't married. They also wanted all the immoral John Steinbeck books banned.

One of the things I am still most grateful to my beloved grandmother for was the fact that at 5 and a half she took me to get my first library card, better yet she placed no restrictions on what I was allowed to read at a time when many parents did put restrictions on their children's library cards. As a result I read well above my grade level all through school, and read for enjoyment as I still do today.

Suzi wrote:

I'm agin it.

When I was in high school a group of religious fanatics wanted to ban the Tarzan books because Tarzan and Jane weren't married. They also wanted all the immoral John Steinbeck books banned.

One of the things I am still most grateful to my beloved grandmother for was the fact that at 5 and a half she took me to get my first library card, better yet she placed no restrictions on what I was allowed to read at a time when many parents did put restrictions on their children's library cards. As a result I read well above my grade level all through school, and read for enjoyment as I still do today.

On a side note, I'm part way through the first Tarzan book, and I like it a hell of a lot better than any of those dumb movies. I like it that Tarzan, raised by apes, no humans around for miles, learned to read and write and instead of this 'you Tarzan, me Jane' crap he writes Jane and says 'I am Tarzan of the Apes, you are Jane Porter, I saw it on your letter'. Why didn't they ever do that in the movie? Also isn't it funny how in this book written about 100 years ago, the tribe natives are called blacks, but Esmeralda, Jane's personal companion is called a negress, what's up with that?

No....and it has the opposite effect. When you ban things, public demand for it just increases and soon it's everywhere thanks to black market sellers.

I think any establishment has a right to decide for themselves what they will sell/offer to their customers. I don't really think they have to justify it. If a library doesn't wanna carry Harry Potter books for any reason, I feel it's well within their rights not to. Maybe it's religious or maybe they just think a story about a boy wizard is crap. They don't need justification.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I think any establishment has a right to decide for themselves what they will sell/offer to their customers. I don't really think they have to justify it. If a library doesn't wanna carry Harry Potter books for any reason, I feel it's well within their rights not to. Maybe it's religious or maybe they just think a story about a boy wizard is crap. They don't need justification.

Private establishments have that right, however public libraries are not private institutions, neither are schools. They are publicly funded and so should not be banning any books. People who do not wish to read certain books are also free to not read them, just like TV, you are free to choose what to watch. I have never chosen to read books I consider garbage, you have that freedom as well. However if an adult wishes to read garbage that is also his choice. It is not up to a public library to ban a book.

Marc™ wrote:

No....and it has the opposite effect. When you ban things, public demand for it just increases and soon it's everywhere thanks to black market sellers.

It's like when Tipper Gore started having that stupid parental advisory sticker put on albums that she thought were filthy, that's a green arrow telling you what to buy, if she hates it then it must be good.

For me it all depends on how. I disagree with state or federal bans of things like books and music that make it illegal for it to be sold anywhere, but I think individual businesses have the right to reject certain titles for any reason they see fit.

CatEyes10736 wrote:

For me it all depends on how. I disagree with state or federal bans of things like books and music that make it illegal for it to be sold anywhere, but I think individual businesses have the right to reject certain titles for any reason they see fit.

good point. My mind was only thinking of government bans.

Kind of like this family that gives fanatic whackjob nuts a bad name.

Depends on what it is.

Guess it all depends on what it is, but I am usually against the bans of things like that. The people who don't want it should just not buy it.

Personally, I don't want porn in libraries. Call me a prude if you like ~ don't care. That's what porn shops are for.

Bluesmama wrote:

Personally, I don't want porn in libraries. Call me a prude if you like ~ don't care. That's what porn shops are for.

^This one I do agree with.

I think we should have MORE bannings! When people hear that something is banned and there is controversy, the first thing they do is go out and buy it!

People NEED to read... so tell them that they can't/won't be able to ... and they will want it! lol

wants2laugh wrote:

I think we should have MORE bannings! When people hear that something is banned and there is controversy, the first thing they do is go out and buy it!

People NEED to read... so tell them that they can't/won't be able to ... and they will want it! lol

Wile E. Coyote: Super Genius!

Shale wrote:

Great Idea. Now, what is porn?

Lady Chatterly's Lover?
Fanny Hill?
Calvin Klein Ads?
Pictures of Classical Greek Sculpture?
Romeo & Juliet?
The Holy Bible?

"I can't tell you what porn is but I know it when I see it"

Except nobody's looking for these when they frequent porn shops. There is a big difference in Venus De Milo or Michelangelo's David, and the centerfold of the month in Playboy, never mind that they're all nude.

Bluesmama wrote:

Personally, I don't want porn in libraries. Call me a prude if you like ~ don't care. That's what porn shops are for.

I have no interest in porn, however who decides what is porn and what isn't? I tried to read Myra Breckinridge when it came out and everyone was reading it, to me it was garbage, it had no plot and was just filth from start to the point when I told myself It was boring and I didn't have to finish it. to me it was porn, to others it was a great book. The one thing I did earn from the book was I don't have to finish books just because I started them if they bore me.

Suzi wrote:

I have no interest in porn, however who decides what is porn and what isn't? I tried to read Myra Breckinridge when it came out and everyone was reading it, to me it was garbage, it had no plot and was just filth from start to the point when I told myself It was boring and I didn't have to finish it. to me it was porn, to others it was a great book. The one thing I did earn from the book was I don't have to finish books just because I started them if they bore me.

That's the thing & the point I believe Shale was making. There are people who think True Blood is porn which I find hilarious. For me to be actually called porn you gotta go a little closer to Bolt (if you're not into porn, don't google that lol) The definition is different for different people.