A number of democratic countries, including Austria, France, Germany, and Canada, have criminalized various forms of "hate speech", including books judged to disparage minority groups. Should hate literature be banned? How would you define hate literature?
Case in point: In the 1980s, Ernst Zündel was convicted twice under Canada's "false news" laws for publishing Did Six Million Really Die?, a 1974 book denying the Holocaust. On appeal, the Canadian Supreme Court found the "false news" law unconstitutional in 1992, but Zündel is now being prosecuted under Canada's "Human Rights Act" for publishing this book and other material on his Zundelsite. Even so, Deborah Lipstadt and some other prominent critics of Holocaust deniers have gone on record as opposing laws that would censor such speech. (On the other hand, Zündel is quite happy to call for bans for works he doesn't like, though, as seen in this leaflet calling for a ban of Schindler's List. And denier David Irving's attempt to stop publication of Lipstadt's book on Holocaust denial, as seen in the complaint reproduced on Irving's web site, failed when a UK court ruled that Lipstadt's statements about Irving were, in fact, justified.)
See alsobanned book article.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Do you believe that there are people who need to be protected? E.g.,
Do children or people with disabilities need others to say what is
best for them?
Are there people who cannot be trusted with ideas. E.g., should
information on how to build a bomb be readily available to someone who
might want to express themselves violently?
Elaine
"To me, censorship can be defined in two ways: paternalism and mistrust."
"Paternalism because those calling for the censoring of books or
television shows or movies think they know what's best for us."
Do children or people with disabilities need others to say what is
best for them?
Are there people who cannot be trusted with ideas. E.g., should
information on how to build a bomb be readily available to someone who
might want to express themselves violently?
Elaine
"To me, censorship can be defined in two ways: paternalism and mistrust."
"Paternalism because those calling for the censoring of books or
television shows or movies think they know what's best for us."
Do warnings protect?
Do warnings protect sensitive people or are they are marketing tool
to attract people to movies, CDs, and other materials?
Elaine
"In some instances, censorship is declared as an act to protect the
innocent, naive, and easily offended. In this case, warnings or
disclaimers may be used to prevent subjection of sensitive or
specified group material to those not wanting to be exposed to such.
There are ways around censorship and I believe that they are an
adequate replacement for the protection which censorship claims to be
a function. In simple terms, I believe that censorship is unnecessary
and people need to be more open-minded about the interests of others
and if they do not wish to be subjected to them, to adhere to warnings
and disclaimers placed on these products."
to attract people to movies, CDs, and other materials?
Elaine
"In some instances, censorship is declared as an act to protect the
innocent, naive, and easily offended. In this case, warnings or
disclaimers may be used to prevent subjection of sensitive or
specified group material to those not wanting to be exposed to such.
There are ways around censorship and I believe that they are an
adequate replacement for the protection which censorship claims to be
a function. In simple terms, I believe that censorship is unnecessary
and people need to be more open-minded about the interests of others
and if they do not wish to be subjected to them, to adhere to warnings
and disclaimers placed on these products."
Good morning everyone
Good morning everyone,
Timing is everything. On Friday morning, I came across this quote:
"A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to."
(Granville Hicks)
(as far as I can tell, Hicks was an American who was a member of the
Communist Party during the early- to mid-20th century, which probably
put him in a good position to know about censorship.)
To me, censorship can be defined in two ways: paternalism and mistrust.
Paternalism because those calling for the censoring of books or
television shows or movies think they know what's best for us. A
censor hears there may be material that contradicts their values and
world view, and decides that it should be rejected and suppressed.
They are afraid that once these contradictory views are broadcast,
their values will weaken and they will be increasingly marginalized.
The only way they can prevent this from happening is to attack first.
Their values are far more important than diverse viewpoints and the
acceptance of multiple realities (i.e. not everyone shares their
values, or shares their values but disagrees with the methods). They
know what is best for society, and it is the bland acceptance of one
philosophy without room for discussion or disagreement.
Censorship is also about mistrust because the censor is saying, "I
don't trust you to continue to follow our beliefs once you have been
exposed to ideas that may contradict them." For instance, what
happens when you read _The Perks of Being a Wallflower_ by Stephen
Chbosky, or _Weezie Bat_ by Francesca Lia Block (both excellent books,
by the way)? Will you still share the censor's belief that
homosexuality is wrong and that teenagers don't (and shouldn't) have
premarital sex? That drug use is wrong, and you shouldn't talk about
abuse? Censors don't trust that you are mature enough to handle these
themes or understand that these things happen in real life, and to
teenagers like yourselves. They don't trust the questions that will
come from reading material they disagree with.
And remember this - calls for censorship usually result in the item in
question being sought out in greater numbers. When you draw attention
to objectionable material, it piques the curiosity of the general
public, who then want to know what the fuss is about. So, maybe we
can also thank the censors for pointing out materials which expand our
ideas and stimulate discussion :)
For further reading on the subject of censorship, I recommend the blog
Censoround (http://www.libraryunderground.org/censoround/ ) (and not
just because they posted a link I sent them!).
Rebecca
Timing is everything. On Friday morning, I came across this quote:
"A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to."
(Granville Hicks)
(as far as I can tell, Hicks was an American who was a member of the
Communist Party during the early- to mid-20th century, which probably
put him in a good position to know about censorship.)
To me, censorship can be defined in two ways: paternalism and mistrust.
Paternalism because those calling for the censoring of books or
television shows or movies think they know what's best for us. A
censor hears there may be material that contradicts their values and
world view, and decides that it should be rejected and suppressed.
They are afraid that once these contradictory views are broadcast,
their values will weaken and they will be increasingly marginalized.
The only way they can prevent this from happening is to attack first.
Their values are far more important than diverse viewpoints and the
acceptance of multiple realities (i.e. not everyone shares their
values, or shares their values but disagrees with the methods). They
know what is best for society, and it is the bland acceptance of one
philosophy without room for discussion or disagreement.
Censorship is also about mistrust because the censor is saying, "I
don't trust you to continue to follow our beliefs once you have been
exposed to ideas that may contradict them." For instance, what
happens when you read _The Perks of Being a Wallflower_ by Stephen
Chbosky, or _Weezie Bat_ by Francesca Lia Block (both excellent books,
by the way)? Will you still share the censor's belief that
homosexuality is wrong and that teenagers don't (and shouldn't) have
premarital sex? That drug use is wrong, and you shouldn't talk about
abuse? Censors don't trust that you are mature enough to handle these
themes or understand that these things happen in real life, and to
teenagers like yourselves. They don't trust the questions that will
come from reading material they disagree with.
And remember this - calls for censorship usually result in the item in
question being sought out in greater numbers. When you draw attention
to objectionable material, it piques the curiosity of the general
public, who then want to know what the fuss is about. So, maybe we
can also thank the censors for pointing out materials which expand our
ideas and stimulate discussion :)
For further reading on the subject of censorship, I recommend the blog
Censoround (http://www.libraryunderground
just because they posted a link I sent them!).
Rebecca
Censorship is a form of constriction and suppression
To me, censorship is a form of constriction and suppression. When
people are censored, the intended impact of what they were trying to
convey is suppressed, minimalised, trivialised, or all together
deleted. There is a reason why we have the Right to Free Speech, and
it is because everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions.
I feel that censorship is a violation of this Right in that it reduces
our ability to freely express ourselves.
In some instances, censorship is declared as an act to protect the
innocent, naive, and easily offended. In this case, warnings or
disclaimers may be used to prevent subjection of sensitive or
specified group material to those not wanting to be exposed to such.
There are ways around censorship and I believe that they are an
adequate replacement for the protection which censorship claims to be
a function. In simple terms, I believe that censorship is unnecessary
and people need to be more open-minded about the interests of others
and if they do not wish to be subjected to them, to adhere to warnings
and disclaimers placed on these products.
Sarah
people are censored, the intended impact of what they were trying to
convey is suppressed, minimalised, trivialised, or all together
deleted. There is a reason why we have the Right to Free Speech, and
it is because everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions.
I feel that censorship is a violation of this Right in that it reduces
our ability to freely express ourselves.
In some instances, censorship is declared as an act to protect the
innocent, naive, and easily offended. In this case, warnings or
disclaimers may be used to prevent subjection of sensitive or
specified group material to those not wanting to be exposed to such.
There are ways around censorship and I believe that they are an
adequate replacement for the protection which censorship claims to be
a function. In simple terms, I believe that censorship is unnecessary
and people need to be more open-minded about the interests of others
and if they do not wish to be subjected to them, to adhere to warnings
and disclaimers placed on these products.
Sarah
Welcome
Hi Everyone:
Welcome to the Fahrenheit 451 discussion.
Since this is a discussion on censorship, I suppose the goal should be
not to censor any kinds of ideas or language. Hopefully, we can keep
the discussion to the topic for the week and it goes without saying
that respect for the ideas of other people is important.
If you think any of your friends might be interested in joining the
discussion, please have them email me at this address to sign them up. fahrenheit451moderator@gmail.com
High school students are encouraged to pick up a list of banned and
challenged books at the Pelham Library, read, then put in a response
card. The more cards you submit, the better your chances for the
prizes which include: Chapters gift certificates for $25, 15, and 10;
gift certificates from Fairview Bowling Lanes; and $25 from Wal-Mart.
The first topic is:
1. How would you define censorship?
Elaine
Fahrenheit451 Moderator
Welcome to the Fahrenheit 451 discussion.
Since this is a discussion on censorship, I suppose the goal should be
not to censor any kinds of ideas or language. Hopefully, we can keep
the discussion to the topic for the week and it goes without saying
that respect for the ideas of other people is important.
If you think any of your friends might be interested in joining the
discussion, please have them email me at this address to sign them up. fahrenheit451moderator@gmail.com
High school students are encouraged to pick up a list of banned and
challenged books at the Pelham Library, read, then put in a response
card. The more cards you submit, the better your chances for the
prizes which include: Chapters gift certificates for $25, 15, and 10;
gift certificates from Fairview Bowling Lanes; and $25 from Wal-Mart.
The first topic is:
1. How would you define censorship?
Elaine
Fahrenheit451 Moderator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)