Missouri public school bans Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five'.

[Xanthe]

Glad I went to high school when I did and where I did, because that's where I read "Slaughterhouse Five". Wound up reading a lot of Vonnegut on my own because of that.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by frquixote

Sorry, but the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

I don't see anything that says Congress was involved in this decision. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of local communities to establish and maintain community standards.

I really do wish people would READ the Bill of Rights.

I really with people would UNDERSTAND the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. If it didn't, states would be able to do things like prohibit people from going to church.

The only relevance that "community standards" have to the first amendment is as part of the legal definition of *obscenity*. A work is obscene if, and only if, three conditions are met: (1) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value; (2) whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and (3) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

This has no application to "Slaughterhouse Five." In fact, the whole *purpose* of the free speech clause is to *protect* speech from community standards. You need constitutional rights when the community tries to prevent you from reading or watching something. If the community all thinks that "Lassie" is a great book, you don't need the First Amendment to be able to read it. It's only when the community doesn't like the book that you need the First Amendment.

[frquixote]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This has no application to "Slaughterhouse Five." In fact, the whole *purpose* of the free speech clause is to *protect* speech from community standards. You need constitutional rights when the community tries to prevent you from reading or watching something. If the community all thinks that "Lassie" is a great book, you don't need the First Amendment to be able to read it. It's only when the community doesn't like the book that you need the First Amendment.

Community Standards absolutely apply to "Slaughterhouse Five" because of the book's explicit sexual scenes, the depiction of deviant sexual behaviors, violence, and obscene language. BTW, this is far from the first time that "Slaughterhouse Five" has been removed from schools. Google the phrase: Slaughterhouse Five banned.

There is nothing that prevents you from reading "Slaughterhouse Five," but you really have no right to tell others they must allow it in their schools when community standards classify it as pornographic. So says the Supreme Court.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by frquixote

There is nothing that prevents you from reading "Slaughterhouse Five," but you really have no right to tell others they must allow it in their schools when community standards classify it as pornographic. So says the Supreme Court.

I have no problem with them removing it from the classroom, but I have a major problem with them removing it from school library shelves.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I really with people would UNDERSTAND the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. If it didn't, states would be able to do things like prohibit people from going to church.

Totally agree. People always seem to forget about the 14th.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by queentess

You've convinced me with your winning attitude and acceptance of others.

I try to accentuate the positive.

[DiapDealer]

Community Standards absolutely apply to "Slaughterhouse Five" because of the book's explicit sexual scenes, the depiction of deviant sexual behaviors, violence, and obscene language.

I must have read a different Slaughterhouse Five.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Linky


I can only imagine some of the drivel they've chosen to keep.

Slaughterhouse Five was assigned reading when I was in school. How times change. The frequently banned Cather in the rye was also assigned reading.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I must have read a different Slaughterhouse five.

Adultery counts as deviant now?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I must have read a different Slaughterhouse Five.

Maybe he was thinking of SLUTerhouse Five.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Maybe he was thinking of SLUTerhouse Five.

That must be it.

But seriously, I'm having a heck of a time imagining how anyone could construe anything contained within its pages as deviant and/or explicit sex. And I'm erring on the side of PC-ness.

My only guess would be the sex that takes place between Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack while on display in the Tralfamadoran "zoo." But there's no description of any kind concerning that particular carnal act(s)—other than the fact that you are made aware that sex was had while aliens were watching.

As far as violence goes... well a big part of the overall point of the book is to expose the atrocities of war, so... yeah.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My only guess would be the sex that takes place between Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack while on display in the Tralfamadoran "zoo." But there's no description of any kind concerning that particular carnal act(s)—other than the fact that you are made aware that sex was had while aliens were watching.

I know, it's just odd. That section could be summed up with. "they had sex." About as pornographic as a sitcom showing a bedroom that has one big bed instead of side by side twin beds for a couple. If that's deviant then my idea of a really fun weekend would make heads asplode.

[Daithi]

I don't think it was the sex that got it banned. I think the "R-Rated" language was the primary reason the school board banned it. Although, now a days the language in movies is worse, and teenagers routinely say worse things themselves. Nevertheless, I can understand not wanting to include Slaughterhouse Five as one of the books assigned as required reading in high school. Nevertheless, banning it from school libraries is still clearly wrong.

[mldavis2]

None of you seem to be from Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma in the heart of the Bible belt. No argument to any of these comments ... just sayin'.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by frquixote

Community Standards absolutely apply to "Slaughterhouse Five" because of the book's explicit sexual scenes, the depiction of deviant sexual behaviors, violence, and obscene language. BTW, this is far from the first time that "Slaughterhouse Five" has been removed from schools. Google the phrase: Slaughterhouse Five banned.


There is nothing that prevents you from reading "Slaughterhouse Five," but you really have no right to tell others they must allow it in their schools when community standards classify it as pornographic. So says the Supreme Court.

You have *absolutely* no idea what you are talking about. Zero.

First of all, you can't ban a book because it is pornographic. Pornography is protected by the First Amendment. It is "obscenity" (think "Debbie Does Dallas") that is not protected. Playboy, Penthouse, etc. are protected by the First Amendment.

Second, the book must describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way, and a way that is defined by state statute. The book has to be primarily designed to appeal to the prurient interest, not have the occasional sex scene. This is hard core pornography, not the occasional R-rated sex in S5. Again, think "Debbie Does Dallas."


Third, there has to be a finding that the book lacks literary, scientific, etc. merit. This is a ludicrous claim for S5, which is the subject of thousands (literally) of lit courses.

So, basically, if you have an example of "hard core" pornography, it can be banned based on community standards. But you don't get to go directly to "community standards" without passing go. (Also, you have to have a jury or judge to make the community standards determination).

Of course, the First Amendment isn't directly implicated in a school's decision what to carry in its library or teach in its classes; for First Amendment purposes, this book has not been "banned." Banning, for first Am purposes, requires some sort of govermental action to seize the works in question, or arrest the people who produced the work.