Quote:
Originally Posted by mj72
I am currently reading Richard Evans "Coming of the Third Reich" and was just thinking about Mein Kampf. Here in Canada Heather Reiseman (Chapters Indigo) had refused to sell it at one point. I found myself being outraged at the "censorship" but then again, being Jewish herself I see her point of view. So then I am tossing around all these thoughts like "no one who would read the book would become an anti-semite" and "The importance of using it as a historical reference for the beginnings of Nazi Germany".
But I wonder how societies place the label "hate literature" on something? Is it because the book is so old and out of touch with the contemporary world that it's now more acceptable?
The more I think about this, the more I don't know how to reconcile censorship with publishing something as offensive as Mein Kampf.
Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
mj
|
I believe that censorship is wrong, but a single individual refusing to sell or participate in marketing hate speech is not censorship. NO ONE should be forced to participate in something they consider immoral. Yes, this includes things like abortion, taxes, war, whatever, not just hate speech.
In my ideal society, if the society on a whole felt something was good that an individual felt was immoral. Then provisions would be made for negotiation between society and the individual to find an acceptable alternative to create an equivalent good.
No need to post to tell me how impractical this is. I know that. Society in general prefers to strong arm dissent into submission. Maybe we are all closer in spirit to the Third Reich than we would like to admit.