Quote:
Originally Posted by WT Sharpe
In honor of Banned Books Week -- and with apologies to Jimmy Kimmel, who in his "This Week in Unnecessary Censorship" segment offers his weekly Tribute to the FCC, in which he bleeps words and blurs images whether they need it or not -- I'd like to present you all with "This Week in Unnecessary Book Censorship."
The Babysitter's C*** by Ann Martin
Plum S****y by Janet Evanovich
The Tale of P**** Rabbit by Beatrix Potter
Valley of the D***s by Jacqueline Susann
The Lovely B**** by Alice Sebold
F*** Street by R. L. Stine
L*ving D*** in Dallas by Charlaine Harris
D*** Slayer by Christine Feehan
Crazy **** by Francis Chan
Catching **** by Suzanne Collins
|
OK, I've kept reading this thread because I've been interested in the various opinions on whether books should be banned, but thank you for injecting a wonderful moment of levity into the conversation!
IMO, while one can certainly make arguments for the banning of books, *any* instance of banning books that attempt to further the spread of *ideas* is *extremely* problematic, and leads to a very slippery slope: who gets to choose which ideas are banned?
I can see the point in banning certain instruction manuals (e.g. bomb-making), although as several have pointed out, the internet makes this a moot point.
Banning something like Mein Kampf, though, as reprehensible as one might find it, starts getting tricky. If a legislature or community absolutely hates an idea or book, I'd be fine with requiring that it be paired with rebuttal material so long as it is at no additional cost to the consumer. At least something like that fosters debate and at the very least makes an alternative viewpoint at least available to one who would purchase the original work. But outright banning of a book does neither individuals nor society any good. Ask the temperence movement how banning alchohol went.
ScS