Banned Book Week starts Saturday

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

On the contrary, there are all sorts of laws restricting what it is and is not permissible to say or to print. You are not permitted to publish information which would compromise national security. You are not permitted to stand in a public place and yell "I'm going to kill the President!". You are not permitted to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre merely because you feel like doing so. All these acts will have undesirable consequences for you. No society permits completely unrestricted free speach, and for good reason.

What Thomas Jefferson said about the Union in his First Inaugural Address could just as well be applied to the subject of book banning:

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

That being said, I believe you have a point. Information which would compromise national security, such as troop movements during times of war, should not be made public.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, you're mistaken. Holocaust denial is indeed a crime in many European countries, but not in the UK.

Apologies for my mistake.

[WT Sharpe]

Our old Dick and Jane readers from elementary school would never pass muster with the schoolbook censors today. If anyone still has their old books, try reading them out loud to someone you love. Suggestive? I don't suppose they were meant to be 50 years ago, but language is always in flux, and the meanings of words continually change. As a result, now they're just out-and-out funny! I tried reading some Dick and Jane stories to my wife, and couldn't finish because we both kept cracking up.

From Find Dick:

"Jane said, "... I can not find Dick. Help me find Dick."

...Sally said, "Oh, oh. I see Dick now...."

You try reading that with a straight face!

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

That being said, I believe you have a point. Information which would compromise national security, such as troop movements during times of war, should not be made public.

There is a world of difference between the delaying of the release of time-sensitive information, and the attempt to suppress such information indefinitely. Among other reasons, the latter is impossible. Any idea which has been thought of can be thought of again. (I recall a few years back reading the published journal of a graduate student who worked out, from public documents, how to construct a fission bomb.) I firmly believe that all "classified" documents should have a mandatory declassification date, probably of 20 years or less.

I don't think any books should be banned. I strongly believe there are no ideas more dangerous than the suppression of ideas itself. That would include Mein Kampf in Germany. The applicable aphorism here is "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not comparable. That is, again, a matter of timing and delivery, rather than a matter of information. If a person were to notice a fire in a crowded theatre and were to leave surreptitiously, rather than informing others of the emergency, I believe that would be a criminal act of equal or greater malignity than yelling "fire" when there is no actual threat.

Neither is the illegality of libel or slander comparable to the banning of information. I've been sued (unreasonably and unsuccessfully) for libel. The plaintiff was unable to show any damage (or any other impact) of the statements I made, which I believed to be true at the time that I made them. That was sufficient to convince the jury that I didn't owe the plaintiff anything. As my attorney explained to me, "the proper defense against a lie is the truth." One cannot fight pernicious lies by forcing them underground. In the case where one person does publicly make an untrue statement about another that causes damage, it is that damage that dictates how the case is handled. The statements themselves are not repressed.

This does not mean that I think every written text needs to be published-- that's a matter for people who fund the publication of books to decide. In a free market, the success or failure of books in the marketplace determines their worth, and books that an experienced publisher believes are likely to fail have no inherent "right" to be published. But if an author who believes in their work wants to self-publish, no law should prevent them.

[daxbr]

"Two Hundred Years Together" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together

Bestseller in Russia. A major US publisher bought the rights so it can never be published in the USA.

[kennyc]

Well said Neko!

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by nekokami

There is a world of difference between the delaying of the release of time-sensitive information, and the attempt to suppress such information indefinitely. Among other reasons, the latter is impossible. Any idea which has been thought of can be thought of again. (I recall a few years back reading the published journal of a graduate student who worked out, from public documents, how to construct a fission bomb.) I firmly believe that all "classified" documents should have a mandatory declassification date, probably of 20 years or less.

That sounds reasonable. I agree that no book should be banned for ideas (no matter how distasteful), and classified information should have a shelf life - unless an extremely compelling reason can offered otherwise.

Detailed plans on how to make a nuclear bomb in your basement would be a good example of what I consider an extremely compelling reason to withhold publication.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know what the situation is in the US, Derek, but publishing leaflets which use selective quoting from the Bible or the Koran for the promotion of hate crimes is most certainly illegal in the UK. As I said, I am aware of no country which permits completely unrestricted free speech.

Bridgette Bardot is muzzled because as an animal rights activist she disagrees with the Muslim religious practice of slaughtering animals. She also feels that Muslim culture is changing French culture and not for the better. Voicing these objections is considered hate speech and Bardot is slapped with huge monetary fines.

Maclean's magazine is brought before government courts because they printed an excerpt from the book America Alone that in part examined the rise of Muslim culture, with high birth rates, compared to traditional western culture, with low birth rates. They were forced to spend huge amounts of money in legal fees to defend themselves against charges of hate speech.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, et al. are constantly accused of hate speech. Michael Reagan [Edit: this should say Michael Savage] is even banned from going to Great Britain because of his political views with hate speech used as justification.

It doesn't take John Milton to realize that laws aimed at silencing hate speech are really about shutting up people with whom you disagree.

______________________________________
If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. -- Noam Chomsky

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

That sounds reasonable. I agree that no book should be banned for ideas (no matter how distasteful), and classified information should have a shelf life - unless an extremely compelling reason can offered otherwise.

Detailed plans on how to make a nuclear bomb in your basement would be a good example of what I consider an extremely compelling reason to withhold publication.

Well, considering that only those who know the classified information in the first place, also control that information, they can always come up with a reason. Who is there to argue against them? We sure can't because we are uninformed.

As far as the latter, well, that sort of thing can be found out and made as is. It is just that the materials are difficult/next to impossible to get.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Daithi

...

It doesn't take John Milton to realize that laws aimed at silencing hate speech are really about shutting up people with whom you disagree.

......

Worth repeating a few times.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, et al. are constantly accused of hate speech. Michael Reagan is even banned from going to Great Britain because of his political views with hate speech used as justification.

The person banned from entering the UK was a "Michael Savage". Is that the same person?

The list of the 16 people banned from entry into the UK for "fostering extremism or hatred", and the reasons for it, you'll find here.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The person banned from entering the UK was a "Michael Savage". Is that the same person?

The list of the 16 people banned from entry into the UK for "fostering extremism or hatred", and the reasons for it, you'll find here.

Interesting list.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The person banned from entering the UK was a "Michael Savage". Is that the same person?

The list of the 16 people banned from entry into the UK for "fostering extremism or hatred", and the reasons for it, you'll find here.

Yeah, right. Those 16 people are all thugs and terrorists - EXCEPT FOR Michael Savage. And having seen the online posting of the docs uncovered during discovery by Savages lawyers, I'd have to say that he has an excellent case for getting his inclusion overturned. Just goes to show that even UK gub'mint types are prone to stupidity.

Derek

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The person banned from entering the UK was a "Michael Savage". Is that the same person?

The list of the 16 people banned from entry into the UK for "fostering extremism or hatred", and the reasons for it, you'll find here.

Yeah, not same person. Both are Michaels, both are radio hosts, both are conservatives, but that ends the similarities.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

As far as the latter, well, that sort of thing can be found out and made as is. It is just that the materials are difficult/next to impossible to get.

Perhaps you've never heard of "The Radioactive Boy Scout." The article was published in Harper's Magazine in November 1998. It's about a Boy Scout who decided to build a nuclear reactor in his mother's potting shed in order to earn a Merit Badge. The story of how he obtained the necessary materials makes for fascinating reading. The Superfund cleanup after his work was discovered cost the taxpayers around $60,000. You can find the article at http://www.harpers.org/archive/1998/11/0059750.