Banned Book Week starts Saturday

[kennyc]

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.

Harry you are confusing Laws and Consequences of actions.

There is NO LAW preventing you from yelling Fire or saing I'm going to Kill the president. If you do it you may be arrested for other reasons, but but not because you said it. It is NOT illegal to Say it.

You cannot be arrested for yelling Fire. You can be arrested for causing a disturbance and for manslaughter when people are trampled due to your actions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Harry you are confusing Laws and Consequences of actions.

There is NO LAW preventing you from yelling Fire or saing I'm going to Kill the president. If you do it you may be arrested for other reasons, but but not because you said it. It is NOT illegal to Say it.

You cannot be arrested for yelling Fire. You can be arrested for causing a disturbance and for manslaughter when people are trampled due to your actions.

Sorry, Kenny, but that sounds like sophistry to me. Yes, if you said "I am going to kill the President" you would probably be arrested on a charge of "threatening behaviour", or something like that, but it is the speech which is the threat.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

One of the stupider sets of laws - banning the shouting of "Fire" in a crowded theater... Sure, it's dangerous, but that has been the 'justification' used for so many other bad laws against free speech.

Derek

If there is such a law. (I am not aware of it -- see my previous post) it should be repealed.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, Kenny, but that sounds like sophistry to me. Yes, if you said "I am going to kill the President" you would probably be arrested on a charge of "threatening behaviour", or something like that, but it is the speech which is the threat.

Harry that is a different thing than being arrested for saying it. There is no law against saying it. There may be a law about threatening people. Very different things. The law is very detailed and exacting.

[delphidb96]

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.

And I'm saddened to hear that the British government has fallen into such a state.

Derek

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Harry that is a different thing than being arrested for saying it. There is no law against saying it. There may be a law about threatening people. Very different things. The law is very detailed and exacting.

Yes, and there is a "very detailed and exacting" law which makes it a specific crime to threaten the President. 18 USC Sec 871:

"...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

It really is a crime merely to say this (in writing), regardless of whether or not you have any intention of actually doing it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, and there is a "very detailed and exacting" law which makes it a specific crime to threaten the President. 18 USC Sec 871:



It really is a crime merely to say this (in writing), regardless of whether or not you have any intention of actually doing it.

That is not a law against saying it. It is a law against writing and posting a threat to the president.

Very exacting and detailed. Otherwise you would have already been arrested.

In fact the NSA is probably monitoring this posting right now.

[HarryT]

If that's what you believe, Kenny, then I invite you to walk into your local FBI office and exercise your freedom of speech to say this .

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If that's what you believe, Kenny, then I invite you to walk into your local FBI office and exercise your freedom of speech to say this .

Once more we are back to the original question of knowledge vs action upon that knowledge.

Let's just leave it at that.

I'm against any attempts at banning freedom of speech (publication) regardless. That way lies madness.

I will quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[luqmaninbmore]

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.

You are aware of the pedigree of the "Fire in a crowded theory," aren't you? It was originated by US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to justify a ban on the distribution of pacifist materials during WWI. Hardly an example to quote. And saying out loud that you intend to commit a certain illegal action (such as an assassination) and speaking in a general manner that certain actions should be legal ("we should kill all lawyers!") are two entirely different types of verbal act and are treated as such in the law, at least in the US. I think banning books has the inevitable effect of supporting the status quo and strengthening those social groups which already hold power at the expense of those who are politically and socially disadvantaged. It is not a surprise that in your own country, it is illegal to publish a book denying the Holocaust while books which deny the very existence of the Palestinian people (such as "From Time Immemorial") are easily available. As a Muslim I belong to one of the most maligned groups in recent history. It does hurt me emotionally when I see people depict sacred personages and symbols of my religion in a derogatory manner (much as it must hurt Jews to see anti-semitic cartoons and depictions, which are, of course, outlawed in the UK). I realize, however, that the best chance for me to defend my religion is with the truth. Laws which ban books and restrict the free interchange of ideas are inevitably going to obscure the truth because, as history has shown repeatedly, governments and the officials which run them are poor arbiters of truth (look at festival of unadulterated mendacity that was the run up to the invasion of Iraq for an example).

Luqman

[93terp]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I'll be re-reading Lady Chatterly's Lover. Great book.

I've never read the book (although now that I know it was on the banned book list I'll be downloading it immediately!), but I did see the French movie version a few months ago on the Independent Film Channel & I thoroughly enjoyed it. I imagine the book is better than the movie!

[kennyc]

I've added "The Kite Runner" to my short list.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

You are aware of the pedigree of the "Fire in a crowded theory," aren't you? It was originated by US Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to justify a ban on the distribution of pacifist materials during WWI. Hardly an example to quote. And saying out loud that you intend to commit a certain illegal action (such as an assassination) and speaking in a general manner that certain actions should be legal ("we should kill all lawyers!") are two entirely different types of verbal act and are treated as such in the law, at least in the US. I think banning books has the inevitable effect of supporting the status quo and strengthening those social groups which already hold power at the expense of those who are politically and socially disadvantaged. It is not a surprise that in your own country, it is illegal to publish a book denying the Holocaust while books which deny the very existence of the Palestinian people (such as "From Time Immemorial") are easily available. As a Muslim I belong to one of the most maligned groups in recent history. It does hurt me emotionally when I see people depict sacred personages and symbols of my religion in a derogatory manner (much as it must hurt Jews to see anti-semitic cartoons and depictions, which are, of course, outlawed in the UK). I realize, however, that the best chance for me to defend my religion is with the truth. Laws which ban books and restrict the free interchange of ideas are inevitably going to obscure the truth because, as history has shown repeatedly, governments and the officials which run them are poor arbiters of truth (look at festival of unadulterated mendacity that was the run up to the invasion of Iraq for an example).

Luqman

Well... governments are never the best sources for "the truth". Of course it is wrong to denigrate another's beliefs, which is why, despite having read the Koran, I don't hold to this nonsense that Islam is "inherently evil".

Yes, there is much in the Koran which can be used to deny the humanity of non-Muslims - but the very same is true for the Bible. Where the problem lies is in those who choose to inflame and incite to violence.

Still, to deny the right to print, to free speech - in any area - is to fall into some form of totalitarian state. And that is why no book should be banned or restricted.

Derek

[evenstr]

Awhile back I was searching for something, I don't even remember what, and I ran across this on Yahoo Answers: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...5151758AA7dWwd. I figured this was an excellent time to bring it up, with Banned Books Week coming up and all. The situation described both saddens me and gives me hope. Let me know your thoughts.

[fugazied]

The religious right would love to be able to ban books again. It looks like a good reading list to me!

Offtopic: Did you guys know that after 911 one of the major radio networks (with 1000+ affiliate stations) in the US had a 'do not play' list for songs. One of the those songs was 'Imagine' by John Lennon. The powers that be determined that lyrics like the ones below didn't suit the US in the aftermath as the war machine began lubricating it's gears...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace