Hate literature vs educational value?

[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these thoughts like "no one who would read the book would become an anti-semite" and "The importance of using it as a historical reference for the beginnings of Nazi Germany".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

[GlenBarrington]

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these thoughts like "no one who would read the book would become an anti-semite" and "The importance of using it as a historical reference for the beginnings of Nazi Germany".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.

[mj72]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

I believe that censorship is wrong, but a single individual refusing to sell or participate in marketing hate speech is not censorship.

I should further clarify that Ms. Reisman's choice not to sell the book was (is?) arguably a de-facto censorship since her corporation "Chapters Indigo" has bought up more or less all the major competitors in this country and has something of a monopoly going on. Amazon has been starting to take a kink out of their market share, but it's a slow process.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by mj72

I should further clarify that Ms. Reisman's choice not to sell the book was (is?) arguably a de-facto censorship since her corporation "Chapters Indigo" has bought up more or less all the major competitors in this country and has something of a monopoly going on. Amazon has been starting to take a kink out of their market share, but it's a slow process.

Doesn't matter in my mind, as long as people are free to set up alternate methods of distribution, there is no censorship. Ms Reisman has the right to speak for her company and has no moral obligation to help distribute speech she finds immoral. You have a right to the freedom of speech, you don't have the right to force people to help you distribute your speech against their will.

I know the US Bill of Rights has no authority in Canada. But it is the document many people worldwide recognize as a relatively comprehensive catalog of basic human rights. And the BOR doesn't claim that the freedom of speech must be easy, merely available.

[mj72]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

Doesn't matter in my mind, as long as people are free to set up alternate methods of distribution, there is no censorship. Ms Reisman has the right to speak for her company and has no moral obligation to help distribute speech she finds immoral. You have a right to the freedom of speech, you don't have the right to force people to help you distribute your speech against their will.

Great arguments, I agree with them. I think the interesting thing is how to find that moral balance between what is offensive to some, but historically important to others, I wonder how this is being dealt with in the US with Mein Kampf for example?

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by mj72

Great arguments, I agree with them. I think the interesting thing is how to find that moral balance between what is offensive to some, but historically important to others, I wonder how this is being dealt with in the US with Mein Kampf for example?

To my knowledge, this isn't much of an issue at all. Those who want to publish 'Mein Kampf' are not only free to do so, they appear to be doing so. It's available on Amazon.com and in some bookstores.

Those who don't want to be involoved or associated with it, avoid connections with it.

Our legal infrastructure pretty much protects the rights of citizens when it comes to the specific rights listed by the Bill of Rights. (hence the continuing failure of gun control legislation).

Where we get into controversy are in the gray areas where people try to extend or deny protection based on how people want to parse the meaning of the words of the bill itself or of the wording of legal precidents set by various court rulings. It doesn't matter how innocuous the proposal, anything that gives even a glancing blow to how the bill of rights affects citizens will be challenged. I guess, on the whole, I'm OK with that.

[bevdeforges]

I'll admit to having real mixed feelings on this. On the whole, I'm a big believer in the "free marketplace of ideas" ala John Stuart Mill, but lately I've been rather dismayed with how some of my compatriots back in "The Old Country" seem to latch onto half-baked ideas, more or less simply because they have seen them in print somewhere "so they must be true."

Back at university, I took a fascinating class (I was a German major) where we read Hitler's speeches and took them apart to see what he actually said and try and figure out how and why it appealed to so many at the time. Oddly enough, we were reading them in the original, published in Germany by a rather prestigious German publisher. Said publisher is probably still not able to publish Mein Kampf, which is really only more of the same. All that strikes me as extremely bizarre, though I can appreciate the sensitivity of the issue in Germany, especially after having lived there for a few years.

Unfortunately I think that banning "hate speech" only drives it underground and makes it all the more attractive for those gullible individuals who have never learned how to read critically.

[delphidb96]

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 think the sales and reading of "Mein Kampf" fall under the saying, "Those who've read Marx and Lenin are socialists, but those who *understand* the works of Marx and Lenin are capitalists'". The same could be said for any fascist work.

Derek

[Worldwalker]

The answer to words is not to hide them; it is to refute them.

Also, freedom to sell what you want includes freedom not to sell what you don't want. If I opened a bookstore, for instance, I'd specialize in things that aren't romances. Nobody should be able to force my SF/fantasy/mystery bookstore to sell romances, any more than they could force a historical bookstore to carry some book abhorrent to the store's owner.

And if you really want to read Mein Kampf, it's on the Internet Archive. As much as I know I should read it, I've never been able to plow through the thing. Yeah, it really is that bad. It would be laughed out of "Author Self-Promotion" in MR, and that's saying something.

[kindlekitten]

good topic! should it be in the lounge perhaps?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by mj72

Great arguments, I agree with them. I think the interesting thing is how to find that moral balance between what is offensive to some, but historically important to others, I wonder how this is being dealt with in the US with Mein Kampf for example?

Well, I just did a quick search in my local library.....its available, 3 copies to be exact.

It SHOULD be and is available. But no one should be forced to publish it if they choose not to.

"Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Well, I just did a quick search in my local library.....its available, 3 copies to be exact.

It SHOULD be and is available. But no one should be forced to publish it if they choose not to.

"Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

it is however, still illegal in Germany. we had a German exchange student that bought several copies for teachers. I thought it is rather silly to keep it away from academics!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by bevdeforges

I'll admit to having real mixed feelings on this. On the whole, I'm a big believer in the "free marketplace of ideas" ala John Stuart Mill, but lately I've been rather dismayed with how some of my compatriots back in "The Old Country" seem to latch onto half-baked ideas, more or less simply because they have seen them in print somewhere "so they must be true."

Back at university, I took a fascinating class (I was a German major) where we read Hitler's speeches and took them apart to see what he actually said and try and figure out how and why it appealed to so many at the time. Oddly enough, we were reading them in the original, published in Germany by a rather prestigious German publisher. Said publisher is probably still not able to publish Mein Kampf, which is really only more of the same. All that strikes me as extremely bizarre, though I can appreciate the sensitivity of the issue in Germany, especially after having lived there for a few years.

Unfortunately I think that banning "hate speech" only drives it underground and makes it all the more attractive for those gullible individuals who have never learned how to read critically.

I know I'm going to ruffles some feathers for saying this, but....

I once watch a Third Reich documentary (I think on The History Channel) and it included a couple of minutes of a Hitler speech. I speak very little German, and could not follow a word that was said - but - I listened to the sonic phrasing and cadences of the spearker. Darned if it wasn't the same patterns (in a different language, of course) of a classic Southern Baptist Hellfire and Brimstone sermon. I've never heard anybody ever mention that...

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I know I'm going to ruffles some feathers for saying this, but....

I once watch a Third Reich documentary (I think on The History Channel) and it included a couple of minutes of a Hitler speech. I speak very little German, and could not follow a word that was said - but - I listened to the sonic phrasing and cadences of the spearker. Darned if it wasn't the same patterns (in a different language, of course) of a classic Southern Baptist Hellfire and Brimstone sermon. I've never heard anybody ever mention that...

megalomaniacs are megalomaniacs in any language.........

I've never noticed it, but I'm not surprised........its all a power trip, isn't it?

[Salgueiros]

I think those works should not be hidden from the public. Most of the time, it is the ignorance about its contents that continues to keep these works appealing. They should be refuted, not censored.

As for Borders not selling it... I am glad that some companies show some principles. I may not agree with them, but aren't we always complaining that big businesses do not care about anything as long as it brings them money? In this case, they acted according to their set of principles, which i may disagree (actually i do disagree) but recognize they showed some.