Reasoning for banning books

[B5Alpha]

None of those books are banned in my part of the country. Just wanted to remind foreigners that the entire US isn't crazy.

Can't say the Supreme Court isn't doing anything good because they just overturned DOMA but they seriously need to outlaw book banning. A lot of books on that list make political statements, which in theory are protected under the first amendment. The rest make other valid points, which are also supposed to be protected, or are harmless. No right is more cherished than the right of a person to express their personal opinion. And no right is more despised than the right of another person to express their conflicting opinion.

 

[OneCatch]

... and why the holy fuck has anyone tried to ban A Wrinkle in Time?! I read that when I was about 7, it's an entirely innocuous sci-fi fantasy for kids. It's good, but it's utterly non-offensive.

Looking it up it's because of references to witches. Also for 'Challenging religious beliefs' and 'Listing Jesus with the names of famous artists, scientists, philosophers, and religious leaders'.

Both of those being kinda weird since Madeleine L'Engle was an open christian, albeit one with views that are somewhat controversial.

That's even more ridiculous than people going after Harry Potter. Jesus was a famous philosopher and religious leader. Does anyone actually dispute that? Christians simply say that in addition to the above, he was also part of the Trinity.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I think about half of these were objections for religious reasons. Witchcraft, "satan worship," liberal themes, etc.

The next largest group seem to be objections based on political correctness. Old books that have racist words and sayings in them, etc.

This list honestly doesn't surprise me that much.

 

[DarkSpartan]

Can we all start by cooling off and noticing that the link OP posted is about books challenged, not banned? Your crazy aunt can challenge a book in the US. A challenge can lead to a ban, but usually doesn't.

THANK YOU! I was really getting pissed at all the people going "Lol, stupid Americans, banning all teh books." without even realizing that no where did it say that any of the books on the list were banned. Hell, I was able to find more than two-thirds of those books at my high school library (along with my local library), and it wasn't that big of a library. Shit, they even had a book there about anime that had a whole bunch of graphic pictures from Grave of the Fireflies and a few hentais.

The second issue is that some of these choices are just beyond stupid for censoring (Bridge to Terabithia, Captain Underpants, Harry Potter, A light in the attic, and Goosebumps are some of the more shocking choices) what are the problems with these books? ... Can someone provide some insight on this?

Bridge to Terabithia has a child die, Captain Underpants umm... it's a 40-something fat guy running around in his undies (also, a school lost their shit when a kid dressed up as him for Halloween, even though no naughty bits were exposed in the slightest), Harry Potter because it 'promotes witchcraft and devil worship', A Light in the Attic... ok, I don't think I've heard of that one so I can't say, and Goosebumps probably because of devil worship as well or something similar. Their Wikipedia pages should say why.

A Light in the Attic is a book of lovely poems by a man called Shel Silverstein, and elements of it featured front and center in the reading textbooks in my elementary schools. I bought a copy for each of my children, so they can see what sort of strange flights of fancy might be derived by the power of words. There are even some that have a moral lesson to them, at least on the level that a child of six can grasp... Not unlike, say, Doctor Seuss. In fact, his use of words and the manner in which Silverstein writes is very reminiscent of Seuss.

Banning Sara Clara Cynthia Stout would have to be immediately followed by burning the Once-ler and the Grinch on the same stake, with the Cat in the Hat on the tray as the after-dinner mints.

 

[Heronblade]

The wolves in Twilight are shape shifters not werewolves...I always feel the need to point that out for some reason.

Werewolves technically include any and all humans with the ability to change into a wolf or wolflike creature, willingly or otherwise.

Being careful to define such cases separately makes sense when working with a mythos like the HP series that has both a lycanthropy curse and individuals that willingly transform into animals. But in a case like this, nitpicking the details isn't necessary.

Feel free to keep nitpicking the details about vampires in those books however. The lore behind that is even broader than for werewolves and yet she still managed to fall way outside of them.

Okay, just for fun, let's play Devil's Advocate. Here's a hypothetical scenario.

Suppose there was a book which promoted, let's say, bulimia. (There are, after all, websites that do this). Suppose that 75% of teenagers who read it went on to become bulimic. (And for sake of argument, let's assume we've already done the statistical research to prove that this is caused by reading the book; control groups; yada yada)

So. We all agree banning books in general is bad. But here's a book that is *proven* to cause harm. Would you ban it?

So long as we are careful to define harm by some reasonably objective standard, yes.

Banning a book due to cultural or political disagreements is a violation of free speech, and an excellent sign that one is well on the way to an oppressive society.

Banning a book for doing the somewhat slower equivalent of yelling "fire!" in a heavily crowded building however is a service to the public.

Regardless, in terms of the books referenced in the OP, I would argue that a good chunk of them are a necessary and highly beneficial part of our culture. Huckleberry Finn, Brave New World, Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men, and To Kill A Mockingbird to name a few. The fact that a large number of people apparently so vehemently disagree is worrisome. The fact that most of my generation would likely just get confused if I referenced that same list is equally worrisome.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

There is absolutely never any precedent for banning books ever.

Limiting thinking and knowledge is the highest form of fascism.

 

[Moderated]

The same reason for any censorship, people don't want an idea that they don't like to be shared.

 

[schrodinger]

Interesting, a lot of those books i've read already in my middle/high school years.

"Summer of My German Soldier" is on there? Well shit, I thought it was an ok YA romance-ish book. Is it because the main character was in love with a young German soldier? Yeah, that's probably it. What made the book interesting is finding out they brought German/Italian POW's over to the US during WWII, something my history classes never talked about.

Speaking of, banning/censoring books is liking distorting or erasing history. Some books are like time capsules from a different time, giving us insight to a time where people thought, talked, and acted differently. Banning books is like forgetting the past, which should help us in the future from making the same mistakes(like it helps now a days...). Although books like The Anarchist Cookbook needs to be just hidden, in a deep dark place, where only a map and a compass can show you the way to the mythical lands, where a thousand dragons guard it, and then you can read it!

EDIT: damn you thread necros!!

 

[Jamieson 90]

It's ironic that Harry Potter is on the list because if OOTP taught us anything in regards to the subject, it's that banning something when you don't want people to read about it is probably the worst thing you can do; Umbridge banned the students from reading about Harry's interview in the Quibbler, and in no time at all it was spreading like wildfire. Simply put if you forbid something then you make it so much more interesting and attractive.