Discussion in 'General Books' started by SapphireMoon, Sep 26, 2005.
why would mein kampf be banned? because some jewish people dont want to read about Hitler?
My point exactly Dwimmerlaik, since when does someone's opinions tell other people what to do?
Since every time a law is made.
How do you feel about other media? Is there nothing which should be banned in print? Television? Movies? Video Games? Commercials? If so what are the fundamental differences between books and the other forms of media?
What if someone commits an act advocated by the books? The advocacy of the crime is allowed but not the crime itself?
What about books that lie or bear false accounts? Books that tell military secrets which put soldiers and operatives in harms way?
OK, the situation over here (NL):
To my best knowledge, there's only one book permanently banned from sales, bein Mein Kampf (and it's translation to Dutch), at the penalty of a maximum of 24 months imprisonment. Controversially, it's not illegal to read or have the book. Recitation or education from the book is forbidden again, at minor punishments. Other than that, there are some books with copyright issues which, for ease of the discussion, I will leave out of account.
Far as I know, MK is banned for a couple of reasons;
1. War Trauma. The Netherlands suffered severely for 5 years under German occupation (1940-1945). Although relations are fair once again with Germany, memory of these years still touches a deep, but still very sensitive nerve.
2. It's one of the symbols of the dutch collaborators (to the Germans) in WWII. One might find this strange, but we had a razzia against these collaborators (NSB'ers, Dutch SS). A lot of these have been imprisoned or executed. Most of their symbols have been banished, including Mein Kampf.
3. The ideas preached in Mein Kampf are banned at any rate. If it wasn't specifically forbidden, publication would fall under this law anyhow.
4. Mein Kampf is said to be of such cunning and convincing writing that reading might turn one to antisemitism or other racial thoughts and/or ideology.
5. Strange as this might sound, Hitler is still revered in some circles. By banning this book, the Gouvernment tries to inhibit the influx of people doing so.
Both the original and the translated version are still sold freely in Belgium.
The only people arguing for lifting the ban are the ones in neo nazi-like communities. Concensus between people who read is that it's indeed "dangerous" and possibly "harmfull to society". I don't think I'll ever see the day a majority of the population is for lifting the ban, or at the very least, I hope so...
Furthermore, banning books from bookstores is quite dangerous, and possibly not accepted by customers. If a list extensive as listed before in thist thread, would be held back from sale in a bookstore, one can almost be certain of a boycot. We're quite fond of our liberty of speech and writing. Not selling Harry Potter would be financial suicide...
The bookstores that choose not to sell certain books are themed bookstores anyway; like evangelical bookstores. Not the place to look for Fantasy anyway...
But please tell me, how IS the situation in the US? Are there forces lobbying agaist certain books? I mean, if groups would try such things overhere, the bookstores would argue "But you don't have to buy them, freedom of speech/writing yada yada", follow by public mocking of said groups. Is the power of these groups so big in the US that they actually have impact? I mean, for the group of (I guess they are) Evangelicals, there should be an equall oposing force preaching Freedom of Speech and thus boycotting said bookstores... right?
By the way, are there books banned from sales/publication/posession in the US?
I remember now there are SOME books, of the same nature, banned from publication and sales. Normally, a Judge classifies the book or parts of it against the constitution; penalizes it's writer and forbids said parts from publication, giving the publisher the choice to take the book off the shelves completely or take out the specific passages. Normally, the former is chosen...
Please notice it's not the Gouvernment banning the books, but the Jurisdictional power that bans books and/or parts of it. In this country, the Jurisdictional power is independant from the Gouvernment.
Censorship is fascism.
all i say is why should mein kampf be banned? too any one it is a history book , so why ban it? do we not want to learn from our mistakes?
I think we've got enough other examples to learn from WWII mistakes. In any case, Mein Kampf might be a historical document. Still, does that outweight the dangers that cling to the book; for those who want to learn from it's "virtues" rather then it's mistakes?
Besides, what's wrong with rejecting the very ideology on which the European WWII was established?
But you tell me who should be making laws? I mean why does one man have authority over another, because he has a gun and a metal badge? And "majority rules" is probably the biggest act of ludacris since I don't know...because if something works for some peole, it certainly doesn't mean it will work for the rest of the people.
I think that banning books would have the same affect as the alcohol prohabition, it would turn good people into crooks.
I think that there should be no books that are banned, it is the peoples' choice to be influenced by whom and what they choose.
There are a few groups that seek to use censorship. Public bookstores sell what their customers like, whether fantasy or religious or occult... They tend not to sell books their customers do not like. This of course is all by choice.
Groups who seek censorship are as likely to be religious as non religious. Religious groups seek to ban or restrict books that criticise or reject their religion. Some groups seek to ban books that contain racial epithets... others seek to ban books because of their political motivation. That said, there is little the government can do to ban most items. There is little to no legal standing which they could use to enforce a ban and the Courts would overturn a law almost immediately.
Actual government censorship in the states is limited and had been very liberal since the 60s. I couldnt find the list but for the most part the entire list of banned materials is pornography made with people considered immature in the states. Selling, trading, making or posessing these is illegal in the states.
Some materials are restricted from minors. Allowing minors to have access to them is "contributing to the delinquincy" of a minor which carries various penalties in each state. If a minor builds a bomb and kills himself because you showed him how, you would be prosecutable under some manslaughter laws.
State run libraries have mostly independent control over what books they carry. Most contested book are debates over what books should be restricted from minors rather than banned outright.
There are a few writings that have been "removed from the market" since September 11th. The schematics for nuclear weapons is now reassigned to Top Secret even though it was public information only a few years ago. Other sensitive data like that has been restricted the same way. That is a pretty broad interpretation but I think it fits.
If you have a better system ... Im listening.
My opinion is that there should be a government where everyone watches everyone else's back, but in the end you are right, because people in this world are not mature enough to do the right thing for each other.
Oh wait, that wouldn't be a government! That is an option!
why should a book be banned because a race ...(jews) .. think they have more rights to tell people what not to read? America was made on freedom so we should have all that. not becuase a minority wants a book banned.
Dwimmerlaik, it seems that we share the opinions...what are your views on the government(sorry for the off topic).
i hate authority, so we dont need to pay people to chose things in gov for us. we are the gov. supposidly so why are we chosing the things we want?
Yes, and as I said, if this country is about freedom for all, but there is a "majority rules" type of "democracy", then that is kind of an oxy-moron if you ask me.
yeah it is
Studies have shown (although many deny it) that the media is extremly influential. Contrary to what many believe, watching a movie or reading a book were the main character kills people on a whim and makes it look fun will eventually influence peopel, espcially the youth, as shown by hilter.
Books on how to commit suicide or the best way to kill somone serve no point and should be banned. As much as i know about the first amendment, and how censorship is violating, it should not be trusted to the people to choose how to be influenced, becouse so much of the influence is violence. It is a goverments duty to protect its people, and censorship of extermly negative books is included.
Want an example? The columbine, no, although not a book, the students were still influence by games where life is cheap and death common. And with peoples immaginations, books can be just as bad.
Separate names with a comma.