I see lots of racism in America that probably could probably pass the Canadian censors because it is so subtle. I think bringing it into the open so people can see it for what it really is damages it more than allowing the softer version to dominate what people hear. Empty headed people will be a problem no matter what you try to do to them. It's the people with some amount of intelligence that can be seduced by half-truths and sophistry you that will be cured when they can see the full truth in full sunlight, but will be lost if they can only see the sophistry. That's why I think the racist black metal movement is so much stronger in Europe where they censor that than in America.

Well, it's not exactly censoring, but at least in Spain people complain about anything that sounds remotely like racism, usually in a very public way.

In fact, I still remember when starcraft was a bad video game because it incited racism (that was amnesty international I think).

If a person "cultured and intelligent" gets caught into that soft racism it's because probably the ideas sounded apealing or just they didn't read enough. Just imagine what can happen to a non cultured person who gets near that. There's always the freedom of speech limits, but I am sure its better if those people know they cannot pass the line or will be jailed.

Just MHO

I would like to point out that is not, and should not be, the job of public libraries to filter or otherwise censor what people read. It is to provide people with resources and entertainment materials that they want or need. Much as I hated some of the books we had, I would never, ever think of censoring something, or not requesting a book to fill a hole in the collection, simply because I disagreed with it.

Censorship is always going to be appealing, because it's intent is most always good: to keep "bad" things from hurting people. In practice, however, this fails miserably, as everyone has different ideas as to what is bad. It can quickly become a tool to simply squelch minority viewpoints and ideas, which have historically led to revolutionary changes and shaped the course of history. No one is unbiased enough and wise enough to be able to pick and choose what ideas are ok and what aren't, and no one will ever be.

I would be most grateful if libraries didn't allow the spread of ideas that go against common sense (I mean, would you like a book on 100 ways of suiciding without pain?) or the international human rights (this includes racism, homophobia, etc...) just to name a few. At least, keep them in a place where they are not shown as "just another idea worth considering and reading and using as your life philosophy, just like being vegetarian). One thing is having the information there for people to study it, wich is allright. The other is helping it spread and grown, by providing uncultured people with a reason why their kids who had never gone to school don't have a job ("those freaking stole the jobs from our kids, kill tehm all!") just for example.

I mean, you don't allow people under 18 to purchase adult-oriented magazines or smoke or drink, but you allow them to read and enjoy racist propaganda that teaches them how to negate other people rights?

I am not talking about censoring things just because a government thinks they're wrong, I am talking about things that internationally have proven to be against other people rights. Things that started a war here, in Europe, like nazism. Things like slaves are forbidden everywhere and nobody complaints about that.

We also let them check out "Inside the Playboy Mansion", according to our user policy.

And simply because no one complains doesn't make censorship right. If people want to spread hate, they can, so long as I have the right to spread my views counter to theirs. You can't have just one side, or the system falls apart.

I doubt any librarian would actively promote racist material, and most libraries probably have little if any, because people simple aren't interested. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there, except for those reasons.

Look at it this way: Racism is bad, racist books shouldn't be allowed, right? But what about gay books? Lots of people think being gay is sinful and wrong. What about books on abortion? Evolution? Paganism? If you start to censor one thing, there are huge groups of people just waiting for an excuse to ban things they don't like, and they have a lot of support.

Free speech for all, or free speech will not exist.

Human rights come first.
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

So, as long as the gay book isn't attacking other person/group of people purely due to the reasons listed there, that book isn't against the declaration of human rights. So it should be there same as anything else.

A book that explains depressed teenagers how to commit suicide (just to go away from the racism topic) should be banned. Why? Because it hurts them. Same as those webs about how to make home explosives are being banned. Freedom of speech? Great. Abuse of freedom of speech? Not so good.

Here we had a muslim integrist, wich was the leader of a religious comunity, publishing a book on muslim traditions. Among them, detailed explanation on how to hit your wife without leaving marks so the neighbours wouldn't notice. Freedom of speech here too? Let's give ideas to all those who already beat their women, so they can do it without punishment. Yeah.

Edited: Not to say, the image his was giving of the muslim comunity didn't help a bit on helping integrate them in our european civilization. People started to think that just because they had that person in their ranks, all muslims beat their woman, but of course, nobody noticed because they hid it.

You should be able to say whatever you want, in what format you want. However, if that leads people to hurt others, you can and should be charged by the applicable laws.

However, if I write a book about how people with purple polka dot skin are all stupid, lazy, and cruel, all of which are demonstrably false, there should be absolutely no problem, so long as I don't actually call on my readers to actually go out and harm purple polka dotted people. BEING racist/sexist/etc isn't a crime. ACTING on it is a crime. INCITING it is a crime.

And really, if I want to kill myself, it's incredibly easy to do, if you really want to. If you're just looking to get help or whatever, you don't want a book on how to actually do it. Same with explosives.

I can Google right now, and find out how to pick locks and hotwire cars. I've actually done that when I was bored at work. If I then actually go out and steal those cars, is it some guys fault for putting that up on a website, or my fault for being a thief?

And how do you decide what's hurting another person? Hiting him, or just never giving them a job, ostrasizing them, making their lives miserable?

Most of the more intelligent racists won't say "go kill that bitch". They'll say "press your government to make laws that deny rights to said people, like the right of a job permit" and will justify that saying that said people is stealing jobs from _your_ own children (demagogia works great for that). Are they hurting said people? Not directly. Should their ideas be widespread so there's actually harm? Should a public library (paid with the money of the offended people) contain propaganda against them that acuses them of doing things they don't?

Problem is, that kind of books incite racism and/or justify it, giving arguments to people to decide to act over it. So that's why I am against them. If everybody was able to use common sense on those subjects, the books could be there as nobody would consider them worth a laugh. As long as people will believe that kind of propaganda and act acordingly, those books should never be published. Wanna be a racist? That's your problem. Want to make other people into racists with more or less covered propaganda? That's apology of racism, and thanks god is illegal here.

If a person writes a book about how wonderful the 11M was, and what a nice effect it had on the american world domination spirit, and how glad he is of so many people dieing for no reason (above all, never saying that there should be another attack, just saying how wonderful the attack was), that book would probably never be published or allowed into a public library in New York. Because just by being there it hurts so many people who feel very different about that with a lot of reason for it.

I think you miss the point entirely. Censorship is very much like Communism in a sense that an ideal world, it would be fabulous and work wonders; however, you fail to take into consideration that many racist and otherwise “bad” organizations have very founded and influential political pull.

I don’t think anyone could possibly argue that a group of people designated to decide what “is and is not acceptable” is immune from corruption and manipulation. In fact, most educational works that concern censorship address this with great emphasis.

You seem to be full of speculations that have absolutely no basis outside of your personal opinion. There are books like this in the New York public library. That are not on display, I can assure you, however, I can think of two published books that do try to paint conspiracy/paranoia about the ordeal.

We have laws against those actions, but none against wanting to do them or simply talking about them, in most cases.



You can petition the government for whatever you want. They don't have to listen. Do you honestly think enough people will be swayed that we start once again enacting blatantly racist laws? Stupidity such as that can be countered with rational argument. This is like going to a debate, and instead of actually debating, gagging your opponent because he said something you didn't like. It simply shows you can't be bothered to back up your own points, or that you're afraid you can't win. If you're that afraid you can't win, it probably means the majority of the country is against you anyway. Do you really want minorities making policy decisions and ignoring the rest of the country? If so, who gets to pick and choose?



Yes. Lying is not illegal, nor should it be. If your patrons want those books, you should carry them. If you dislike them, don't recommend them, don't put them in displays, and if you really hate it, find another job.



If you legislate to the lowest common denominator, your country gets dumber. It's the same reason people think we should ban violent video games, because there are certain people who will be influenced by them. However, the vast majority won't be. Should we get rid of them because of some people who are going to be violent regardless, and just need any old trigger? People are going to be racist/sexist/etc whether or not they read books on it. The vast majority of people like to read things that they agree with, to justify their own choices and bolster their ego. Someone who's against racism, etc will not be likely to read a book on it, and not likely to change his mind if he does. I don't read Ann Coulter books, because I disagree with her, and if I did, it would just piss me off, not make me into a rabid conservative.



Not being published isn't so much censorship as good business sense. No major publisher would probably touch it. You can still have it done though. There are many, many books publishers won't touch, simply because it won't a profit, they think. There are ways to do it anyway. Public libraries should carry what people want. Do you think people in New York really want that book? If not, then they won't have it. I'd carry it for insight into how terrorists and those who support them think and act, and for another viewpoint on how things were done at the time. That can only help.

And really, people all needs cans of harden up. They get offended FAR too easily. My religion is actively bashed daily, and I have a large number of gay friends who get tons of crap. People are highly offended by both homosexuality and paganism. Should books on both of them be banned because they don't like it? If you're going to pick one offensive thing, you can't really turn around and say you won't do anything about another one, unless you want to admit you're picking either at random or based on personal bias.

And really, this is a good argument, but censorship isn't usually about getting rid of the crap. It's about Harry Potter and Judy Bloom and getting rid of classics with the wrong words in them.

I think this will be the last post I put here, but this is my RL major pet peeve issue. The US Bill of Rights enshrines the right to completely unrestricted speech, which is my favorite part. (Sure, the UN's Declaration of Human Rights does say speech is limited, but that document drafted by unelected representatives is horribly weak IMO because many of the clauses declare limitations and obligations on people rather than rights, whereas the US Bill of Rights do not place limitations or obligations on people but instead puts those on the rulers.) If they can pass laws against bad books then they can pass laws against good books. I make a point of reading books that have been censored in the past, from Aristophanes' controversial ancient Greek comedy "Lysistrata" to the anti-slavery book that incited the Civil War "Uncle Tom's Cabin" to the infamous stomach churning "Turner Diaries". The most tyrranical and oppressive governments, from the Nazis to the Communists to the theocracies in the Middle East and the bad old theocracies of Europe, have held power by using the power of censorship. If you give authority to ban books, once the winds of political change come through, the list of banned books also suddenly changes and you find the books you read being placed on the bad list and the books you hate being placed on the good list. I am sure many of the agents of those oppressive government had the best intentions in mind. ("Fahrenheit 451", "Brave New World", and the extremely short "Anthem" by Ayn Rand have the best portrayals of how good intentioned censorship can lead to dystopia of the worst kind.)

For example, here is a list of books that some group has attempted to have banned. Especially look at the top 100 challenged books. I encourage everyone to read all of them. I bet everyone has read a few on the list. 26 of the books listed in that article I have read or planned to read, and 19 of the books were required reading for me in grade school. If the supporters of the groups that tried to ban the book you read on that list ever got political power and the government had been granted authority to ban books when your politicians were in power then you can say goodbye to that book, which is the crux of the problem. Goodbye to "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, "Animal Farm" by George Orwell, "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury, "Native Son" by Richard Wright, "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding, etc. (All great books I highly encourage people to read BTW.) You can't grant authority to criminalize "Mien Kampf" without risking the same fate for the above books as well.

Finally, I would encourage people to read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill (a 19th century British utilitarian philosopher and statesman that gives the best argument against censorship), the four sci-fi books I listed in a post above, and any books one wants to censor before deciding if it should be censored. Plus all the books on the censored list in the Wikipedia link above! Or hell, just read. Not enough people in the world read, which saddens me. Throw your TV out the window. Though, um, still play lots and lots of Lusternia... *cough* That's reading in a manner of speaking!

EDIT: it was unrelated to the topic.