Important to expose such things...

Adultery and divorce; drug use and alcholisim; prostition and pornography. Those are the things that are stressing today's families. This man in Alabama must not spend any time with divorced women or divorced men...I doubt if those books or homosexual acts are the reason they are divorced. More than likely it was one of the things I listed.

My mother is divorced. My dad never could handle his liquor. When he drank he was a violent man.

My brothers are divorced. Adultery and drinking ruined those marriages.

A good friend's marriage is falling apart: her husband is hooked on drugs.

I see it all around me everyday. Casual office gossip about affair's, drug use, who came in to work after tying one on last night hung over and in the same clothes they wore to work the day before....

There are none so blind as those who will NOT see.

I guess some people are already conveniently forgetting that John Kerry's campaign lawyers attempted to intimidate radio and TV stations concerning the Swift Boat book. The Kerry campaign seriously threatened our First Amendment rights.

David, Politician, ALL politicians OF ALL POLITICAL STRIPES abuse power. Got it. That's why is so incredibily foolish for any voter to waste a fraction of a second on priasing the honesting of these sonsabitches OKAY?

In my anger I misspelled "honesty" and my email address.

My point is that for me it wasn't forgotten. It's just that one SHOULD expect politicians to do those type of things. Only foolish men think people running for president are "average Joe's" and "just like me" and all that other garbage.

For people that are so afraid of homosexuality, it's funny that they think that the mere mention of it in books will cause people to start having the butt sex ... or something.

Oh, I am not finished. There is a fact of life many people prefer to ignore: we all believe in censorship! This is intrinsic to all social groups---it’s merely a matter of where one draws the line. Mark Leon Goldberg simply doesn’t have a problem with the central themes advanced in such works as Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Color Purple. But should these same kids read the works of the Marquis de Sade or Sacher-Mosoch? Of course not.

I don't know about today's kids. they have the potential to be a fairly weak-kneed bunch. Life ain't no crystal stair (Langston Hughes) it's ugly mean and cruel. for the most part, I think the kids can handle the truth. AS for when those truths should be introduced is up to the parents. Unfortunatley today's parents would much rather tell their kids that life IS a crystal stair..full of sweetness and light. god help em when they meet reality.

hey David-
I've read de Sade...why can't you or anyone else read him? I don't care what age. You and I both know age doesn't have anything to do with it.

People are ready for different subject matter at different ages. Censoring is wrong plain and simple.

“Censoring is wrong plain and simple.”

You are uttering an intrinsically ludicrous assertion. Most likely, you possess at least a bachelor’s degree behind your name. Yet, you were obviously never taught how to think and follow a logical argument. It is senseless to claim that one does not believe and practice censorship. I just haven’t presented you with a scenario which outrages you. Perhaps if we introduced public school children to works advancing Catholic theological concepts? Also, would you object if eight year students read de Sade? How about five years old?

David,
you're failing to acknowledge that there's a difference between wanting to burn books so that noone can read them and keeping them away from children. Allen's bill says library materials as well as textbooks. I doubt that very many people would disagree with the notion that censorship for adults and for children are distinct things.

" guess some people are already conveniently forgetting that John Kerry's campaign lawyers attempted to intimidate radio and TV stations concerning the Swift Boat book. The Kerry campaign seriously threatened our First Amendment rights.
Posted by: David Thomson at January 26, 2005 12:32 PM"

Libel is an actionable offense. When you tell lies to undermine a person's character, it is something that your target can take you to court for.

-

George W. won't condemn this. Not on the principle of opposing censorship, nor to oppose bigotry. He will not condemn it because it is bigotry. The right kind of bigotry. The kind that is favored by a large portion of his base. To my knowledge neither he nor Cheney condemned Alan Keyes statements about Cheney's daughter being a selfish hedonist. To my knowledge he made no condemnation of that "Allow Gay Marriage/Ban the Bible" propaganda in the South. Maybe now that he's won re-election, he may feel less beholden to the anti-gay portion of his base, and take a principled stand against bigotry, but I doubt it. And that's giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming he doesn't share their POV, i.e. homosexuals are all debauched sinners. Generally speaking, the Republican party will not alienate such a large part of it's base. They are willing to turn a blind eye to bigotry, in order to keep their party united, and keep getting elected. Sadly, this works. True, some of his base are upset that he isn't going to try to push another marriage ammendment. But not in the vigorous way they would be if he condemned this bill and started "supporting the homosexual agenda" or however they might phrase it.

George W. isn't gonna rock the boat.

Heh, but you knew that.

Oh, and don't use a Nazi comparison. That is one of those way too easy and very loaded comparisons. Everybody hates Nazis. But not for book burning. When Gerald Allen advocate a final solution to the homosexual problem, then bring out the Nazi comparisons.

"You are uttering an intrinsically ludicrous assertion. Most likely, you possess at least a bachelor’s degree behind your name. Yet, you were obviously never taught how to think and follow a logical argument. It is senseless to claim that one does not believe and practice censorship. I just haven’t presented you with a scenario which outrages you. Perhaps if we introduced public school children to works advancing Catholic theological concepts? Also, would you object if eight year students read de Sade? How about five years old? " -David

David, you are being an asshole and I don't appreciate that. I do not believe in censorship period. I think it is wrong, plain and simple.
I do not believe in or practice censorship and I do not approve of others doing it. It is pointless and usually works against itself.

I was reading books at a very young age, from my parents library and the University library in the town I was raised. I loved to read and I read everything I could get my hands on from the Great Books, to the great religious texts to great works of literature and poetry including difficult authors such as de Sade, Mark Twain, and Nietzsche, all authors of books that have been banned burned or misunderstood by someone or some group. I was ready to read them whereas others might not have been at an early age. Censorship does no one any good. When a person is ready to read good and great books they will do so, no matter the age or even if the reading material has been censored by some disapproving adult or managing board.

You are right about one thing though. I do have a BA and other degrees and licenses after my name...

"I do not believe in or practice censorship and I do not approve of others doing it. It is pointless and usually works against itself."

You simply fail to understand how to follow a logical argument. There is no such thing as somebody being against censorship. This is an absurd position to embrace. It is utterly senseless.

Somehow you have concluded that I do not know how to follow a logical argument. I do not see your logic and not seeing it, I cannot agree with it.
I guess in your world it means I cannot follow it. Whatever.

You say that there is no such thing as someone being against censorship. I find that statement ridiculous and very depressing. I must conclude that your imagination and reasoning abilities are very limited.

And David because I don't understand your point and because you seem bent on intentionally misunderstanding my point maybe we should censor our future comments to each other by refraining.

I didn't intend to mess up a fine thread on a truly exemplar web log by meaningless distictions and back and forths with an idiot.

Good day to you.

“Another example: one of the foremost proponents of free speech in this country is Nat Hentoff, a journalist well known for his jazz criticism and who has also taken up the cause of free speech no matter how disreputable or offensive the speech in question. But about two years ago he recanted, when he drew the line at campuses allowing certain forms of anti-semitic speech to flourish. Disciples of a certain Muslim group came to campuses and began to talk about "bagel eating vermin who had escaped from caves in the middle ages and were now, as then, infecting the world". Hentoff said this has gone too far. My point is that everyone has such a trigger point, which is either acknowledged at the beginning or emerges in a moment of crisis.”

---Stanley Fish

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-February-1998/fish.html

Gosh, even one of my arch enemies agrees with me. Ain’t that something? If I’ve got good old Stanley Fish on my side, who else do I need?

This has been discussed in Alabama itself, where emerging, younger Southern progressives like Dabney Gray have taken Allen and his ilk to task for their radicalism (click on the name).

I have to admit that I don't find some of the discussion in these comments on censorship very sophisticated. I'd refer everyone to the best book written on the issue (from one who has worked under its shadow) in recent years, J. M. Coetzee's "Giving Offense." It's always worth being extremely critical of those who wish to censor anything. But since we should be addressing the Allen case in particular here, my conversations with Gray, who's living this crisis in Alabama, have led me to believe that in this specific circumstance, this is little more than an attempt at fascism, which is what Steve suggests in his post. So take it from the native.

To all those who would censor: just remember that Joyce's "Ulysses" contains a lot of filthy, dirty, and wonderfully vulgar tidbits that would offend prudish people like those behind this Alabama crisis. Indeed, social conservatives tried to censor Joyce's work. Most literary scholars consider "Ulysses" the greatest work in the English language from the 20th century, and certainly one of the greatest ever. It would have been awful, I think most educated people would agree, if the attempts at censorsing "Ulysses" in the US had gone through.

Do not tickle the straw man. He cannot laugh.

Personally I don't want someone else desiding what I can and can't have access to or what books should be at my library. Bottom line. And i don't have a BS after my name..I have a BA

Who among us wants another person (some government official) deciding what you can see or read? Some here seem to believe that our natural and necessary tendency to censor our environment to suit our taste implies we ready to hand that duty over to someone else who will make these decisions for us. WEll, I'm NOt. What sane person gives others that kind of power over their life?

There is I think a real generational dimension to this whole debate. Baby boomers have always prided themselves on their love of liberty in all its forms, including free speech, but as with so many aspect of themselves, they lack self-understanding - particularly with respect to their own hypocrisy. The boomers are actually the most moralistic and censorious generation since FDR's, which is quite a feat. The boomer left gave us political correctness. The boomer right has given us the kind of neo-medieval Christian conservativism evidenced by this wingnut down in Alabama. (They also supported every war in the past 40 years - including Vietnam - to a greater extent than any other generation alive during this time, even as they opposed the draft for themselves more than any other generation alive at the time...but that's a point for another thread.)

The good libertarians and defenders of free speech alive at the moment are actually generation xers (kids born in the 1970s.) They are willing to slay the pc dragon as they are to ridicule right-wing moralism. Witness South Park, and Eminem.

Never trust a boomer with your freedom.

Don't worry, I'd never trust a boomer with my freedom. I'd defend it myself. May the intellectuals triumph over the "anti-intellectual and intolerant religious zealots." May humanism ultimately triumph over dogma. The boomer generation seems overly vulnerable to the type of ridiculousness going on in Alabama. I have a sense that younger Americans, even conservatives, are less receptive- but that might be wrong.

David -- You've made assertions, not arguments. There is a difference.

Robin,
You've made a believer out of an old goat like me. Tomorrow I'm going in for my tattoos and next week my body piercings and the next my hair coloring and I'll pick up some m&m's on my way back.

quite a difference between something imposed by an external autority on so called moral or political principles and the conscious or unconscious decision to avoid some reading or film or subject
first is society censorship,which limit or exclude liberty as a whole
second is self censorship,is personnal behaviour as long as it's kept by oneself, and often evolves with time: is it what you are speaking of, david?

what have BA or BS to do with this? I can't catch this point

“David -- You've made assertions, not arguments. There is a difference.”

No, Stanley Fish and I are stating an indisputable fact. There is no such thing as being completely against censorship. It’s only a matter of where one draws the line.

“what have BA or BS to do with this? I can't catch this point”

I am merely pointing out that your education leaves much to be desired. You simply have no idea how to think and follow a logical argument. Your ignorance is an outright scandal.

Are some of you truly concerned about anti-intellectualism? If so, you should be upset at the cowardliness of Harvard’s Larry Summers. This man has totally disgraced himself. He rightfully pointed out that the nature/nurture question regarding women’s mathematical abilities remains unresolved. He then chickened out when criticized by a number of politically correct feminists ideologues. James Fallows and the other graduates of Harvard University should be deeply ashamed.

No offense I sorta agree with David...at the same time Dave, making a to-do by saying "there's no such thing as living in a completetly uncensored environment" is one of those "no shit sherlock" type of statements, right? Everything is cenosored to a degree, I suppose. And I also agree when you say "it is just a matter of where to draw the lines" I would add it matters much WHO draws them, doesn't it. And there's the rub. who the heck are they to draw the lines for ME?

And hey I really don't give a rat's ass what some so-called know it all prof thinks about what women can or can't learn or whatever. Who is he anyway? probably somebody who got where he is riding his daddy's accomplishments who wouldn't last long in my world I bet. I always amazed these guys speak and the world bends over backwards defending them or condemning them which only adds to their own inflated notion of who they think they are.

“Everything is cenosored to a degree, I suppose. And I also agree when you say "it is just a matter of where to draw the lines" I would add it matters much WHO draws them, doesn't it. And there's the rub. who the heck are they to draw the lines for ME?”

Yup, now you are starting to get it. Censorship is inevitable. But it does indeed matter who is censoring presumably on our behalf. Should it be the courts, the police department, our elected officials, or the guy living down the street? What sort of check and balance measures might we enact? I just want to make sure that you are not evading reality. Who in hell told you that life is easy?

“And hey I really don't give a rat's ass what some so-called know it all prof thinks about what women can or can't learn or whatever. Who is he anyway?”

The main thing is that the nature vs. nurture debate is nowhere near resolved. It is therefore disgraceful when Larry Summers, the president of Harvard University, chickens out to the politically correct fools. He may have to resign.
Summer’s credibility has been destroyed.

"The Color Purple" should indeed be burned, on grounds of bad taste and laughably incompetent prose.

David,
Poor Larry-"if he can't stand the heat...", but that would be a woman's place anyway, right?

Steve:
At least try to be complete!

Civil Rights or Book Banning?
Three New Approaches to Huckleberry Finn

By Jim Zwick

see here:

http://www.boondocksnet.com/twainwww/essays/civil_rights9809.html