Should books every be censored/banned?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Agreed, I think it would make an intriguing read

It might not even be about the brutal murders (the way he worded it), I think it'd be interesting to get inside the head of someone like that though.

It most certainly was.

[Salandriagado]

Oh noes!

A Person citing, how unusual... hey man.

To all those saying "no censorship of books, period." would you extend the same consideration to other forms of speech?

Yes.

It might not even be about the brutal murders (the way he worded it), I think it'd be interesting to get inside the head of someone like that though.

It most certainly was.

Now I want to read that.

[Johz]

If I remember rightly, the censored version of Huckleberry Finn changes one marginally offensive word for a word which implies similar meaning, but is generally considered less offensive. While, of course, censorship is bad, and we should be able to read every word that the authors wanted us to read, I feel like you may be making overmuch of a deal of it. Do you really read every single word that the author writes? Every single last one? Even every 'and' and 'the'?

I suspect not. Can you, instead of whining about the quality of the books you are buying, ask your teacher to discuss the principle of capitalisation in sentences?

The problem is that in changing that one word. You lose a big part of the story. Nigger may be offensive but it was commonly used at the time and part of the books is showing the racism and hatred for blacks that the south had. Changing it to black or the like doesn't convey the same tone even though the meaning is technically the same. Its the difference between calling someone a faggot and saying they're gay. Both mean that they're homosexual but the first one is derogatory while the second is merely descriptive, (usually) .

Of course, and I completely see why the story is better if it remains in context, and one can get a feel for the language of the day. However, I also understand that a child reading Huckleberry Finn may not be able to understand the full meaning of the words. Certainly, I would not read words like 'nigger' to a child between the years of about 7 and 10, depending of course on maturity, because I would not want them to use the words in mistake, or to misunderstand the context. Understanding that meanings can change over time is a very complex idea.

I am not accusing the OP of being in the 7-11 age bracket, even in maturity, but more of overloading the issue. It is not going to kill him that he is unable to read the word nigger in a sentence, and there will certainly be much worse trials for him to face later on in life.

Certainly, the broader topic has very valid implications. With Rushdie being prevented from talking at an Indian book fair due to threats on his life, it is a very real issue. What I question is whether a minor alteration to a single book is really comparable to countries taking it upon themselves to ban their population from reading or ingesting certain concepts.

[Caninope]

What if it's libel?

Even if it's defamation. If the person or people defamed have a problem, they can sue the author and it's their personal problem. But I don't see a reason to ban the book because of libel.

You don't see a problem with someone else deliberately spreading lies about their character? In that case, Obama told me that he is going to pull another Watergate. *nod*

[Narxi]

We have to read the odyssey in my English class, but they cut out every single good part in the text book version cutting out all the sex and violence, pretty much leaving us with a load of garbage. So our teacher brought his odyssey book which was so much better, now I love Greek mythology and want to read the whole thing! 100% against censorship!

[Chinese Regions]

Should books every be censored/banned?

Yes:

Slightly off topic, but today in the gym, some pop videos from the 90s/00s came on the television, Aaron Carter's Candy and Crush on You came on, and everyone just went "The origin of Justin Bieber?"
In a few more years people will be complaining about some other kid's (he isn't even a kid anymore really) music.

[Chinese Regions]

Anyway, it is the retailer that decides whether to sell it or not.

[Mariana-Petria]

You can't understand the story of Huck Finn if you take out the offensive stuff. Anyway, if wasn't meant to be offensive. Get over it! This goes for everything else too.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Sometimes, yes. For instance, the Agatha Christie novel "ten little niggers" was censored to "ten little indians", and I don't have any problems with that.

Actually, it is Ten Little Sailor Boys now. Or And Then There Were None.

[Terruana]

Sometimes, yes. For instance, the Agatha Christie novel "ten little niggers" was censored to "ten little indians", and I don't have any problems with that.

Actually, it is Ten Little Sailor Boys now. Or And Then There Were None.

Ah okay. I got a little confused because it's been republished twice and there's about 5 different film adaptations, which also have different titles. M'bad.

[Bengera]

No.

[Dyelli Beybi]

No! If there is a market, you should be allowed to exploit it. What is so bad about erotica for children?

[Llamalandia]

Seems usually unjustifiable the only case I can see probably supporting would be child pornography in which case it would be up to the individgual involved, after all look at the crazy teen sexting prosecutions, if you are old enough to be charged with producing child porn then you are old enough to consent to being in pornography at which point it's moot. But yeah serious kiddie porn can be censored by govt anything else heck no.

[Geniasis]

Maybe certain books shouldn't be made available to children in school, but public access to a book should never be prohibited. At the risk of sounding paranoid, silencing the voices of others only makes it more interesting to hear what they have to say.

[Xlanar]

If you don't want children doing book reports on "injuns" and "Nigger Jim", then don't assign the book. Forcing a censored version on kids is more hateful than using the language in its historical state.

I think part of that problem is that people don't get that it was fine for Huck to say that, he wasn't using it as a derogatory term. And I don't see how calling him slave boy jim (which I have seen in some "updated" copies) is any better. In fact, that is probably worse.

[Living Freedom Land]

Apparently some smart aleck decided to make his own politically correct version of Huck Finn, replacing the n-word with "hipster."

Jim was monstrous proud about it, and he got so he wouldn't hardly notice the other hipsters. Hipsters would come miles to hear Jim tell about it, and he was more looked up to than any hipster in that country. Strange hipsters would stand with their mouths open and look him all over, same as if he was a wonder. Hipsters is always talking about witches in the dark by the kitchen fire; but whenever one was talking and letting on to know all about such things, Jim would happen in and say, "Hm! What you know 'bout witches?" and that hipster was corked up and had to take a back seat.

Jim always kept that five-center piece round his neck with a string, and said it was a charm the devil give to him with his own hands, and told him he could cure anybody with it and fetch witches whenever he wanted to just by saying to it; but he never told what it was he said to it. Hipsters would come from all around there and give Jim anything they had, just for a sight of that piece; but they wouldn't touch it, because the devil had had his hands on it.

[Unilisia]

No.

[Chinese Regions]

Sometimes, yes. For instance, the Agatha Christie novel "ten little niggers" was censored to "ten little indians", and I don't have any problems with that.

Actually, it is Ten Little Sailor Boys now. Or And Then There Were None.

That's censoring but not banning outright.

[Goodclark]

NO!

[Salandriagado]

Maybe certain books shouldn't be made available to children in school, but public access to a book should never be prohibited. At the risk of sounding paranoid, silencing the voices of others only makes it more interesting to hear what they have to say.

Provide examples of books that you don't want to be available to children in schools, along with reasons why you want to restrict them, please.

[The Rich Port]

No! If there is a market, you should be allowed to exploit it. What is so bad about erotica for children?

As a former child, I wouldn't have had any complaints.

[Natty Narwhal]

No. And screw age restrictions; I read Portnoy's Complaint by Roth and Cows by Stokoe when I was 10.

[Radiatia]

Absolutely not. Even if it is something utterly deplorable, like Mein Kampf or Twilight ( ) oppressing something, including ideas, only gives them more power and even makes them something of a martyr.

If it is something deplorable, let it be seen for what it is and let's use logic and reason to debunk whatever is being said.

[Kilobugya]

I do think that books can in some cases be restricted : not sold to underage, no advertising for them, or published with a mandatory warning (that's the case of Mein Kampf here : adults can buy it, but only adults, and there is a mandatory preface of one or two pages that explain what were the historical consequences of the book). But censored/banned ? No.

[The Rich Port]

I do think that books can in some cases be restricted : not sold to underage, no advertising for them, or published with a mandatory warning (that's the case of Mein Kampf here : adults can buy it, but only adults, and there is a mandatory preface of one or two pages that explain what were the historical consequences of the book). But censored/banned ? No.

Ah, yes, SUBTLE censorship.

It's still there, but NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT.