Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Idiocy of Banning Books

theinformationparadox.com — And Tango Makes Three has yet again earned the number one slot in objectionable books. Some parents, rather than allow their children to learn from novels, want them pulled the shelf.

Bury

pariahjane 79 days ago, made popular 79 days ago

874 diggs
digg it

239 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

madwaxer, on 05/09/2008, -8/+16simply stupid. one day they'll be able to find more crap online through google.
- 1337Einstein, on 05/09/2008, -1/+33I like how you say "one day" as if it hadn't already happened.
  - scuba7183, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1google, whats that?
    - zombies187, on 05/09/2008, -5/+1Unless I can find crap on it, I'm not really interested.
- tom6a, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Speaking of finding stuff on Google, here's Google (Banned) Books...
  
  Explore Banned Books
  "To Kill a Mockingbird. Of Mice and Men. The Great Gatsby. 1984. It's hard to imagine a world without these extraordinary literary classics, but every year there are hundreds of attempts to remove great books from libraries and schools. In fact, according to the American Library Association, 42 of 100 books recognized by the Radcliffe Publishing Course as the best novels of the 20th century have been challenged or banned."
  http://books.google.com/googlebooks/banned/
  
  Here's some other good reading about banned books...
  
  Book Challenges and Censorship in School Libraries
  http://www.omninerd.com/articles/Book_Challenges_a ...
SuperWinner, on 05/09/2008, -4/+74Its painful when people grow up and realize everything told to them as children was a lie.. the truth inevitably comes out, no matter how much you try to suppress it.
- masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -17/+5I'm currently teaching my 7 year old about hookers and heroin. You make it sound like the book in question could not possibly be a lie; and the act of censoring the issue, or particular view on an issue until they're old enough to understand it is a lie. Not true.
  - sockpuppets, on 05/09/2008, -9/+13...and that's how your mother and I met.
- Barackalypse, on 05/09/2008, -3/+10Everything? Surely at least math class, even in our crappy public schools, isn't a lie.
  - acdcfanbill, on 05/09/2008, -1/+14The Calculus is a lie!
    - scuba7183, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Damn you derivatives!!
  - AydenV2, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2E=/MC2
    - 10scott10, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3that just an approximation.
  - bluearyus, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8When i was in middle school, they taught us that you couldn't take the square root of a negative number....A few years later, I learned about imaginary numbers [ i = sqrt( -1) ] ... I felt so betrayed by math and my math teacher :(
- Tayls, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1***** like this is really going to make kids question their respect for their parents when they get older...if they're allowed to be intelligent.
- dOOBiEx213, on 05/09/2008, -11/+1You may not be bothered by homosexuality, but every man's gotta admit they wouldn't want their son to grow up gay.
  -bury me
  - Isileth, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4I would be fine with it. My main concern is that my children are happy and healthy.
OffPiste, on 05/09/2008, -40/+10It's the parents that pay the taxes that fund the schools.
It's the parents that elect the school officials who buy the books.

Why can't the parents decide?
- browwiw, on 05/09/2008, -5/+57Because they don't know what the ***** they are talking about. You don't let people who don't believe in germs run a water filter plant and you don't let anti-intellectuals run the school system.
  - andrew1193, on 05/09/2008, -14/+2There just _couldn't_ be smart parents who don't want their children indoctrinated by the State, could there?
    - mllawso, on 05/09/2008, -0/+13Give an example of a book banned for that reason.
- masonreloaded, on 05/09/2008, -0/+32The parents decide by exercising responsibility as parents and knowing what your kids are reading, not by banning books so that other parents cannot decide for themselves. I completely agree that if you *truly* find a book objectionable as a parent you should be able to request your child not be mandated to study that book in school - but as far as "banning" them from libraries etc - what right do they have to tell the rest of the school what to read?
- threemagic, on 05/09/2008, -3/+21Because it's wrong? I can give you a billion examples where parents make decisions for their kids that horrible. There has to be some checks and balances.
- Barackalypse, on 05/09/2008, -16/+5Wait, government schools letting parents choose? That educrats that run the public schools aren't about to let that happen. Since when should parents decde what happens to their children when the all knowing government is there to do it for them?
- MaTT2011, on 05/09/2008, -3/+20Yah, because popping out a kid automatically makes you qualified to run our schools. Plus when you have a kid you instantly, the second they come out of the womb, know how to raise a kid.
  
  Oh wait, thats how retards think. Never mind.
- str1fe, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7The public school system has jack ***** to do with a book being sold at a store.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9Parents can decide. I cannot understand justifying why nobody else should be able to read the book.
jimthenglishman, on 05/09/2008, -8/+91what about that book with slavery, hookers, and a random killing that was written a couple thousand years ago?
that seems pretty harmful to kids…
- browwiw, on 05/09/2008, -3/+25But it's got unicorns *****!
- AzureRise, on 05/09/2008, -19/+10We can't ban history books, be reasonable.
  - novastar123, on 05/09/2008, -4/+23History books? How is that particular book a history book?
    - cgrado, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5History meaning a depiction of past events that covers a length of time fairly accurately (well, the symptoms but not the causes)
  - Skooma714, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7Because that kind of stuff didn't happen only in the Bible?
    - browwiw, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7I don't know anyplace else to get authentic unicorn porn.
  - Rotzooi, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5/sarc
    
    ...before you get dugg down even more. sigh.
    - monoa, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Too late.
    - AzureRise, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the effort though. I'll go down with my ship though. Should've remembered diggers have trouble detecting sarcasm without that tag. Till next time.
- roboticrickshaw, on 05/09/2008, -2/+27You mean gta the novel??????
  - WolverineBlue, on 05/09/2008, -2/+24I really hope that 2000 years from now, GTA is a religion.
    - jimthenglishman, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9"we will now begin with a passage from the book of nico"
      - rdoger6424, on 05/09/2008, -0/+14And so did Niko call Roman for a cab ride, and verily was a cab dispatched. And the cab did arrive on the wrong end of the street. Niko entereth the cab, and Mohammed did call Niko a "head dick".
      - negativenancy, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9How can you even begin to fathom the book of Nico when we haven't so much as GLANCED at the book of CJ? What kind of pastor are you?!
      - Bulletbillx, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7The book of Tommy is the best one.
      - rdoger6424, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1@bulletbillx
        The book of tommy?
        I have it online right here: about:blank
- jimthenglishman, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5one more thing… i meant to say a bunch of random killing, not a random killing…
- sounDeva, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0cheers
- monoa, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Well played, sir.
- ariannaoranos, on 05/27/2008, -0/+0You mean the Bible? That's a seriously X-rated book.
Ryan166, on 05/09/2008, -41/+4Who cares if a book is banned? If the book is good enough it will be made into a movie, saving us all the trouble of reading.
- Nhmarine, on 05/09/2008, -2/+24You are an idiot. Not only does watching movies engage the audience with less emotion and less detail, reading helps to expand your mind by making you concentrate on something for more than five seconds.
  - Nidy1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Plus movies based on books suck so much that you want to go find the director and burn him in a pit of lava. Here's looking at you Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
- ladyarcher85, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9Reading a book and watching a movie are two different things. In the latter you are just subject to another's interpretation of the said book and a lot of stuff are usually left out.
  It also helps you improve your vocabulary and exercise your mind. I certainly find no trouble in reading and I would choose the book over the movie any day.
- fusama, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11apparently I'm the only one who read that as sarcasm...
  - str1fe, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6I really hope it was.
- mllawso, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6You need to use quotes or "/sarcasm" next time.
mrzisme, on 05/09/2008, -3/+73Any time a book gets flagged as "banned" I'll be 100 times more likely to find a copy and read it.
- Ryan166, on 05/09/2008, -0/+17Until your mom catches you reading those devil books.
  - mrzisme, on 05/09/2008, -6/+12My mother? Hell she's too old to read, her eyes fail her
    - mrzisme, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7Lol at digging down my honest mother comment. She cant read anymore folks, even with her monster coke bottle glasses shes damn near blind.
    - PopcornDave, on 05/09/2008, -2/+7So you'll get the naughty books on tape for her then?
      - mrzisme, on 05/09/2008, -4/+7Yea, I get the braile version of playgirl with PopcornDave's micropenis as the feature, she feels up the small section of raised bumps on the page to get the idea of what it would be like to see PopcornDave naked and we all share a barrel of laughs.
      - PopcornDave, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1***** I've been missing my royalties checks then. Get a sense of humor.
      - RonBurgundy76, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I thought it was pretty funny. Perhaps you should take your own advice :)
    - Ikulus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1You're getting dugg down because Ryan166's comment is a joke, and you took it seriously.
      
      It has nothing to do with your mom.
  - passedoutghost, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0My mum can't read English.
- Cayfox, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9You may be in for some truly dismal reading - interminable, dreary screeds about Jews being an inferior race, bomb-making recipes that rely on household products that aren't even made anymore, and classic modernist novels that passed for pornography back in the '20s.
  - mrzisme, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10The content of a "banned" book isnt what I find interesting at all, you're right it usually is nothing special, but what I think is interesting is why this content was being supressed in the first place. I'm after why it was banned, and the fact that it was banned, automatically knocks it up 10 notches on my interest meter. When it comes to movies, its abused, everything has a "uncut" "unsensored" "director's cut" tag on it now, especially lame ass comedies that dont even merit the label in their uncut version.
Narrwald, on 05/09/2008, -2/+64Didn't these idiots read Fahrenheit 451?
- Ryan166, on 05/09/2008, -3/+12Why would they when there is a movie of it?
- ryan83189, on 05/09/2008, -0/+47It was banned at their school.
- shamuonrye, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6of course not. it was banned.
- AzureRise, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9No, it was banned.
- Zarokima, on 05/09/2008, -0/+20Nope, and that's one that they tried to get banned. I remember some news report a while back when a father who admitted to never reading the book wanted it taken out of his child's school, he opened the book and used the word "abortion" -- that's it, just that word -- as justification for banning it.
  
  Also, the movie is less than *****. It evokes nowhere near the emotion of the book, it only loosely conveys some of the major themes and issues while leaving out others entirely, and it's not even very accurate as to the simple happenings.
  - str1fe, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8Rationalization is a better word than justification there. Rationalization is basically where you trick yourself into thinking something, justification implies that there is an actual valid reason to have a particular idea.
Nhmarine, on 05/09/2008, -21/+2The only reason they ban these books is because they haven't made a movie out of them yet.
- Nhmarine, on 05/09/2008, -8/+1Erm... that was sarcasm... stop burying me.
- TheDHC, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4buried just to be on the safe side
masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -25/+8The idiocy of telling parents they don't have a right to protect their kids from whatever they want to.
- threemagic, on 05/09/2008, -7/+10Define "protect"?
  - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -17/+5It's really is as simple as me not wanting you to brainwash my child.
    - threemagic, on 05/09/2008, -4/+10But you are the one brainwashing them. The reality is there's nothing wrong with those books. They are stories, something to open their minds, something to create a love of reading.
      
      Those that think this form of censorship is for the betterment of children are the same kind of parents that think taking a branding iron to them for spilling water is ok, or think that teaching their daughter about sex is a personal matter taken up in the bedroom.. no one should tell me how to raise my kids, right? ***** you.
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -18/+4I wouldn't be defending parents rights had douchbags not been making liberal propaganda books. It sickens me how liberals target easily influenced youth.
      - threemagic, on 05/09/2008, -4/+12@master: you are either mentally handicapped or a troll... there's no way you are that way normally
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -15/+4Riiiiggghhht, because anyone who disagrees with you is automatically handicapped. Irony?
      - threemagic, on 05/09/2008, -2/+12@master: no, that's not true either. Don't take an isolated comment and use it as a blanket for how I feel about people who disagree with me. Take it for what it is. A slam on you. You're thinking is incredibly warped and therefore I chose to call it as I see it.
      - str1fe, on 05/09/2008, -4/+7Open-mindedness != propaganda.
        
        If you want to keep your child sheltered from the world around him, that's your own ***** business. Keep my family out of it.
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -11/+3Hold on a second. I simply said "The idiocy of telling parents they don't have a right to protect their kids from whatever they want to" -- Followed by you calling me names and telling me to ***** off... and I'm the troll?
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -8/+2I couldn't have said it any better myself str1fe. open-mindedness != propaganda.
      - PopcornDave, on 05/09/2008, -3/+8Please tell me you're not debating who gets to "brainwash" who's kid, because it really sounds like that's what you two are arguing about.
      - threemagic, on 05/09/2008, -4/+3You can choose what you want your children to do in your own home. Unfortunately, there is no checks and balances there. All the rest of us can do is hope he crawls out from under your overbearing, controlling needs. Yes, I called you a troll... the two can be mutually exclusive.
      - str1fe, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5master, one of us is clearly a bit confused here...you're calling this book "propoganda" and I'm telling you it's nothing of the sort. Not even by a shot in the dark. This is something kids need to be open to, not necessarily encouraged, but they need to know that gay people are out there. You seem to be wanting to shelter kids from that lifestyle, and I'm telling you to keep that sheltering out of my government.
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2I don't know about this particular book str1fe, but I've seen propaganda books for children and I believe the parents should have the right to censor it from their children if they please. The thing is, we aren't all going to agree on what a propaganda books is. For the most part because you may agree with the particular propaganda. That's why it should be the choice of the parents, get it? Am I really "sheltering" my kid by not letting him read Hitlers memoirs, KKK document, or pornography? I think you would agree that there is some stuff that's not for kids.
      - kh99, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1I guess some parents just have little control over or involvement in their children's lives, so the only solution is to try to get books banned.
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -5/+3"@master: no, that's not true either. Don't take an isolated comment and use it as a blanket for how I feel about people who disagree with me. Take it for what it is. A slam on you. You're thinking is incredibly warped and therefore I chose to call it as I see it."
        
        The hypocrisy is killing me.
      - Aensland, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9Wow, "liberal propaganda books". Better nuke the local library then, it's probably full of them.
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -7/+1 Are you implying there isn't such a thing as children's propaganda books? If strawman is all you have left than my job is done.
      - threemagic, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1@master: what did you say of substance? The only legitimate statement you made is that it's not sheltering if you refuse to let him read Hitler, KKK, or pornography (I'm assuming you are using the normal definition, by the rating X; not what the bible belt would call porn). It just happens to be not relevant since none are fiction books. There is a rating system to keep certain books away from certain age groups, just like any other entertainment medium.
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1Well than I guess you agree with me that some things are not meant for children. That being said, you're OK with other stuff being censored from them because there is a rating system in place. Do you have any clue why there is a ratings system in place and how it came to be? Hint, it's the same in both cases.
- Zarokima, on 05/09/2008, -3/+24They can "protect" their children all they want. It's when they try to "protect" the rest of the children at the school that any intelligent person has a problem.
  - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -16/+4It goes both way for protecting and brainwashing... I believe one came before the other...
  - SEGA4life, on 05/09/2008, -10/+3@ Z
    This book is about 2 father penguins taking care of a baby penguin, and in turn will tell children it is ok to be homosexual.
    Now theres nothing wrong with homosexuality, but I think there is something wrong with explaining it in books to "children".
    
    Books like that should be set to right age limits, like around the year when they pass out Condoms with your school lunch, not the year you get Ice Cream Tuesdays during lunch.
    
    Now the article says:
    "On a side note, having two fathers does not necessarily mean the parents are homosexual…but, again, understanding is not at the top of the agenda for these people."
    
    Now "these people" as the article puts it have the minds of a Tampon where they absorb ALL the info they can, and ask question, after question. So think after the teacher is done reading the book, not one kid is going to have a question, I remember in school we discussed a book after we read it. It will cause confusion, and in a childs mind the last thing they need is more confusion.
    
    They have a setting on TV's now to block what your children watch, there is nothing in schools to utilize a function like this, so banning a book like this from children is the best way to get things done.
    - Zarokima, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Wait, they pass condoms out at lunch? Was I sick that day?
    - AniceAtheist, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5I got a mind altering reality for you! and I'm including it free of charge in this comment. it's actually ... ok to be homosexual !! Now don't go ditching your inbred wife and running for the nearest leather bar, just yet. You know what else is ok? having a vagina is ok also. Now if your child reads about that I'm pretty sure he won't "turn" gay nor will he grow a vagina, so rest assured, you mullet wearing meat-head, that the only thing to be taught is that being gay isn't anything remarkable to gawk at or explore. Either you are or you aren't.
      Unless of course you were born straight, was made fun of at a young age by a male authority figure for something feminine. (maybe your dad called you a fag at 8 when you put on your moms high heels, since the rest of the family thought it was hilarious) and have since hid anything remotely feminine deep within your psyche making you unwillingly fantasize about cross-dressing and hot public bathroom sex. Just don't write a childrens book about it. K? thanks
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2Yeah, stick up for your homosexuality by calling everyone else inbred. I'm gonna digg you because you're a gay atheist. Moron.
- kh99, on 05/09/2008, -3/+12Yeah, like those parents who protect their children from health care until they're dead.
  - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2hint, that would be killing them, not protecting them...
- masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -6/+3Are you guys going to feel the same way when the tables turn and the right is indoctrinating your children?
  - SEGA4life, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6I don't know whats scarier: what they will do when they have to make this decision, or the idea of some of these people having kids.
  - Zarokima, on 05/09/2008, -3/+7If anyone in this argument is trying to indoctrinate children, it's the people trying to get the books banned. Nobody is forcing them to read these books, let alone adopt whatever ideas they promote. If a parent doesn't want their child reading a book for an assignment, they can bring it up and the child can read a different book with no fuss (some poor girl in my freshman class had to go through this several times, and she complained about the process being too easy because she really wanted to read those books). The fuss comes from then trying to stop other children over whom they have no control to not read the books.
    - SEGA4life, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Freshman class??
      
      we're talking about elementary school.
    - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -6/+3Banning propaganda is not propaganda itself. Lol, you're not even an adult yet, figures. You've probably noticed that your parents have legal rights over you...
      - Zarokima, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1This was back when I was in high school. I should have been more clear that I haven't been a freshman for quite a while.
      - SEGA4life, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Yes but again we are talking about little kids in elementary classes, (not even in middle school) getting their vacuum minds around this book.
  - kh99, on 05/09/2008, -6/+2But that's exactly what's happening, isn't it? When did you ever hear of a call to ban a book because it was conservative? What if people were calling for removal of bibles from libraries because they thought it might brainwash their children? You people just want the "liberal" books removed.
    - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -6/+4Hence the left indoctrinating children and not the right. I don't have to ban something from the library because I'd be there supervising my child.
      - Zarokima, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5EXACTLY! That's the whole point! Supervise your own goddamn child and don't ruin a great reading experience for anyone else!
      - SEGA4life, on 05/09/2008, -5/+3umm...errr... WHAT?
        
        How do you plan on doing this when working to put food on the table Copernicus? Am I suppose to sit in my kids class during reading time every day?
        
        How about we ban the book, and IF you want your children to read it, BUY it for them.
      - kh99, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1It's not because there are no books which could be considered "conservative propaganda", but because no one calls for a ban of them. And if you supervise your children, what's the problem? If you bothered to click through to the original article that was being referenced, you might have seen this: "A children's story about a family of penguins with two fathers once again tops the list of library books the public objects to the most. ". Library books.
      - SEGA4life, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3@ kh99
        my kids school has a library in it, I don't have a school in my district with out a library.
        Not to mention from the article:
        "And Tango Makes Three," released in 2005 and co-written by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, was the most "challenged" book in -->public schools
      - kh99, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1"...and libraries". In other words, parents just don't want it available at all.
      - masterm1nd, on 05/09/2008, -5/+3The left and the right would both make a huge fuss over the other indoctrinating their children with children's books. If the left isn't screaming till their blue in the face, it's probably because they don't have much to scream about. Personally, I've only seen liberal children's books, but I would feel the same way about a conservative book.
    - Zarokima, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Actually, going by their standards (mention -- not even endorsement, just mention -- of such things as rape, murder, maiming, nudity, unwarranted violence, genocide, torture, and so on) the Bible should be #1 on their list of books to ban.
      - SEGA4life, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3Can you tell me in what Public school they read you the bible????
      - kh99, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1I've read both of the articles - where does it say anything about "And Tango Makes Three" being read to children? Maybe I missed it. But having it in the library and having it as part of the curriculum are two different things. The article is about the fact that some people want the book banned from libraries (school and public).
    - SEGA4life, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4@kh99
      
      Hey if Homosexuality had the backing like the Bible we would not be having this conversation.
      - kh99, on 05/09/2008, -4/+0You're wrong, because ignorant people will always complain, no matter how much "backing" there is. Not that that's even the point.
masonreloaded, on 05/09/2008, -14/+5For all of the controversy about the "His Dark Materials" trilogy I finished reading it recently. It is a ***** childrens book with a handful of putdowns/criticisms of Christianity/religion sprinkled through it - not anything like the diatribe against religion or "atheist's Narnia" it has been hyped as.
- Narrwald, on 05/09/2008, -2/+14The His Dark Materials trilogy is a darned good "***** childrens book".
  - druakara, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0I was rather pleased with "The Golden Compass" and "The Subtle Knife", but about half way through the third one, I got kind of bored and stopped reading it - although I'm not entirely sure why I got so bored with it. I'll probably give it another try in a couple of months.
str3ama, on 05/09/2008, -4/+32It's the idiocy of authoritative parenting - witholding information and knowledge from children, while all the same not allowing them to learn it on their own. It's this form of parenting where parents censor their children from books considered controversial or once thought to be 'detrimental to the social fabric', books like catcher in the rye and even animal farm. So they stop their kids from reading those books because supposedly they push violence or grandeur ideas, but they have no problem letting their kids watch things like the news which are so horribly sensationalistic in their portrayals of sex, violence or world affairs.
usgovterrorists, on 05/09/2008, -19/+2If a few more people actually read books, the terrorist United States Government would be banning many books.
If a few more people actually read books, they would know the terrorist United States Government are the world's greatest terrorists!
Terrorists only fear one thing -->EXPOSURE
- roboticrickshaw, on 05/09/2008, -4/+10You are a ***** idiot
  - usgovterrorists, on 05/09/2008, -6/+3Well, hopefully you fooled a few sheeple with that post.
    Good luck!
    
    BTW:
    I just wanted to give the neocons some hope.
    - AniceAtheist, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3No, he is right. You are an idiot. Seriously, no joke on this one. I'll agree that the USA uses tactics that provoke terror, but your writing is terrible. You think terrorist fear of all things exposure. really? you're that stupid? Exposure? You think people who try to incite terror in other people are afraid of being exposed as the monsters that incite terror?
      Try and understand something. Everybody you know with an IQ over 85 and even a slight interest in current events disagrees with you for a reason. you might be on the right path but you are such a bumbling idiot that they would rather keep their mouth shut then agree with you for fear of having to spend any time listening to your inane blather.
      I have written this as a public service announcement.
- rdoger6424, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5I need to start a drinking game where everyone takes a drink every time you say "terrorist"
  - usgovterrorists, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1You're lucky you're not tying those drinks to the lies being told by the terrorist United States Government!
    
    Hint: You would be dead!
    - djpants428, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3and... DRINK!!!
proliance, on 05/09/2008, -3/+10All parents want to protect their kids. And sometimes that means limiting what they read or see at an early age. But they also realize that one day they will grow up and be exposed to things that may be harmful. When they are old enough, the child will make that decision. But until then, the parents will decide.

Parenting does not come with an instruction book. We do the best we can, and sometimes we make mistakes. But we know the mistakes we make will be in protecting our children, not in exposing them to things we feel may be harmful.
- AniceAtheist, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3If you're limiting what your children read or see by censoring all children or the public at large, you're a fascist. If you decide to censor for a certain reason (condoms are a sin so do not teach proper condom use to africans who can then grow up infected with aids yay) and your reason is wrong you're a retarded fascist. So your choices are fascism or retarded fascism. Now I know you want to think that what you're doing is right no matter what your actually doing. You'll rationalize and throw examples to minimize the effects but in the end your either a fascist or a retarded fascist. Try explaining that to your little sugar pie.
  Disclaimer: if on the other hand you're just censoring your own children, then you must agree it right for other parents to do the same. So let us hope for their sake that they grow to be the average majority because woe to them if not, since parents love first and foremost to pass on their prejudices and misconceptions about the rest of humanity on to their children.
  - proliance, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I take offense of your use of the word "retarded." I have a son who has a social and learning disabilities. I work a second job to send him to a private school where his needs are better met. I'm trying to raise him to be a responsible person who hopefully, can take care of himself one day. It also means he is not exposed to certain things that he doesn't understand. Is that censorship? Of course it is.
    
    I guess by your name calling you have never been responsible for another person. Its not an easy job. Kids have to be nurtured and taught between right and wrong. They need to learn it from someone who cares. Learning about sex from reading a graphic rape scene in a book that is required reading may be harmful to some kids. When my son asks me questions about other people's behavior and has that confused look on his face, I know he doesn't understand. I can only imagine what is going on in his mind, and how things he experiences when he is developing will effect him for the rest of his life.
    
    If a book is banned at a school because some parents don't like its content, its not the end of the world. If a parent cares about his kids and thinks that book is important enough for him or her to experience, then buy it for them, or get it from the public library.
    - Skeith3294, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1but doesnt that take away a childs chance to learn and explore on his own? I say let a kid read whatever (s)he wants and provide guidance if the content is a little too racy. I mean what is a child going to read that even deserves to be banned? They're children and (probably) read childrens books. If they are reading 1984 in elementary then that means they are too damn smart and should be put on a terrorist watch list.
- Suricou, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2"But they also realize that one day they will grow up and be exposed to things that may be harmful. When they are old enough, the child will make that decision."
  In theory, but in practice not always. I enjoy religious debate as a hobby, and I have met a few people who are ridiculously closed off - very religious Christians who fear that the 'culture' is corrupt and even denomonic. They refuse to read any book that isn't Christian themed, to listen to non-christian music, or to watch any TV or movie that hasn't been pre-approved by one of the Christian evaluation organisations. They certinly wouldn't willingly listen to anyone from another religion - I once tried to debate with one, and as soon as they realised I am not a Christian they responded by changing their email address and muting me in their IRC client so I had no way to speak to them.
WraTH017, on 05/09/2008, -2/+12Books are only banned when those doing the banning have something to hide.

Well, maybe not always... One can argue there are some books (ahem) that have caused harm to mankind for centuries. Still, suppressing knowledge or thought, or even *****, helps no one.
dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -12/+26Christians are always trying to ban things and criminalize people they don't agree with. They ban books and televised shows that disagree with their philosophies. They hate Science and Scientific literature that doesn't say the Earth was created 7 thousand years ago. They demonize sex and are more concerned what goes on in other people's bedrooms than their own. Their leaders molest little children and use the Church's money to defend themselves. They love the Iraq war and try to justify it by adding a touch of Christian missionary work to it. They love their booze and guns just as much as their Bibles. They have the highest divorce and murder rates. They are the world's biggest hypocrites.

Religion has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with self delusion, self denial and the shallow self satisfaction that is attained through such methods.
- PopcornDave, on 05/09/2008, -3/+11All groups of people are guilty of trying to impose their belief system, be it religious or otherwise, at one time or another, not just Christians.
  - dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -4/+7I was THROWN OUT OF A BOOKSTORE last weekend for putting all of the Bibles in the fiction section. Man, they have no sense of humor...
    - estvir, on 05/09/2008, -5/+4You're disrupting a store, grow up. They shouldn't need to deal with childish pranks.
    - psevium, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4/bash
- estvir, on 05/09/2008, -5/+10Don't generalise and lump all Christians into a single group, especially when you make claims that 'their leaders molest little children and use the Church's money to defend themselves.'
  
  If you people are all fair fairness, objectiveness and the like, how about you show some instead of being hypocrites, thanks. Hell, could you also not make things up too.
  - dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -3/+4-------------"Hell, could you also not make things up too."----------------
    
    http://www.armchairsubversive.com
    
    The right-wing-sicko pedo list has been circulating for a long time now.
    
    If republicans on DIGG COULD make such a list of Dems/Libs/Atheists sickos, they would have.
    
    Either they don't have the resources available to do the same research, or the results don't measure up.
    
    I have seen some try to start a list however, and they never exceed 2-3 names, and Clinton's LEGAL sex act is nearly always at the top.
    - estvir, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1Yes, because some Republican list of [apparent] paedophiles is some damning, explicit way of proving your comment that all Christian leaders are paedophiles and abuse donations from members.
      
      This also proves everything else you said too in some roundabout way too, I'm sure.
      
      I'm being sarcastic, you failed to back up anything you said and for who knows why you started going on about Republicans and the Clinton's. What the hell is wrong with you?
      - dildoolielly, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2On top of all the overwhelming evidence, our President's weekly "spiritual advisor" got caught blowing gay male prostitutes while high on meth
        
        The Gov't's head anti-pedo guy hired by Bush was caught soliciting underage gay sex
        
        Mike Hintz, a preacher that Bush introduced and highly endorsed, just got caught having sex with an underage church member
        
        Connect the dots, Einstein.
- mGARANDEUR1, on 05/09/2008, -7/+5Atheist are just as guilty for trying to impose their beliefs on others. They have their own meetings and they used donated money to spread their cause as well.
  - dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -3/+5---------"Atheist are just as guilty for trying to impose their beliefs on others."--------
    
    Yeah, right!
    
    Christians idea of "Free Speech" is buying up taxless infrastructure and preaching death and destruction to millions of people on as many corners of America as possible?!
    
    Trinity Broadcast Network - 24 hour a day Christian broadcasting beamed around the world in practically every language.
    The 700 Club (with Pat Robertson) - Hatred aired nightly on a television station near you.
    Turn on your television on any given Sunday Morning (no thanks, I personally will be sleeping) - but if you DO, you will be bombarded by Christian "Propaganda."
    Our money has "In God we trust." (well, it did after 1957)
    Our pledge says "One nation, under God." (well, it did after 1954)
    Then, there are the churches on practically every corner, Christian bookstores, Christian colleges, Christian politicians (oxy-morons), etc, etc, etc.
    
    Come on fellas, can't the Atheists have their little comment box on Digg without being called "demagogs and propagandists?"
    
    What are you guys afraid of?
    - AniceAtheist, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the mGARANDEUr1 was being sarcastic.
- negativenancy, on 05/09/2008, -9/+5Way to bring Christianity into this, you ass.
  
  Preaching, self-righteous atheists are just as bad as delusional Christians. They are both systems of beliefs and NEITHER are good for being shoved down our throats.
  - minoss, on 05/09/2008, -2/+8Yea, those preaching atheists need to stfu and stop telling others to stop imposing their beliefs on others.
    
    Also, lack of belief isn't a belief unless you like changing the definitions of words.
  - minoss, on 05/09/2008, -2/+9Also, it's not the belief that's the problem with religion. It's the faith part. Something atheists don't have.
  - dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -6/+6------------"Way to bring Christianity into this, you ass."-------------
    
    The topic is about "The Idiocy of Banning Books" and what more idiots have banned more books than Christians or religious nuts?
    
    Try to keep up, shortbus?
- paulvq, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5I went to a Catholic high school. I was taught evolutionary biology, and creationism was never mentioned in any of my science classes.
  
  Pope John Paul II, the leader of the largest Christian church, was an outspoken critic of the Iraq War before he died.
  
  Not all Christians are hypocrites. The self-proclaimed "Christians" you mentioned shouldn't even call themselves Christian. There are still many good ones out there despite all of the twisted crap going on.
  - dildoolielly, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3The Catholic tithe defends a massive child rapist cult, scum, no matter their good intentions. in the Vatican called pedophilia, as thousands of children are raped by its priests, and how does the Pope address the corruption in his own Church?
    
    He ignores it and tries to hide it - sweeping it under the rug with millions of dollars and shuffling priests from one parish to another.
    
    He appointed a cardinal notorious for hiding wayward priests to a cushy Italian post.
    
    Only lunatics, perverts, psychotics, derilics, retards, criminals, pedophiles and insane people fund the defense of a massive child rapist cult
    - paulvq, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1And he met with abuse victims to talk about how change can be achieved in the church.
      
      Try again.
    - paulvq, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Also you're just ignoring the fact that I proved you wrong twice.
CVL4317, on 05/09/2008, -0/+17great, another sign of idiocracy
- Suricou, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I think the theme of idiocracy wasn't that books were banned, but that the population was so stupid and uneducated that they couldn't possibly understand a book.
celkin, on 05/09/2008, -7/+3`
bloodmoney, on 05/09/2008, -3/+18Please, by all means ban away. My kids will have even more of an advantage.
- rezonq3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Well I kind of agree with your statement and kind of don't. True, they will have more of an advantage in taking care of themselves, however, the brainwashed masses are growing in number every day, and eventually, no amount of knowledge and free-thinking is going to save us as a society.
SemiSarcastic, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11These parents complain that their kids are not learning anything in school...well now they're making it happen themselves. These parents will pay dearly for this.
debuffplx, on 05/09/2008, -18/+4Ohh look! another non-parent telling other parents how to parent.
- SemiSarcastic, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9Your not making a good case either (if you indeed support these parents in banning these books). You do realize these kids will have to take care of you someday right?
- MacintoshSauce, on 05/09/2008, -1/+13It doesn't take much intelligence to spawn children these days.
  - CVL4317, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2do you even need any?
    - rezonq3, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I don't know why he is being dug down, the dumbest of the dumb life forms on this planet manage to procreate every day...and truly, in far greater numbers.
- str1fe, on 05/09/2008, -1/+12Looking to get a book banned from shelves has nothing to do with parenting. Stopping the book from entering your home is parenting.
andy314159pi, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1Comment removed because it was stupid.
lowfalls, on 05/09/2008, -1/+8You know, it's about time somebody spoke out against burning books.
mal1964, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6"Banning Books for Dummies"
- CVL4317, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1BAM!, BANNED!
  - mal1964, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1O A
- mal1964, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1"I dont like one of your comments so both get dugg down"
  -Someone-
  - mal1964, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1The same person dugg that down also. Had no diggs left for the other 2. What a life
    PS. I smell a new profile coming.
  - mal1964, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1What did you think I was serious? I'm crazy but not that far yet.
supersquiggly, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10By saying, "hey kid, don't read that book" maybe they'll rebel and actually read a book.
I just picked up a copy of Catcher in the Rye on the weekend for no other reason than its been banned in places.
- estvir, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2Am I the only one that finds doing that petty and carnal? I don't read things because they're banned or challenged, I read things because I've looked up what they were about and judged for myself.
  - AniceAtheist, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1huh? you read up on what your planning on reading up on? so before picking up a book, you judge it based on reviews? excerpts? or you think the dustcover holds enough info to judge a book? I know you were trying to act smart and sorry for making you sound "shallow and pedantic" yes shallow and pedantic Lois.
    I read books however they get to me. Sometimes a friend or family member recommends it, sometimes I like the authors previous works, sometimes it is hailed as a classic and I hadn't had the chance to read it yet. Sometimes I like the cover (those times usually turn out to be a mistake). Sometimes it is "controversial or banned" so I read it to decide if there is any merit to the claims espoused by the lunatics. not yet... sadly not yet.
- passedoutghost, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0I didn't realise it was banned. I read that back in Year 10 when my English tutor gave it to me. The swear words were like music to my immature ears.
anoneng, on 05/09/2008, -0/+13lets put it this way, when all the violence, action, sex, political opinion/controversy and fun is taken out of books you wind up with a generation that hates reading. When kids are allowed to read dangerous books that make them think, you wind up with a generation that likes to read. Thank God we're so afraid of anything that is offensive to anyone, this way shows like "Rock of Love" or "American Idol" will keep their audiences. You wanna know why tricks like the "gas holiday" work? Because no one knows what the "Ministry of Truth" is or the results of "Brother Love." No one hears anything except politicians sucking up to them for votes and the idiot box telling them how smart the are, while anything with a real story, and not talking about hollywood's ***** movies like Brokeback Mountain (which, from every aspect but the fact that it had gay cowboys and pissed off real cowboys was a terrible film), gets cancelled because people are too dumb to follow it. I'm also mad most best sellers now basically equal the written version of bad television. /rant
- larissa13, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Well said! Its great if a kid wants to read a book~regardless of the controversy, including Harry Potter books. Its better than all the options like playing Grand Theft Auto and watching the garbage of Tila Tequilas Shot at Love. Reading a book, any book, will spark imagination, creativity and use more brain power than video games and crap riddled reality shows.
inspecality, on 05/09/2008, -0/+13I actually wrote six essays on banning books and such for a Political Science - Censorship class today.

There is a great PBS show about the Huck Finn controversy, one black woman tries to ban it from her daughter's school, and then the show brings in other black people that think the book shouldn't be banned. Really interesting stuff, wish I remembered the name of it.
- Versh, on 05/09/2008, -0/+18"Born to Trouble" I think it was called... it premiered in January of 2000.
  I still appreciate the irony of censorship though-- people advocate that they ban material in order to prevent the corruption of others, yet they are the only group offended, and such a ban is really meant initially for themselves. It's as if their personal rejection should be a public standard.
- rdoger6424, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The name is Born to Trouble.
- Suricou, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Revisionist history. America has always been great, perfect, the moral leader of the world. Slavery and segregation never happened. Any book that suggests otherwise must be silenced. If you disagree, you hate America.
defska42, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1I agree with everything in this article; I just don't think I learned anything, or gained any satisfaction, by reading it.
Buried as lame.
scarz99, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4Fahrenheit 451? Eh?
- Ursapater, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2The flip answer is "Read a Book!" :D Actually though Fahrenheit 451 (which is the temperature at which paper burns) by Ray Bradbury is a famous novel about a society were ALL books are banned, and burned. The rational is that reading promotes 'unhappy thoughts'.
  There's a lot more to it, but I suggest that you read the book.
  - scarz99, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Uh I have?
miken32, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10It's funny, looking at the list of the most banned books of the 1990's ( http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlink ... ) how many of them I was made to read in school! I wonder does that mean that our school system is being "subversive" or just that those are also the books that the crazies' kids brought home?
Looking through the ALA's intellectual freedom section, it sounds like a lot of librarians are quite activist, so I like to think it's the English teachers and librarians thumbing their noses at the reactionary crazies.
- Nidy1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Where's Waldo? Really?
Wootstapler, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Daddy's Roommate is my favorite.
jmoh, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6"Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal
I walk tha corner to tha rubble that used to be a library
Line up to tha mind cemetary now
What we don't know keeps tha contracts alive an movin'
They don't gotta burn tha books they just remove 'em
While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
Rally round tha family, pockets full of shells"
RickyBarnes1960, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10You most certainly have the individual right to remain ignorant, however, that right does not and never has, never will extend to another human being, most especially a child for whom you serve as guardian. The content of a book cannot harm you and most certainly can benefit you, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with it or the agreement or disagreement of others.
This type of censorship - literary censorship - imposed on children is child abuse and possibly child endangerment. A child left or made ignorant is certainly in danger of colliding with truths both their own and other at some point in time. A child given diverse awareness is far more versed in life and far more equipped to deal with it. Adults who impose censorship on children in this way ought to be kept far from them.
Hetman, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6The problem is books are just idea's. And idea's cannot really be suppressed.
matador3, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4I have a question thats off topic but related. I've been meaning to read His Dark Materials for awhile but I've heard the US version is heavily censored. The British one isn't so if I ordered it from amazon.co.uk would I get the uncensored one? Would Customs stop the package? Would I get sent to Gitmo if I got caught?
shlinton, on 05/09/2008, -5/+2Buried for making me have to click twice to find actual article.
- Ursapater, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1You poor soul. Is your lil finger getting tired?
HaloZero, on 05/09/2008, -9/+3Banning books is the best way to arouse interest in the book which in turns makes kids want to read it. Gotta love that coming back to bite you in the ass.

Plus, wanting to ban the book does not make you a homophobe. It makes you somebody who considers homosexuality a sin. That does not mean your afraid of homosexuals.
- Drogoganor, on 05/09/2008, -1/+9"It makes you somebody who considers homosexuality a sin."
  
  Trouble is, it's none of your business to make that judgement.
- frieddonuts, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5I pity you, man. I often debate this issue, but I just can't reason with people like you.
Birukun, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2Buried for being inaccurate. Banning a book from a school is different than an outright ban. They call for parents to loosen up but it seems their panties are in a bunch too.
- pariahjane, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I never claimed that banning a book was the same thing as an outright ban. Try reading my comments again.
Mesmorize, on 05/09/2008, -5/+1Buried because the blogger didn't even understand that Huck Finn is a satire.
eir574, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7I recently saw Things Fall Apart on a list of books that some advocacy group wanted schools to ban, presumably because it has descriptions of rituals in African villages that involve nudity. How often do we get the chance to read great literature written by a Nigerian? It's obviously not appropriate for all ages, but I can't thank my 11th grade English teacher enough for choosing it to accompany the lesson plans in 11th grade history classes, which covered colonialism in Africa (among many other things, of course). My school combined English and history that year (two teachers taught them together over two class periods), and the novels we read were matched to whatever we were studying in history at the time. How nice to have such a beautiful perspective on that part of our history written from a point of view we rarely hear! My education was enriched by that book, and it's just depressing that there are people who object to that because of a few non-gratuitous descriptions of nudity.
kiderjones, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Not that this is the case here, but let this remind us that those who burn books, eventually burn people, and then history repeats itself.
robbie32, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I think it should be up to the seller to decide what books they stock. Banning any kind of media will accomplish nothing. It will just push back the issue to another time. Eerily similar to Fahrenheit 451
sadomatic, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3This just goes to show how democratic ideals quickly become fascist.

www.corrupt.org
MrESaulved, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Reading books motivates you to live a life worthy of being written about.
AlexanderZero, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Books are banned all the time. A bunch of the books that used to be banned are now considered some of the greatest of all time and are taught in school. (To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, The Grapes of Wrath, ect. Just to list a few)
bluearyus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"In Louisville, Ky., a high school principal told 150 English students to drop "Beloved," Toni Morrison's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel about an ex-slave who has murdered her baby daughter. At least two parents had complained that "Beloved" includes depictions of violence, racism and sex."

jeez, parents actually look for objectionable contents inside of high school books? There's censorship for that? Pathetic.

And wtf at books being banned from public libraries. Just because someone takes offense to a book, shouldn't mean we should ban it from public libraries.
zebraz, on 05/09/2008, -2/+3Most of the people complaining about books being banned.
Are the first ones to ban the Christian bible in schools.
Dang hypocrites.
- Ursapater, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2You've got a point there. A PUBLIC library should contain examples of all the great religious books; the Bible (which iteration?), the Koran, the Torah, Hindu and others.
  However, our public schools are not supposed to promote ANY religion, that being considered, it's a thorny problem whether to include them in an elementary school library, HS libraries I think, should make them available.
  - Nidy1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Include them but don't promote them. I don't see the problem here.
    "Most of the people complaining about books being banned.
    Are the first ones to ban the Christian bible in schools.
    Dang hypocrites."
    No we aren't, at least I'm not. I'm fine with the Bible being read in English or a Religious Studies or History class. As long as they aren't promoting it as absolute truth or "the Word of God" I couldn't care less.
    - carlosos, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I was lucky enough that I went to a university with a science class where the teacher often referred to the bible to see science from the other perspective because science is based only on theories. The idea was that science explains what is happening but there is still always the possibility that a god has created everything that causes the science to behave the way it does. For example, the big bang theory explains how the universe might got created but "a god" could have created the big bang which means science and religion can coexist as long as everyone understands that everything are just theories.
Hoprot, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The fact that people want to ban books like To Kill a Mocking Bird and Lord of the Flies, two books that enchanted me more than any other at school and both of which deal with uncomfortable aspects of human nature, show that these people would rather pretend that racism and the potential for evil don't exist. This immature attitude, especially when inculcated in the youth, is more likely to perpetuate the pernicious aspects of society than prevent them.
mosaic77, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2If the two adult penguins of the story were women, I wonder if there would have been such an uproar!
Yage2006, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1I gave copies of the golden compass to all my little nephews and nieces they loved it.
jeremydouglass, on 05/09/2008, -0/+0where's the new part of this article? or at least the part that challenges most readers on digg?
preaching to the choir here.
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

The Idiocy of Banning Books

Login or register to add a comment