Burning Books/Banning Books

I think if you buy something, you own it. Not the right to the work itself, but you own that physical copy of it. And as the owner, you have the right to destroy it.

It would be different if say, there was only one copy, and you're actually literally taking that writing and information out of the world - but otherwise, what harm is it really doing?

emily.:

Bloodraine:

emily.:

Well (I am not for book burning) a lot of people in this thread are saying "freedom of speech! freedom of speech!", and I may possibly have made the same argument earlier in the thread, but isn't burning a book someone's freedom of expression as well?

But then by burning it aren't you taking away the author's freedom of expression to create whatever literary work they want? The people who burned Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses were using their freedom of expression to say 'you don't have the right to freedom of speech as far as your book is concerned'. So it's pretty ironic. They're using their freedom to spit on another person's freedom. Is either any better?

As I said before, I don't support the burning of books but I believe people should be allowed to do it if they want to. And I think generally, book-burners are saying "we disagree with the content of your book" and are burning to show that they disagree, rather than taking away an author's freedom of speech. The author can, and obviously has, still published the book - but those who burn it disagree with it and are expressing themselves through burning it, and I think people should be allowed to do this (provided the copy of the book is theirs and they're following the law). Banning books is smothering the author's freedom of speech - burning them is showing that you disagree with what an author is saying. I don't think it's a particularly effective method of protest but I think it's a valid one.

I'm not particularly familiar with the Salman Rushdie example (I had a quick google but I didn't read too much), so I can't really comment, but from what I've read it sounds like people disagreed with the content of the book so they burnt their own copies. Unless they invaded bookstores or libraries and tried to destroy every possible copy, I thnk they're well within their rights to burn their own property.

But yeah, I don't particularly agree with burning books - I don't really think it achieves much - I just don't think there's anything too wrong with it.

I think you might be for book burning if you hold the possession of the book. Like if someone buys it and burns it. I think the book burning that the author of this thread meant was something along the lines of what happened in Farenheit 451 when the government burned any books that any citizens had, because they thought knowledge was wrong. It's like the government taking a book they don't own and banning it by burning it. Therefore no copies of it exist, so the public can't read it.

A clarification on where you stand would be nice, though. Do you agree/disagree with book burning if you have the possession of the book? Or do you agree/disagree with book burning as a more thorough form of banning?

emily.:

As I said before, I don't support the burning of books but I believe people should be allowed to do it if they want to. And I think generally, book-burners are saying "we disagree with the content of your book" and are burning to show that they disagree, rather than taking away an author's freedom of speech. The author can, and obviously has, still published the book - but those who burn it disagree with it and are expressing themselves through burning it, and I think people should be allowed to do this (provided the copy of the book is theirs and they're following the law). Banning books is smothering the author's freedom of speech - burning them is showing that you disagree with what an author is saying. I don't think it's a particularly effective method of protest but I think it's a valid one.

I'm not particularly familiar with the Salman Rushdie example (I had a quick google but I didn't read too much), so I can't really comment, but from what I've read it sounds like people disagreed with the content of the book so they burnt their own copies. Unless they invaded bookstores or libraries and tried to destroy every possible copy, I thnk they're well within their rights to burn their own property.

But yeah, I don't particularly agree with burning books - I don't really think it achieves much - I just don't think there's anything too wrong with it.

But to go back to the example of Salman Rushdie, of course people have the right to disagree with him. Of course stealing books from a bookshop and burning them is wrong, that's vandalism and I don't believe it is the issue. But people didn't just burn his books - they burned effigies of him, the Ayatollah of Iran issued a death sentence on him, a person who translated one of his books got killed. So I don't think it's merely that these nice people burned his book and then went home and lived their nice lives. It grew into something much more serious. I truly don't believe people burned their copies of The Satanic Verses because they wanted to 'disagree' with Rushdie, they flat-out thought he had no right to say the things he said. As much is clear in the fact that they tried to get the book banned too (which didn't work out for them, thankfully).

In any case, books are a symbol of culture and civilisation, knowledge and learning and all those groovy things. Burning them seems almost medieval to me. By all means do it, because it is freedom of expression. But I think a lot of people who do it just end up making themselves look worse and giving the book a hell of a lot more notoriety.

I think no books should be burned or banned. My parents have never forbidden me from reading something that I want to read no matter what the rating is. This way I can make my own choices and decisions and develop my own interests.

Book burning is simply unacceptable. To me it's like burning of a church to a Christian, Quran to a Muslim. Or burning the American flag to an American. Disspeakable and unthinkable. For those people who do it, well you are a disgrace. No matter what the content or the author of the book, a piece of literature should never be burned.

I don't even like when people dog-ear pages to mark their place. Or leave a book open upside down. I just don't see how someone could do that. I think of books, no matter how simple, or stupid, or annoying, as pieces of art. Would you burn a painting? Would you burn a sculpture. Burning books is erasing history, either ancient or contemporary. I don't see the point. If you don't want to read it, just don't. There's no need to destroy it.

Banning is also unneccessary. Just stupid. Like the book Go Ask Alice is banned from many middle and high school libraries across the US. Plain stupid, because no matter what that is an amazing book and it will in no circumstance turn you to drugs. (Unless you're too stupid and don't understand any of it, which you have to be absolutely slow not to do) I didn't even know that it was banned until I googled it. I was honestly surprised.

There are thousands other books that are also banned just because they show a darker or more heretical side of the world. I think that it was really conservative parents who came up with the banning of books. They're just too narrowminded to allow their child to read the reality of the world. Like some parents even forbade their children to read Harry Potter. I mean what if they banned that too? How stupid would that be? Just because it talks about magic and doesn't promote God? I mean seriously I feel bad for children whose parents advocate the banning of books, especially fantasy novels. That's just sad and completely idiotic. Children need to use their imagination. Not feed on the facts all the time. Children also need to know about the real world. I understand that some parents want to protect their little babies from the outside, but they need to know. Otherwise they'll be unprepared when the time comes to face reality.

Wow, that was long. Sorry about the rant. I probably caused a lot of misunderstanding and insults, so if there's anything you would like to comment on just quote the part and judge me. I'll try my best to reply. XD

i honestly feel that no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot read. i feel that maybe in certain settings it's appropriate, you know like how certain schools ban certain books from the reading list. however, i do not find it acceptable to completely ban or burn books. someone worked on those to share something with you, and if you want to find whatever they wanted to share in that book you have the right to find that information.

I disagree with the banning of books completely.

Burning books unsettles me, reminds me of a show I watched about WWII, but it's like the whole burning flags thing. Those people brought that product and now own it, it's an object and they can do whatever they want to do with it.

I don't know how I feel about books being banned from school libraries. My school went kinda crazy on it and the school in the next town banned Harry Potter.

This thread makes me think of Fahrenheit 451.

Banning books is completely unnecessary. I mean, honestly. When I read Fahrenheit 451, it really made me realize how much our society now seems to resemble what's happening in that book. If people ban books and it becomes like that society, I will freak.

If you buy a book and burn it, not my problem. You're wasting your money and the author still gets paid. I admit you have your freedom of expression, but you've just spent money on a book just to burn it. Seems pointless.

@ independence.
I have burnt a book. It was something my super religious grandmother got me. It was called 'Be Intolerant Because Some Things Are Just Stupid'. I burnt it because I hated what it stood for. I think the book should be allowed to exist, of course. I just wanted to burn my own copy because I was like 'fuck this'.

Book burnings just tend to make more people want to read the book anyway. A book got pulled at our school and three girls went out and bought it that weekend.

@ dru saves the songs
Haha, in cases like that, then I agree. I probably would've done the same thing.

True. Like I've read some books just because a lot of people think they're boring and I want to see if they're right or not.

One time my friend and I were hiking through the woods, and he pulled out a Bible and was like "I took this from my house, I thought we could burn it for shits and giggles."

... Yeah, I didn't go along with that.
I think that destroying something just because you don't agree with it or are indifferent to it is really careless. In this case, it was heightened because the book didn't belong to him; in any case, I think the destruction of something so important to history and human insight is really negative behavior. Even if the message of the book is something you think is preposterous, I think it's good to recognize that those viewpoints exist and are valuable to expanding your view of the world.

Then again, burning your personal copy isn't the same as destroying every copy that exists. But I do believe that in burning or banning books, you're withholding information from others and yourself, and that hinders growth.

There are probably books out there the content of which I venemently object to, and would not read, but I think the act of banning a book, or burning a book, actively prohibiting the public the right to exposure of a certain point of view or information... I disagree with that.
I disagree with censorship, although I agree that certain things are best experienced at an age where one can understand it, or is able to cope, but that is left to individuals, not groups or governments.
There needs to be societal coping skills, this only evolves through practise.

I've read a lot of banned books, I don't believe I'm anymore demented for it.
A Clockwork Orange for instance is a brilliant book so unlike the movie, and most of William S Burroughs work was banned, and though it is disturbing (sure) it's not damaging.

I object to censorship on any level, I think there are better more creative ways of addressing social and ethical issues.

I believe that banning books is just dumb, seriously, nothing happens in Catcher in the Rye at all, like nothing, there is no reason for it to be banned. I think it's just a load of misinformed people who want to be outraged over anything. Ugh. I can't speak intelligently about this subject because it makes me angry.
People do not, never have and never will, do things just because a character in a book, game or film did it. I will never believe anyone who says this crap and never believe everything that the news tells you.

I believe that banning and burning books is quite silly, and shouldn't be used as a way to restrict someone's reading.
Censorship, as Rave on Spaceboy mentioned, is a much better idea. Cencorship doesn't include burning or banning, moreover rating books, as we do on Mibba.
For example, upon its debut, the book "50 Shades of Grey" was available in most, if not all, bookstores across Australia - I cannot speak for the rest of the world, as I have no knowledge. Knowing of the book's content, I felt extremely unnerved and uncomfortable seeing it on the shelves and so clearly on display at major stores such as Kmart and Big W - similar to Walmart in the US. While I do not want this book to be banned, I feel that this book should at least be under the heading of adult, or not as readily available. This does not go for only this book, but also others that contain similar content. Go into the movie section of a store, and there isn't any porn on the shelves - why should it be different for the book section where the content can be read inside the store?

sheepcat;:

I believe that banning and burning books is quite silly, and shouldn't be used as a way to restrict someone's reading.
Censorship, as Rave on Spaceboy mentioned, is a much better idea. Censorship doesn't include burning or banning, moreover rating books, as we do on Mibba.
For example, upon its debut, the book "50 Shades of Grey" was available in most, if not all, bookstores across Australia - I cannot speak for the rest of the world, as I have no knowledge. Knowing of the book's content, I felt extremely unnerved and uncomfortable seeing it on the shelves and so clearly on display at major stores such as Kmart and Big W - similar to Walmart in the US. While I do not want this book to be banned, I feel that this book should at least be under the heading of adult, or not as readily available. This does not go for only this book, but also others that contain similar content. Go into the movie section of a store, and there isn't any porn on the shelves - why should it be different for the book section where the content can be read inside the store?

Places like Walmart don't sell porn. If you walk into an adult store, you would see porn displayed openly because customers have to see things to buy them.

50SoG does not have a graphic cover, so I don't see why book stores should be forced to relegate it to an unseen section of the store. They could be displaying it as advertisement and selling more of a very popular series. I don't think discussing sex makes something obscene or worthy of extra scrutiny. There are book sections in stores like Barnes and Nobel for adult books or sex advice books... but they're not set up in any way to obscure the books or make them unavailable, they're out right along with all the other books. With books about genocides, racism, sexual abuse... you want to censor a little softcore love story? Who gets to decide what needs to be kept away from the public? Thats why censorship is not a good idea- it's dangerous to allow someone to decide what the public can and cannot see.

I think what you're proposing- actively trying to limit the publics awareness of and access to books- is far worse than some radicals burning books.

@ Kurtni

I'm not talking about not advertising books - go ahead and do that all you want, see if I care - but surely you can't ban/restrict one subject in one section, yet emblazon another with basically the same topic matter. I understand that bookstores will carry such books and place them under an appropriate title, but for more general-purpose stores surely there must be a limit as to what the store can stock and sell - even if it is a hit.
I'm also not referring to all books with controversial ideas and/or opinions or even more sensitive topics. Merely a topic that should be sold where children cannot pick it up and read it - as such with porn movies. This differs from books that educate people on sex and reproduction - they are similar, yes, but still different.

Kurtni:

Who gets to decide what needs to be kept away from the public?

Why do we have ratings on mibba? Is it not to warn readers of the content in such a story? Why should this not translate the offline world? I'm sure that there are plenty of other books such as 50SoG that are being sold in adult stores and such that have not been advertised in general stores. This would simply be an extra precaution as to stop children and young teenagers from reading material that isn't quite suitable.
On suitability, if parent buys said book, and gives it to their offspring to read and deems it "suitable" I see no problem. But surely censorship on some things such as this would be wise, especially when advertising to the wider community?

sheepcat;:

@ Kurtni

I'm not talking about not advertising books - go ahead and do that all you want, see if I care - but surely you can't ban/restrict one subject in one section, yet emblazon another with basically the same topic matter. I understand that bookstores will carry such books and place them under an appropriate title, but for more general-purpose stores surely there must be a limit as to what the store can stock and sell - even if it is a hit.
I'm also not referring to all books with controversial ideas and/or opinions or even more sensitive topics. Merely a topic that should be sold where children cannot pick it up and read it - as such with porn movies. This differs from books that educate people on sex and reproduction - they are similar, yes, but still different.

Placing books on prominent displays in stores is advertising, those things are done intentionally and affect the stores ability to profit. If they're licensed to sell books, you don't get to tell them what they can and cannot carry, and you can't force your standards of morality on everyone else. The business owners have the freedom to make that decision for themselves- it's not their job to police children.

sheepcat;:

Why do we have ratings on mibba? Is it not to warn readers of the content in such a story? Why should this not translate the offline world? I'm sure that there are plenty of other books such as 50SoG that are being sold in adult stores and such that have not been advertised in general stores. This would simply be an extra precaution as to stop children and young teenagers from reading material that isn't quite suitable.
On suitability, if parent buys said book, and gives it to their offspring to read and deems it "suitable" I see no problem. But surely censorship on some things such as this would be wise, especially when advertising to the wider community?

We have rating on Mibba because Mibba is a privately owned site and the creator has the right to decide how to display content on his site, as an individual. I don't think there is anyone who deserves the authority to tell every private business what type of content they can sell and display. The implicit suggestion is the government and I don't think that's the government's job. The government shouldn't have that level of control over the media.

Putting age limits on something (ie, you have to be 18 to buy violent video games) is not censorship. The content is not affected or tampered with, it can be freely displayed and distributed. Forcing stores to subversively stock content so that it's harder to access is censorship and dictates what the public should have access to.

And I don't really think your opinion of what's suitable for teenagers should dictate the rest of the world. There are tons of NC-17 stories on this site written by teenagers, for other teenagers to read. If the age you have listed is accurate, you're one of those teenagers.

@ Kurtni

Kurtni:

Putting age limits on something (ie, you have to be 18 to buy violent video games) is not censorship.

But it is, really. You are censoring people younger than eighteen to playing those games. Why can it not be applied to books? That is my whole point here.

Kurtni:

And I don't really think your opinion of what's suitable for teenagers should dictate the rest of the world. There are tons of NC-17 stories on this site written by teenagers, for other teenagers to read. If the age you have listed is accurate, you're one of those teenagers.

I'm not saying that what I think of what is suitable for teenagers should dictate the rest of the world. I have my beliefs, and I don't try to force them upon anybody. As much as you may believe otherwise, I was only stating my opinion on this thread.
Also, yes, my age is accurate. No, I am not "one of those teenagers". Unless you were skimming through my stories, they are all rated accordingly, bar one - which is what I think you are referencing to - and my co-author decided the rating for it. It is rated that way for drug use, alcohol abuse and something else that I can't remember off the top of my head. But not for sexual content/sex scenes.

@ sheepcat;
The difference between censorship and ratings is that they are not saying no one should read/watch the work or that the author/artist shouldn't create it, simply that it is not meant for children. I'm totally fine with twelve year olds not being able to buy copies of Penthouse Letters and Playboy.

Put age limits, stop children buying them, don't stock them in children's bookshops but please don't burn them!!
I always think there's an ulterior motive to burning books, because there is a messages they don't want to be spread.... I'm a conspiracy theorist at heart!!!

Whenever anyone says about burning books I think about the Nazi regime in Germany, how they only wanted Nazi ideologies being spread so they burned books containing anything other than that....