Burning Books/Banning Books

Banning things is very seldom effective, it just pushes whatever activity it may be underground.

Banning books is horrible. You never need to do that. No book is going to disturb anyone to the point that banning books is necessary. If there's a seriously fucked up book, I'm just gonna guess that it wasn't written for ten year olds, and ten year olds wouldn't be able to understand it.

Banning books so us teenagers can't read them is stupid. I wouldn't have read The Catcher in the Rye if it hadn't been banned in this book I was reading. (I know, weird, right?)

Burning books is completely fine with me, just like burning the flag. I don't care, because I think you're retarded for doing it. And I believe in free speech. You're just screaming your ignorant and provincial mindset.

--Edit--
Thanks to Molly for all the corrections.

Banning books is fine, in my opinion, because freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness, all of that, but burning them is just horrible and immoral.
Although I have to admit burning and banning are both incredibly stupid and ineffective.
I like reading 'banned' books just to see if there was really a reason to ban them.
(Usually there wasn't.)

I say we get ratings on books like we have on cds and movies and let it be done.

xSing.Love:

Banning books is fine, in my opinion, because freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness, all of that

If a book is banned in a country, for example, who would make that decision? The government? So what has that got to do with freedom of speech? They'd be taking away our right to choose what we consume.

And how can you say banning books is fine but burning them is immoral? :think:

xSing.Love:

Banning books is fine, in my opinion, because freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness, all of that, but burning them is just horrible and immoral.

You sound completely backwards there.
Banning books is fine because of freedom of speech?
If you ban a book, you're stifling freedom of speech and freedom of press.
Burning it, there is no loss of liberty. And the author still gets paid for the book that's burning.
I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.
Ban books because we have freedom of speech?

I don't think any books should be banned. They were written for a reason, and if they're tht shocking/offensive then they wont sell that much anyway. Once they've been 'banned' the allure becomes much greater. I once bought a boxset of books that had been banned when they were published.

Burning books terrifies me, because of a quote (I can't remember where it came from) that said: When one burns books, one will eventually burn people.
I am fairly sure it was a reference to the Holocaust, but I can't remember where the quote came from.

Huck.:

Burning books terrifies me, because of a quote (I can't remember where it came from) that said: When one burns books, one will eventually burn people.
I am fairly sure it was a reference to the Holocaust, but I can't remember where the quote came from.

We've already burned people though...

I don't know about anyone else (I only read the first post), but just the thought of book burning sends me into fits of hysteria.

It takes me at least an hour to calm down. When I see films of it or pictures I start bawling. I hate it. I want to ripe the eyes of the instigators out and throw them onto their own bonfire.

Book burning angers me to no end.

druscilla; the end.:

We've already burned people though...

Yes, that's the point, we'll go back to that if we burn books. Like a repeat of the holocaust. Sorry I'm not very coherent right now :)

Huck.:

druscilla; the end.:

We've already burned people though...

Yes, that's the point, we'll go back to that if we burn books. Like a repeat of the holocaust. Sorry I'm not very coherent right now :)

Actually, the death penalty is still common practice in countries where books aren't burnt/censored [e.g. the US], so I don't really see your point.

kafka.:

Actually, the death penalty is still common practice in countries where books aren't burnt/censored [e.g. the US], so I don't really see your point.

Yeah, but we don't burn them.
I meant literally burning.

druscilla; the end.:

kafka.:

Actually, the death penalty is still common practice in countries where books aren't burnt/censored [e.g. the US], so I don't really see your point.

Yeah, but we don't burn them.
I meant literally burning.

Well burning books is one of the easiest ways to destroy them. And we don't need to be humane with books anyway.
I think my point was that the fact that the death penalty is still used in democratic countries where books are not censored is a bit of an oxymoron.

so not necessary! If you don't like it, don't fucking read it!

Seriously, banning and burning books is so freaking stupid. They're talking about (in Texas anyway, I'm not sure about anywhere else) banning HUCK fucking FINN from schools.

One of the greatest pieces of literature from Mark Twain, all because of it's using the 'n' word.

Wtf? I mean, it happened. That's how people spoke. Slavery happened.

You can't make such a big deal about slavery, and then pretend that it never happened in literature.

The book Farenheit 451 popped into my head when I saw the burning books part of the title.

I think the author should be punished if the book is really that bad, don't burn it.

Run With Scissors:

I think the author should be punished if the book is really that bad, don't burn it.

Punished? What do you think one would have to write about to be punished for what they wrote?

I don't agree with that - and I think it's quite silly - but for argument's sake wouldn't the book not being published, or banned, be 'punishment' enough for the author?

Honestly, I think burning books is ridiculous. One, if you don't want to read it or see then go put it in some vault or something;two, burning them probably smells horrible, ugh.

I also think banning books is ridiculous. I think everyone should have the right to read whatever they want. And banning books will probably make people curious on what the book is even about and be tempted to read it. It's very offensive to the author, who worked extremely hard on the book I'm assuming.
And why would they even publish it if it was going to get banned...geez.

Okay funny thing about Fahrenheit 451 is that book was about the censorship and banning of books...crazy.

It's not exactly about burning books; it's about burning flags, but the sentiment is basically the same.
I can always rely on Mock the Week to explain every major issue in about 30 seconds. xD

Isn't Huck Finn banned from schools because of it's racism or something like that? I believe that's what my English teacher in seventh grade told me, but I could be wrong.

I think that's necessary because, no matter what age, some people would follow the racism. This one kid in my classes is the stupidest person I've ever met. Not even exaggerating. And we watched Schindler's List, and now the kid wants to be a Nazi. Some poeple are too immature to read/see that kind of stuff. So the only way to make it stop is to ban the books.

But I think it's horrible to burn books... It's utterly pointless. That's mind control, making sure people can't read to get smart(er).

Well, unless I'm cold and I need a fire to keep warm and all I have are books...and matches. Then I'd use the books to make a fire...

tayLa UniverseCity:

I think that's necessary because, no matter what age, some people would follow the racism.

I think those people probably had racist tendancies anyway, it was nothing to do with the book.

A book itself cannot make you racist, or sexist, or bigoted, or atheist, or to hold any other viewpoint whatsoever. A book is as how you interpret it; it means different things for different people, so I see no justice in banning a book which might prompt one or two individuals who probably had a predisposition to that kind of thing anyway to go and develop a racist view when it can be enjoyed by so many more people.