I was going to post about/celebrate Banned Books Week yesterday, but I needed another day to think this through. Certainly, I’m sure we all can agree that censorship, in all its forms, is retrograde, oppressive, contrary to democratic ideals, and rightly associated with totalitarianism and all sorts of other bad “isms.” Free exchange of ideas serves the greater good. Censorship = horrible. And we should fight it when it happens.
At the same time, I want to kind of acknowledge that the fight against censorship and banned books is changing somewhat in the Internet era, no? And ultimately, I think, for the better.
Three cheers for the fact that it’s less viable for someone to try and ban a book than it ever has been. Up until the Internet era, if someone successfully banned a book in a library or in bookstores in a region, that was it. Good luck finding that book! You’d have to drive to another region to find it, if you heard about it at all.
With the Internet though, good luck stopping someone from finding that book. Chances are they can buy it very easily online.
Now, obviously there is uneven access to money and computers and the Internet and this does not mean everything is peachy and that we should stop being vigilant. The youth of America will always be the most vulnerable to censorship as libraries are more central to their reading lives, so there are still choke points that can stop a worthy book from reaching a child who needs it.
And I also wonder if there’s a new danger created by the Internet, which is that any yahoo with a crazy agenda can easily hijack our attention by doing offensive stunts. This has obviously always been a part of life, but it seems like it’s now easier and more common than ever. You see this everywhere on the Internet and the media: someone wants to get some attention so they say the most horrible things they can think of, then they sit back and watch the show, feasting on their newfound attention. On every scale, from the smallest website to the national media, the Internet is greasing the crazyperson skids.
Lately I’ve been wondering if these people deserve our scorn or if they deserve our restraint. Is there a way to fight these people without playing right into their hands and giving them the attention they’re craving? Is there a risk in elevating a crazyperson’s agenda by treating them so seriously? What’s the balance?
If there’s actual censorship going on then yes, definitely, fight it like there’s no tomorrow, because if censorship takes hold there may as well not be a tomorrow. I don’t think there’s much ambiguity about that.
But what about when people are staging book-related stunts and saying ridiculous things on the Internet? Is the best tactic to treat them seriously and fight back or to deprive them of the attention they’re aiming for?
That’s an honest question, I really don’t know the answer.
On the one hand, truth and decency and free expression are absolutely worth fighting for, and even if it’s a mosquito biting you, you swat it.
On the other hand, I can’t help but feel that as we learn to navigate the Internet era, if there’s a virtual dog pile every time someone says something vile, are we increasing the likelihood of people provoking us in the future? Does it become more appealing for people to try and pull similar stunts for attention? Do we make ourselves a target by being easily provoked?
I’m not leaving off this post with any answers, only questions, because I don’t feel like I know what’s best. The Internet is changing our lives very quickly, and our instinct is to use the tactics we know.
Maybe those tactics are still the best or maybe we’ll need to change with the times.
Abra says
Is the best tactic to treat them seriously and fight back or to deprive them of the attention they're aiming for?
Sometimes the oddball is just running his mouth, and sometimes he comes back and shoots thirty people. We need a better way of telling which ones need our attention.
Steph Sinkhorn says
"You see this everywhere on the Internet and the media: someone wants to get some attention so they say the most horrible things they can think of, then they sit back and watch the show, feasting on their newfound attention."
It's real life trolling, is what it is. Heh.
I agree that, overall, we give small-time yahoos way too much attention, because some small local news story can explode and become national news in just a few hours (hello, random dude from Florida who was going to have a Qur'an bonfire). It ends up creating much more of a stir and those types of people get far more attention than they ever, ever should.
At the same time, you're spot on – it spreads the word and lets people know that a potential banning is taking place, which stirs retaliation and a push back to make sure that very book is MORE than available.
So, I'm torn. I hate giving people like this attention, but I'm glad I can hear about what they're doing so I can combat against it. Ultimately, they always seem to fail because the reaction is so overwhelmingly powerful.
Locusts and Wild Honey says
"Consider the source and ignore it."
That's what mama taught us and it holds true for the Internet.
If someone wants to engage in a healthy dialogue, that's one thing. But an Internet troll slinging arrows in an attempt to get attention? That's quite another.
Dana Bailey says
I think how you fight back would depend on the crazy person and how they are going about it. If they are obviously a crazy person with little clout then you may need to ignore it, but if it's someone who could do potential harm, then you do whatever you can. Like in Laurie Halse Anderson's situation. I think that is a great example of how to react. She is pushing back with real facts about her work and having others stand up with her.
Reena Jacobs says
Excellent post. I've had this concern over the last couple of week with the publicity some individuals have received over a banning issue. I couldn't help but wonder if the matter was brought to the surface in order to boost sales.
From what I've seen, an author getting his/her novel on a ban list would be a dream come true these days. It seems as if all a person has to do is request a work be removed from a system, and people want to purchase the book out of rebellion. It doesn't matter if it's the genre they normally read or not. It's almost as if people want to teach the person attempting to ban a work a lesson without knowing if there's any merit to the actual work.
I guess that's human nature.
Sommer says
I'm thinking of the recent call to ban Speak in the article written by that guy who has certainly received more publicity than he ever would have by sticking to his mainline religious agenda instead of picking on beloved books. I remember thinking, "I do not want to give this guy any more spotlight than he deserves, but…"
At the same time, what became of his 15 minutes of fame, so to speak, was a stronger, healthier, more outspoken book blogging community. His stunt gave everyone a platform from which to speak about censorship just before Banned Book Week. His stupid internet antics made a for a much stronger, angrier army of book lovers who won't take this kind of nonsense lying down.
So I don't know. There are a lot of people saying things on the internet that aren't good, and there's not enough time in the day to fight all those battles. Maybe the internet has taught us how to pick the right fights.
lora96 says
I truly appreciate the coverage of Banned Books Week on the Internet among many of the bloggers I follow. It's increased my awareness of how many of my favorite titles have found themselves under fire.
My concern about ignoring the crackpots who try to kick up a fuss about what they deem to be inappropriate content is the following:
A failed attempt to provoke the masses sometimes results in an escalated bid for attention. They will, in some cases, behave even more abominably until they incite the desired result.
Sommer says
Reena-
I think this comes up a lot, that authors would love to have their books challenged, and sure it might be good for sales, but I doubt anyone wants to be told their books are inappropriate and shameful. After the big Humble Texas Teen festival thing where Ellen Hopkins was disinvited, Pete Hautman wrote a great post about it and I remember in it he mentions joking with Judy Blume about how he could get his books censored to help his sales, and she was not amused with him. The post is here:
https://petehautman.blogspot.com/2010/08/nasty-thing-in-corner.html
Jenny says
Agree it's a conundrum. I ignore everything viral not worth the attention, however Censorship is not the way to go. Everything is so fleeting that many promotional efforts are forgotten almost as soon as they're aired.
clp3333 says
I always just try to do what seems like the right thing. If speaking my mind to fight against someone who says something vile I think it should be done, regardless of their motives. If someone says something ridiculously wrong I think it is more important for people to stand up to it than sit around hoping the other person doesn't garner attention for it. It's almost like the bystander effect where we can now get so worried about what someone else is going to do that we don't worry about what the best thing we should do is.
Jess Tudor says
Reena – no one wants their book banned, whether or not it increases sales. You hear this from time to time, but it's really not true. Check out ekristinanderson.com for interviews all this week with people who have actually been in this situation.
I like what Abra said. The problem is you can't tell which oddball is which, and are you willing to risk that this oddball is harmless?
A lot of good food for thought here, Nathan. E. M. Kokie had many of the same ideas during SPEAKLoudly. I don't have answers, either, but I think of it this way: evil flourishes when good men do nothing. I don't want to say nothing and later regret it. I'd rather take the time and energy to get behind something I believe in and hope I made a difference, no matter how small.
Josin L. McQuein says
Your post has been deemed socially objectionable to the delicate minds of people we don't want to think for themselves, therefore, we have decided to ban your post from public view lest it give people ideas and unapproved thoughts ….
What?
What d'ya mean we can't do that?
But we're WE, of course WE CAN! We can ban anything We want to ban! Do not question the authority of WE!
Take that tone with WE and we shall ban your entire internets!
😀
Ann M says
You raise some really good issues to ponder…
I guess information availability isn't a bad thing, right? So, I wouldn't want to see information pushed aside (free speech and all that). But still, I so dislike seeing something that is obviously absurd getting the same ranking on news as a major issues.
I wonder if how people react is just as important as if they do or do not react at all.
If hundreds or thousands of people reply with strong emotions, and get all riled up, that's probably more satisfying for the fame-seeker than if those hundreds or thousands of people replied with straight forward facts and (not emotionally charged) opinions. I'm not trying to say that the emotions are wrong or should be ignored, just that perhaps if the attention garnered was more analytical, then the information could still be available to people, could still be widely known, but it wouldn't achieve the sensation that the poster was after.
Maybe… but then again, maybe not…
Ted Cross says
You should start a Ban Jacob Wonderbar movement so you can top the bestsellers lists!
E. VERNA says
YOU WONT BELIEVE THIS: The Holy Bible, Noli Me Tangere, El Felibusterismo, Newton's Law of Physics are BOOKS that were banned long time ago. Know what? After the age of darkness there is so called AGE of Enlightenment and all these "banned books" are widely read today by people who can READ and understand the values of who you are and what you stand for.
Bane of Anubis says
So, if censorship bad, why moderate?
The largest problem w/ the crazies (the real crazies, not the attention whores) is that their words will speak to fellow crazies and we get this resonant insanity.
Debating/ignoring it doesn't matter. The best way to defuse is through censorship, not dialogue (or lack thereof).
Now, what/who is determined nutsoid is the gray area, and (in some ways) shouldn't be left to mob (cow) mentality…. democracy's nice and all, as long as it fits our mental mold.
Personally, I do think there are books that should be banned/burned (e.g., that pedophile's how-to handbook that cropped up in Florida a month or so ago)… sure, maybe it will be discovered that man-boy love isn't detrimental and is better for society, but there are lines I will never feel comfortable crossing.
Anonymous says
Author Jonathan Lethem bids farewell to NY. Very long but an awesome interview.
https://thyme2gogh.blogspot.com/2010/09/jonathan-lethem-bids-farwell.html
I only post this because I do believe one of his books was being banned by some redneck school in Texas
Anne R. Allen says
Ted's joke has some truth to it. We should all be so lucky. But the results aren't always so positive.
Focusing on crazypersons can have disastrous consequences–like the attention given that potential arsonist in Florida, which almost killed more US citizens than 9/11. Or it can have nice ones–like making Laurie Halse Anderson's name a household word.
But the scariest thing is it can result in a crazyperson minority hijacking the political process, which may happen in November. That makes me afraid. Very afraid.
Vanessa says
I think you are correct, that often, it's just a call for attention. But as Abra points out, we can't know which is which, often until it's too late.
I'd rather give them the attention now, negative or not, then find out later that by ignoring them, we permitted those atrocities to happen. After all, the worst kind of evil is for good people to sit by idly and allow evil to happen.
Katherine Hyde says
When a child is having a tantrum, you ignore it. When a crazy person pulls a crazy stunt to get attention, you ignore them, unless they're actually harming someone. Basic Parenting 101.
Reena Jacobs says
I certainly understand what others are saying about an author not wanting their book to be censored or labeled as shameful or inappropriate. On the other hand, I do think we as a society need to use common sense. For example, I write some erotic. I would be appalled to find my erotic writing in a elementary, junior, or high school. I don't even let my daughters read some of my stuff, and my oldest is 17.
This is not to say Speak, which has been on twitter and blogs lately, is erotic. I wouldn't know. I haven't read it. However, it's important to remember that adults and children have two different set of rules. Adults should have the right to read anything they want. Making those same reads available to minors is a different story.
I think it's important to research the issue, which might include reading the actual book, before jumping on the bandwagon and making the blanket statement all censorship is wrong. Children deserve censorship for their mental well being.
I have nothing against Ms. Anderson or other writers who want their works to be seen or fight against the censorship of their works. However, I do question why one individual from one city was placed on the map when he requested the school board to look into the issue of the material available to students in his area.
I'm not saying I agree with Dr. Scoggins' viewpoint on the works he mentioned. I don't even take his stance on sexual education. But as a parent wanting the best for her children, I would at least want the matter investigated.
I also question why Ms. Anderson made a appeal to the general public when it was a school board issue and not a ban to remove it from the public viewing. For the record, I'm not against Speak. In fact, I've heard quite a few great things about the novel. I just wonder what the purpose of bringing to light the school board issues of a city of 14,000.
Think of it like this. I'm sure many parents would be highly offended if one of my erotic pieces was assigned as required reading to their children. Again, I'm not saying that's the case with Speak. It may very well be suitable for children. I'm just saying, censorship for children is very different than censorship for adults. And we need to act accordingly.
Anonymous says
DA VINCI CODE the novel and the movie was banned before but probably those inquiring minds of few cryptologists made this awesome amazing movie passed the strict test allowing it to be seen for public viewing.
Emily says
It's a fine line to walk. You're right, we shouldn't give more attention to attention seekers, however, some of these people are very adept at getting large portions of the population riled up about something they wouldn't have ever gotten riled up about, on their own. So I think you take it on a case by case situation. Which means we (the publishing community, writers, agents, editors etc) can never let our guard done when it comes to defending the rights of our children, ourselves and our communitites to choose for ourselves what we will or won't read.
John Jack says
Either/or polarity only leaves two choices. The world ain't made nor operated that way. Stepping outside the polarized box leads to other choices, infinite possibilities.
The occasional wingnuts who pop up above the radar blind of anoymity in numbers have self-serving agendas that empower their damaged personalities. Pitiable, no; evocative, no, though both frequently transpire.
The real value of wingnuts is their capacity to innure the public consciousness against insanity. Both good and bad, and indifferent. It's proactive, consicious, critical thinking practicing resisting viral insanity that's most important.
The Mob rules in majority rules societies. The Mob wants convenient, predictable compliance and conformity. Strangers and strange behaviors are anethema.
Strangness means change, change to be resisted at all costs and by any means to an end. But that's knee-jerk reactionaryism, which when cooler heads finally prevail in hindsight is seen as precipitiously premature.
Wingnuts are a needed element in a healthy society. They keep us aware of our failings. They remind us to count to ten before we go off on a witch hunt. And they shake up our apathetic complacency. Life would be much less interesting without them.
Julia Rachel Barrett says
I recently read an article about how the internet is growing up and the slammers are gradually becoming a little more civilized. We'll see. I'm not entirely convinced it's true.
I don't believe in censorship as a general rule, but if you censor nothing, how do you control child pornography, internet stalking, internet hate crimes, or snuff – all of which are abhorrent. There have to be rules – involving common sense if nothing else.
Ignoring or fighting? I have no idea which works best.
Anonymous says
Sorry, but the whole issue is a joke (I don't mean it's not useful to examine it–as you do here–rather the social structure surrounding the issue is comical).
I'm writing what will be one of the most controversial books in all of history…and I don't care one whit who wants to ban it, burn it, or wipe their nether regions with it.
Be my guest…everyone's a critic, and if you don't like what I think, then more power to you.
(Unfortunately for my critics, my books is about personal empowerment, so they're just cutting off their noses to spite their faces).
Personally, I have bigger (much bigger) fish to fry: Specifically, the tyranny of invalid law (which I won't get into here) is a much more pernicious problem then any fool on a hill spitting into the wind–and at my proverbial face.
Jeffrey Beesler says
I agree that's no easy fix for this one. One person might just be craving attention while another might be ready to do something dangerous. I think maybe a little bit of listening might be in order, but if someone is outright going for provocation, then we just don't respond to them.
Chuck H. says
Some books should be banned but who decides? I decide for myself. I am my own personal censor. I think everyone should have the same privilege but only in regard to themselves, no one else. Don't tell me what I can or cannot read and I will extend to you the same courtesy.
ryan field says
"Is there a way to fight these people without playing right into their hands and giving them the attention they're craving?"
Dismissal. It happens all the time, and it's not always the typical crazy people. There are a few clever souls on the net who know how to get attention and still manage to come off looking perfectly sane while they are creating chaos.
Leila says
I wonder if, in addition to what everyone else has said thus far, there is an issue of what triggers these 'yahoos' raise in terms of our own values/ethics/morals/life experiences etc that actually prompts us to act, in whatever form, v’s let the comments slide.
If you don't add fuel to a fire, eventually it has to die down. Granted it will happen slowly, so slowly, burning lots around it, but it does eventually die.
I think it's hardest to resist responding when comments either hit a personal trigger, or when it appears the 'yahoo' is getting free reign because nobody appears to be sufficiently addressing/containing them.
In reality, they aren't getting free reign, they're exposing themselves and those who subscribe to their views as ignorant/discriminatory/insert any other label that's appropriate.
And, in my simple opinion, given enough time they 'hang' themselves. They run out of dumb things to say, so they move onto their dumber stash, and when that doesn't have the desired shock value they move onto their dumbest stash, and, oh…oh dear, they have nothing left. And they are left looking like fools.
And, to borrow Nathan’s mosquito analysis, if a mosquito bites you, you absolutely swat it. But if you don't scratch the site where you were bitten, the itchiness fades pretty fast.
Anyway, just my two cents worth for an interesting topic! I certainly don’t profess to have the answers either, it’s a tricky issue.
jjdebenedictis says
The best way to deal with trolls is to not respond to them (not that I'm always very good at that.) Only talk to the ones who seem like they can be reasoned with.
But I think we need to step up when the person is doing real harm. Making a stink on the internet is not real harm. Banning a book is.
Jens Porup says
More serious than censorship is self-censorship.
"Oh, you can't say that!" Squash. Splat. Elbows flail as crowd stomps errant truth-teller to death.
Democracy, after all, is tyranny of the majority. And the majority of people are idiots.
Touchy-feely namby-pamby "oh you hurt my feelings!" has made the ability to call a spade a spade impossible in America these days.
Want free speech? Get a lawyer. And a bullet-proof vest. Then you might consider speaking your mind.
Is censorship in America any different than censorship was in the Soviet Union? In Russia, you could not write anything that critized the communist system. Now, if you write something that is not "commercially viable" (translation: undermines the capitalist system), it won't get published either.
Only instead of there being a Central Committee, this censorship is outsourced free of charge to New York publishers and agents, and all the people at Comcast and other conglomerates who dominate the media-industrial complex.
You need to go deeper than just "banned books". Many books get banned before they're published, sometimes before they're even thought.
Jens
The Invisible Writer says
Too much credit is given to trolls. I hate seeing a meaningful article derailed in the comments section of a website by mindless 'yes men' pointlessly arguing with mindless 'hate men.'
Most sites need to dump their comment sections to a secondary webpage so that the anger doesn't polute the issues (I'm talking to you, news and politcal websites.) Comments are fine, but seperate the commentary from the actual report.
As for the shock jocks – they open discussion in exciting/disturbing ways – feeling like they need to raise awareness of a terrible issue or to get a thrill from millions of people seeing their private parts. This last part isn't going away, unfortunately.
What is sad is that truly important messages get lost behind the noise of the perverse.
Rick Daley says
I try to ignore the wackos who try to hijack our National Attention Span, especially those who do it on purpose (i.e. sometimes the media is to blame, not the perpetrator).
The crazy people have always been out there, and for all I know they have been acting on their urges all along, and the Internet and 24×7 news cycle has merely given rise to visibility of their actions.
But it is possible that the crazy people have been there, but have suppressed their urges because they lacked a wide audience for their performance art, but now they have a platform so they go all in, like a bunch of Joaquin Phoenixes.
WORD VERIFICATION: monfrat. The fraternity I belong to, in French. Also, this word verification makes me miss the Editorial Ass blog for some reason.
Ted says
Yes, if you believe the moon landing was faked or Elvis is alive or that dinosaurs lived 8K years ago, the Internet lets you trumpet your beliefs to billions.
But that's a two-edged sword, because your message will be competing with a billion other messages of all types — cogent, delusional, and in-between.
So the only kind of censorship needed is the type imposed by individual readers. Let the ranters rant; unless a rant makes sense, it will lose the competition for intelligent eyeballs.
abc says
I need some examples because all I can think of is scary republicans (my apologies to not-scary republicans).
Patricia A. Timms says
The problem with these types of topics is that the masses don't win out because they don't care enough to speak up. That's why some farming community somewhere has determined that James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl should be banned and therefore it has been. Just an example, a hypothetical if you will, but still, it's amazing how few people realize what can and what cannot based on just a few people who care enough to make a fuss.
I posted Monday about this topic and included a bit of information about how the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drews amongst several other series in the syndicate were banned from 1927 until the mid 1960's. All because people thought series books were terrible.
The reasons for banning anything are always silly, unfounded, unresearched loads of garbage.
Kristi Helvig says
I don't think it's a black and white issue. I think it depends on the situation and most importantly, HOW you respond to it.
For instance, I responded to the SPEAK issue, not by attacking the person who promoted the ignorance, but by educating people about the issue of date rape in our society. There are ways to speak up in ways that are professional and respectful.
Some issues are too important to take the silent route.
Extra: We're hosting a giveaway of SPEAK by Laurie Halse Anderson on our blog for anyone who is interested.
J. Stryker says
I'm glad that you used crazyperson as a single noun. It seems that crazy is more of a core identity feature instead of an adjective for some of these attention seekers.
readingkidsbooks says
Thought provoking post Nathan. Thoughtful replies also appreciated. Yes, more questions than answers, but the important thing is that the dialogue continues. If the response to suppression of intellectual freedom is silence, don't we risk losing that intellectual freedom by virtue of the removal of books that deserve our attention and may well be needed by a host of readers who no longer have access? My vote is for respectfully "Speak"ing out. I do not care to have my reading choices, nor those of my children or grandchildren (hopefully one day; no pressure girls honest) dictated. Sheryl
lahn says
"On the one hand, truth and decency and free expression are absolutely worth fighting for, and even if it's a mosquito biting you, you swat it."
I'm in favor of swatting the mosquito.
When I read this post, the issue that jumped most quickly to my mind was the furor over the misnamed "Ground Zero Mosque" followed by the "wingnut" burning of the Quran.
It's fine to argue that the truth will come out, that crazies will fade away if denied the attention they seek, that they will prove themselves idiots. But it doesn't always happen that way.
Lots of people listen to wingnuts, especially when the wingnuts have the loudest voice. If we don't have anything else to listen to, then we believe the crazies and the fire grows. It doesn't die out. When the internet was filled with stories about the "Ground Zero Mosque," it was important to spread more accurate information about Park51. It was important, to me, to speak out.
We believe what we hear most frequently. If we hear that there is no genocide in Rwanda (in the 1990s), then most of us will believe that there is no genocide in Rwanda. The wingnuts can be subtle, after all. Crazy doesn't mean stupid. Ultimately, a lack of information, a failure to spread the truth, to speak out, can be worse than pulling a book from a shelf, or even burning a book on the street. It can mean lasting hatred, the kind that burns cities, and people, instead.
My two cents, shined hard.
Mira says
Great post – I really appreciate that you laid out both sides of the issue, with its ambiguity and complication.
This is a hard one. I know not everyone agrees with me, but I was really angry about the Slushpile Hell agent. However, I stopped talking about it because I got the sense that the agent enjoys the attention. No point in that. But I was also aware the issue was being pursued in another way.
I guess that would be my guideline. Is responding to this person going to have benefit? Or is another way to handle it that will be more effective?
And is there benefit in speaking out? If I speak out will it:
a. educate that person
b. educate other people
c. add ideas and perspectives that balance out the conversation
d. allow me to make positive connections with those who share my beliefs.
e. help build community that may go on to advocate on many levels.
f. counter a very strong voice.
c. and f. are important. Deciding to 'rise above' it can be risky because the silence can be misunderstood. That voice can become much stronger than it should be.
So, as irritating as it may be to feed a bid for attention, if it can be transformed into something positive – like education – then it can be worth it.
Those are my two cents, for what they are worth. 🙂
Appreciate the chance to explore a really interesting topic, Nathan. Thanks.
Ariana Richards says
I agree. This is a sharp double-edged sword. On the one side it's so important to speak out against this kind of prejudice and ignorance. On the other…the last thing these people need is another ear directed toward their preaching…Very torn about this and not sure what the solution is.
Anonymous says
About the virtual dogpile. What bothers me about that is that people jump in who may not even really have a true knowledge of the situation. It's way easier to become an angry mob. Because some people don't see themselves as being accountable for what they say on the internet.
That being said, I'm going Anon on this one. haha
Yat-Yee says
Tough question. One of many difficult problems that can arise out a society that values freedom. These problems may be one reason some people just want to surrender and clamp down on certain freedoms because the results are messy.
Susan Kaye Quinn says
Ignoring vs. piling on: this has always been a choice/option, but I agree the internet has made it easier to pile on, less easy to ignore.
While this feeds the attention-mongers, I also think this enables even more group-think than there has been in the past. Both are the ugly underbelly of the many benefits that this hyper-connectedness brings.
I think it's still a net positive, which is why I stick around. 🙂
Munk says
Fundamentally, I believe the information age will dilute fundamentalism.
In other words, no answer to your conundrum is necessary, at least not from a philosophical platform–case by case, maybe.
Consider historical trends. Those crazy people you speak of have been around forever. The most successful crazies are those that are able to control the masses by controlling the messages they hear, or censorship. I submit that media control has such a greater propensity for damage, rather than the strength of the message itself, that over time truth will win out. People know crap when they hear it. Here's an analogy… Think of the Nazi movement in 1936 Germany as a HUGE bubble filled with toxic gas. Hitler, in the control of the media, was able to keep pundits from throwing darts and popping the damn thing until the allies built a giant dart. I don't believe the bubbles can grow as big any more, not with everyone watching. My cup… half full.
Doug Pardee says
What Reena Jacobs said.
Almost all of these "banned" books are just titles that some parents didn't want their children exposed to in public schools. For most children—in the US, at least—attending public school is not optional. Public schools are required to exercise sensitivity in their role as influential guardians of other people's children. And it's not like parents can't provide the "banned" books to their own children.
Melanie says
I'm surprised we haven't been talking about the Pentagon's destruction of nearly 10,000 copies of OPERATION DARK HEART this week. It's a blatant example of high-level censorship, but it was carried out, supposedly, in the name of national security. Wondering how everyone falls on that one…
M.A.Leslie says
I don't think that we have to censor the crazed attention seeker. I believe we should treat them like our little sister, if you ignore her then she will stop doing the thing that is annoying you. They are seeking attention so don't give it to them.
Just because it is written doesn't mean you have to read it and if by chance you read it you don't have to respond to it.
Just remember: TREAT THEM LIKE YOUR LITTLE SISTER. Words that we can all live by.