This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
#23: Should libraries be allowed to have a list of banned books?
Yes; since any and all decisions about individual libraries are up to the current head of that particular facility, as long as they have approval from the district they are within.
Worked at a library all through out high school.
The question isn't whether a library should be able to ban/ not carry books. Rather, if a library wants to publish a list of books that were
banned by the government
, should they be allowed to? Or should they get in trouble for it?
Another link containing books banned (currently or in the past)
in the United States.
I'm not going to lie, you
really
should have specified that before hand.
I, personnally, don't feel the government should be allowed to ban books at all. So the library shouldn't need to keep such a list.
Post by
Levarus
A book published in hate against a democratic government is published -
It becomes popular.
Do you believe that the government of your own nation should/would allow a popular book labeling Democracy as an evil grow throughout the country?
Post by
Atik
A book published in hate against a democratic government is published -
It becomes popular.
Do you believe that the government of your own nation should/would allow a popular book labeling Democracy as an evil grow throughout the country?
I beleive they
should
. Whether they would or not I can't say, but I don't feel they should have any place to ban such a book.
Post by
Levarus
That would defeat the purpose of loyalty in a country. When a government is innate about actions against them, complacent against a threat, people don't like that. It would be as if the government agreed with the book's principles. That in itself is an extreme detriment to any government.
When it comes to self-preservation, do you think a government should chastise actions against their own being? Assuming they'd have political back-up for their actions.
Post by
Atik
That would defeat the purpose of loyalty in a country. When a government is innate about actions against them, complacent against a threat, people don't like that. It would be as if the government agreed with the book's principles. That in itself is an extreme detriment to any government.
There are books published all the time that bash and tear apart the current administration of the US. None of them are ever banned.
A book insulting democracy would be no worse.
When it comes to self-preservation, do you think a government should chastise actions against their own being? Assuming they'd have political back-up for their actions
Books and satire are passive. The hypothetical book you mention would be a discussion. It isn't an act of terrorism against the country, it is simply an opinion on the type of government the country uses.
What you are suggesting is that the government should be allowed to decide upon one viewpoint, and stop anyone from having another.
Post by
Monday
When a government is innate about actions against them
When a government is what?
Also, Lev, at what line does removing a threat to democracy stop and Fahrenheit 451 begin?
Post by
Levarus
There are books published all the time that bash and tear apart the current administration of the US. None of them are ever banned.
A book insulting democracy would be no worse.
I'm saying if it became
popular
, outlined a clear point. I'm sure there are many biassed books no one cares for. This one's a game-changer though.
Books and satire are passive. The hypothetical book you mention would be a discussion. It isn't an act of terrorism against the country, it is simply an opinion on the type of government the country uses.
What you are suggesting is that the government should be allowed to decide upon one viewpoint, and stop anyone from having another.
Books are not passive, satire especially. A hostile newspaper can destroy a country's leadership from the inside. FOX news is a discussion, a book is not. A political book is an ideology that is written by one voice; the author. The government is faced with two decisions: let the book spread, the idea envelop in the mind's of it's own people, or ban it.
Do you still think the government
should not
have the ability to be rid of it?
Post by
Levarus
When a government is innate about actions against them
When a government is what?
Inert*
Also, Lev, at what line does removing a threat to democracy stop and Fahrenheit 451 begin?
Until the people act. Democracy is a system where power is given to the people, is it not?
Post by
Monday
Until the people act. Democracy is a system where power is given to the people, is it not?
Yes, however, assuming you live in the USA, you don't live in a democracy. You live in a Constitutional Republic.
Post by
Levarus
Until the people act. Democracy is a system where power is given to the people, is it not?
Yes, however, assuming you live in the USA, you don't live in a democracy. You live in a Constitutional Republic.
I'm using Democracy as the example, not the USA's government. And besides, they're very similar.
Post by
Monday
Until the people act. Democracy is a system where power is given to the people, is it not?
Yes, however, assuming you live in the USA, you don't live in a democracy. You live in a Constitutional Republic.
I'm using Democracy as the example, not the USA's government. And besides, they're very similar.
They aren't necessarily that similar, but that's beside the point.
What if, using your original example, a book was published inflaming the public against a constitutional monarchy, and it became popular?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Democracy is not always the best form of government.
Post by
Squishalot
Yes, yes, good god a thousand times yes. Banning a book because it's a threat to democracy would be like killing a guy because he's a threat to pacifism. I mean democracy is great, but it's not so great it's worth giving up freedom of speech for.
Why wouldn't the same argument apply to bomb making and other criminal activities?
Post by
Levarus
They aren't necessarily that similar, but that's beside the point.
Similar.
What if, using your original example, a book was published inflaming the public against a constitutional monarchy, and it became popular?
You answered my question with my question, but there's a flaw: I said democracy, not "constitutional monarchy"
Post by
Atik
I'm saying if it became popular, outlined a clear point. I'm sure there are many biased books no one cares for. This one's a game-changer though.
A lot of people care about the books bashing government administrations. Many of them are extremely popular throughout the US and are many people's major determining factors on how they think administrations did at running the country, and how they vote in future elections.
The hypothetical book would not be any more a game changer than any other book making a political statement.
Books are not passive, satire especially. A hostile newspaper can destroy a country's leadership from the inside. FOX news is a discussion, a book is not
A newspaper is, more-or-less, the exact same thing as watching the news on TV, or reading it online. FOX news is actually a good example; some news sources are biased, others remain neutral.
Books are hardly even comparable. They are a passive way of discussing viewpoints. Some of them are quite hostile, granted, but none of them have any more power to destroy a government than the 6 O'clock news.
The government is faced with two decisions: let the book spread, the idea envelop in the mind's of it's own people, or ban it.
You're looking at this in a far too black-and-white manner. Off the top of my head, I can think of several other solutions. There are probably countless.
And, beyond that, the book may simply be pointing out certain problems with democracy. If people agree with these problems, and feel they would like the government better if they worked to solve said problem, then it is the Government's duty to give the people what they want.
Or am I mis-understanding the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence?
Do you still think the government should not have the ability to be rid of it?
Yes, yes I do.
Post by
Monday
You answered my question with my question, but there's a flaw: I said democracy, not "constitutional monarchy"
And what exactly is your point? Are you saying that democracy should be the only protected government?
others remain neutral.
I have yet to see a neutral news source. All are biased to some degree. NPR is somewhat less than most, but still.
Or am I mis-understanding the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence?
Not at all, good sir.
Post by
Levarus
A lot of people care about the books bashing government administrations. Many of them are extremely popular throughout the US and are many people's major determining factors on how they think administrations did at running the country, and how they vote in future elections.
The hypothetical book would not be any more a game changer than any other book making a political statement.
I'm saying if it was a game-changer. Karl Marx wrote probably one of the most influential political books of all time, and he was arrested.
A newspaper is, more-or-less, the exact same thing as watching the news on TV, or reading it online. FOX news is actually a good example; some news sources are biased, others remain neutral.
There is a favored quote of mine;
Four hostile newspapers are more to fear than a thousand bayonets
. That was from Napolean Bonaparte. Political propaganda helps turn elections, surely it's effects are underrated.
Books are hardly even comparable. They are a passive way of discussing viewpoints. Some of them are quite hostile, granted, but none of them have any more power to destroy a government than the 6 O'clock news.
Books are not passive, like I said before, Karl Marx practically outlined the basis of what would be communism and a movement that would situate history in a bloody conflict. Books are not passive.
You're looking at this in a far too black-and-white manner. Off the top of my head, I can think of several other solutions. There are probably countless.
There are two practical solutions*, others branch off the two.
And, beyond that, the book may simply be pointing out certain problems with democracy. If people agree with these problems, and feel they would like the government better if they worked to solve said problem, then it is the Government's duty to give the people what they want.
We can hypothesize all day what the book would say; what if people want the book banned? What if it's popular but disliked? Do you think the government should ban it then?
Post by
Levarus
And what exactly is your point? Are you saying that democracy should be the only protected government?
That's not what I'm saying, my point is a book could be banned by any government, democracy is a government which is hard for any selected ruler to carry out - therefore, abolish the distribution of a politically-biassed novel. But the question, is if they should? What do you think Benzene?
Post by
Monday
I'm saying if it was a game-changer. Karl Marx wrote probably one of the most influential political books of all time, and he was arrested.
Marx didn't live in a democratic country. Your premise is slightly flawed.
There is a favored quote of mine;
Four hostile newspapers are more to fear than a thousand bayonets.
That was from Napolean Bonaparte. Political propaganda helps turn elections, surely it's effects are underrated.
I think you missed the point of what Atik was saying, there.
There are two practical solutions*, others branch off the two.
Expound, please.
What if it's popular but disliked?
This are sort of mutually exclusive.
what if people want the book banned?
If the people want the book banned, they won't buy it. Simple as that.
Unless, of course, you write a book about wizards and witches going to school.
That's not what I'm saying, my point is a book could be banned by any government, democracy is a government which is hard for any selected ruler to carry out - therefore, abolish the distribution of a politically-biassed novel. But the question, is if they should? What do you think Benzene?
I think that it's kind of hard to abolish a politically biased novel if there's a night/day two party political partisan system.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.