Let's burn books!

[Cave Man]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/wisconsin.book.row/index.html

I always thought Wisconsin was a pretty progressive state...

[eawmp1]

I noticed where you are from - we have Neanderthals in the U.S. too. ;)

Seriously, certain segments of our society feel that if you completely shelter kids from all the evils of the world you will end up with pure-minded adults. While I agree having certain materials age-restricted, BURNING books is the work of small, insecure minds.

[matthewscott661]

I think that people need to stop sheltering their children so much. If you never teach your kids about these type of things, when they encounter them later in life, they won't now how to react and could make bad decisions. The best thing is just to talk with them maturely about it and teach them how to make the right decision on their own.

I think the man that proposed burning the book because his "mental and emotional well-being was damaged by [the] book at the library" should have been intelligent enough to put the book down when he realized it wasn't his style or it conflicted with his beliefs. Just because he doesn't like the book does not mean that he can take away the rights of the author or anyone else who might want to read the book.

[yg17]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/wisconsin.book.row/index.html

I always thought Wisconsin was a pretty progressive state...

It's pretty liberal, but every state has its nutjobs.

[pelicanflip]

Book burnings? Watch, soon we'll be having witch hunts soon.

[leekohler]

I posted about this a while ago. I can't believe it's gone this far. People are truly stupid sometimes. All they have succeeded in doing is making their kids want to read the books even more.

Book burnings? Watch, soon we'll be having witch hunts soon.

Reminds me so much of the Clinton years. The wingnuts come out in full force when a Dem is President.

[Queso]

"All the books in the young-adult zone that deal with homosexuality are gay-affirming. That's not balance," she said.
Something tells me that anything other than Teh Gheys Will Burn in Hell is considered "gay-affirming" by this ridiculous woman.

How about we do them a deal? They can burn the books, and we can burn their church down :)

[steve2112]

Ah yes, another example of "I'm too lazy to be a real parent, so let's ban it!".

Don't want your kids playing violent video games? Ban 'em!

Don't want your kids seeing dirty movies (violence is ok)? Ban 'em!

Don't want your kids reading certain books? Ban 'em!

Who needs to be a parent when all this stuff can just be banned and your precious little snowflakes never get exposed to them?

Oh yeah, and I am 100% certain these are the same types of people who freak out and gripe about "government interference" in the lives in the form of abortion, health care, etc.

[matthewscott661]

How about we do them a deal? They can burn the books, and we can burn their church down :)

I'm pretty sure this would just make things worse. There has got to be a better way of stopping people from imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

I can understand that people don't like gays, a lot of people are just afraid of anything different from themselves. But that doesn't mean you can go parading around saying that gays are evil and we have to protect our children from them and all that BS.

If you don't agree with it, then leave it alone. If you trust your kids and you are a good parent, they will make the right decisions for themselves in the end.

I also don't understand why people think they are going to stop people from being gay. I'm gay and I have no more ability to change my hair color with my mind than I do to stop myself from liking guys. I am also not evil and I don't wish to hurt children by being gay. That's not how it works.

[Ugg]

I'm pretty sure this would just make things worse. There has got to be a better way of stopping people from imposing their beliefs on everyone else.



Unfortunately, too many right wing xians have a sense of entitlement. They believe that because a few of the founding fathers were xians, that that must mean ALL americans should be. It's so sad that they can't understand that what they want is more akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than the truly free country the Founding Fathers envisioned.

[Zombie Acorn]

You'd think they could abstain themselves from reading the books they don't agree with and leave it at that. :eek:

[Queso]

I'm pretty sure this would just make things worse. There has got to be a better way of stopping people from imposing their beliefs on everyone else.
Of course it wouldn't help, and I wouldn't actually advocate the burning of either books or buildings. However, putting it that way might shock a few of them into realising what they're doing.

[Thomas Veil]

Maybe we could just call them what they are: pseudo-Christian fanatics and neo-Nazis.

[Badandy]

I think of books as almost sacred so it's always pretty saddening to see people who want to destroy them because they disagree with their premise. It reminds me of when people wanted to burn the Harry Potter books...

[Demosthenes X]

Aside from an off-the-cuff comment about book burning, which is ridiculous, I really don't see the problem here. The proposal is to move "raunchy" books into the adult section. Where's the problem? We already classify movies, video games, and music based on age. And in these cases, people under the given age are not (supposed to be) able to rent/buy them at all. All this proposal would do is move books from the youth section to the adult section - young people could still check them out freely. So I fail to see the problem - it's not censorship, unless you also think the MPAA is a censorship board.

That said, I have no read any of the titles in question, and if such action were to be taken, it should be an independent group deciding which books are "rated" adult.

[leekohler]

Aside from an off-the-cuff comment about book burning, which is ridiculous, I really don't see the problem here. The proposal is to move "raunchy" books into the adult section. Where's the problem? We already classify movies, video games, and music based on age. And in these cases, people under the given age are not (supposed to be) able to rent/buy them at all. All this proposal would do is move books from the youth section to the adult section - young people could still check them out freely. So I fail to see the problem - it's not censorship, unless you also think the MPAA is a censorship board.

That said, I have no read any of the titles in question, and if such action were to be taken, it should be an independent group deciding which books are "rated" adult.

From what I've read, these books are written for younger people.

[Demosthenes X]

From what I've read, these books are written for younger people.

Libraries generally classify books based on reading level, and not on content. The later Harry Potter books, for example, are at the same reading level as the first ones, but they are very different in content (and in fact, my local library does classify 1-3 as "Children's" and 4-7 as "Young Adult", but that's unusual). So it may well be that the books are easy to read but have adult content.

But without having read them, I cannot really comment on that. Only that - in principle - I see nothing wrong with this proposal. How it relates to these specific titles I do not know and cannot comment on.

[leekohler]

Libraries generally classify books based on reading level, and not on content. The later Harry Potter books, for example, are at the same reading level as the first ones, but they are very different in content (and in fact, my local library does classify 1-3 as "Children's" and 4-7 as "Young Adult", but that's unusual). So it may well be that the books are easy to read but have adult content.

But without having read them, I cannot really comment on that. Only that - in principle - I see nothing wrong with this proposal. How it relates to these specific titles I do not know and cannot comment on.

Apparently, a lot of parents also think it's wrong to remove the books form the young adult section. Why should they have to be moved to placate certain parents who don't like the subject matter? Why can't kids read about gay people?

[Thomas Veil]

Why can't kids read about gay people?'Cause...you know...it might make them gay. :rolleyes:

[Eanair]

Libraries generally classify books based on reading level, and not on content. The later Harry Potter books, for example, are at the same reading level as the first ones, but they are very different in content (and in fact, my local library does classify 1-3 as "Children's" and 4-7 as "Young Adult", but that's unusual). So it may well be that the books are easy to read but have adult content.

But without having read them, I cannot really comment on that. Only that - in principle - I see nothing wrong with this proposal. How it relates to these specific titles I do not know and cannot comment on.

From what I understand from the article, the problem isn't really that the books have explicitly adult content which should be moved to another section, but rather that they discuss topics that the parents don't like:

She and her husband also asked the library to obtain books about homosexuality that affirmed heterosexuality, such as titles written by "ex-gays," Maziarka said.

Wanting the library to get books that affirm heterosexuality while removing books that are, in their words, "gay affirming" is not about appropriateness of content, but about personal views.

[Demosthenes X]

Why can't kids read about gay people?

From what I understand from the article, the problem isn't really that the books have explicitly adult content which should be moved to another section, but rather that they discuss topics that the parents don't like:


Wanting the library to get books that affirm heterosexuality while removing books that are, in their words, "gay affirming" is not about appropriateness of content, but about personal views.

Jim and Ginny Maziarka objected to some of the content in the city library's young-adult section. They later petitioned the library board to move any sexually explicit books -- the definition of which would be debated -- from the young-adult section to the adult section and to label them as sexually explicit.

Now, I don't know what definition they're going by, and they might have a very conservative view of what "sexually explicit" means, but I hardly see a specific targeting of books about homosexuality. You cite 'personal views', but I don't see the couple asking to ban books about homosexuality, but rather to also include books about heterosexuality. I fail to see the problem with that, really, unless those books preach hate, which is something we cannot know from here.

[leekohler]

Now, I don't know what definition they're going by, and they might have a very conservative view of what "sexually explicit" means, but I hardly see a specific targeting of books about homosexuality. You cite 'personal views', but I don't see the couple asking to ban books about homosexuality, but rather to also include books about heterosexuality. I fail to see the problem with that, really, unless those books preach hate, which is something we cannot know from here.

No - they want books that condemn homosexuality. They used pretty words to dress it up, but by wishing to include junk science books about "ex-gays", they are actually asking for books that condemn homosexuality, not "promote" heterosexuality. This is in the article.

[Eanair]

No - they want books that condemn homosexuality. They used pretty words to dress it up, but by wishing to include junk science books about "ex-gays", they are actually asking for books that condemn homosexuality, not "promote" heterosexuality. This is in the article.

Right.

Wanting books affirming heterosexuality included with the books affirming homosexuality is not the same as wanting books written by ex-gays that reaffirm heterosexuality over homosexuality.

EDIT:


“Like the James Brown song goes, ‘I Feel Good,’” says Library Director Michael Tyree about the June 2 decision to shoot down a complaint filed by parents Jim and Ginny Maziarka. “In fact, the board voted to squelch the entire complaint. There will be no moving of materials, no labeling of materials, no disconnecting the Over the Rainbow link in our Web site, no filtering of Internet computers, and no multi-tiered library card system for minors.” Over the Rainbow is the name of a gay-themed reading list on the library’s Web site.

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6663173.html, emphasis mine.

They wanted a gay-themed reading list link removed from the library website.

That's not wanting to include heterosexual titles, that's quite obviously wanting material removed due to personal convictions about homosexuality.

[leekohler]

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6663173.html, emphasis mine.

They wanted a gay-themed reading list link removed from the library website.

That's not wanting to include heterosexual titles, that's quite obviously wanting material removed due to personal convictions about homosexuality.

And all it is, is information. Why are people so afraid of that?

[Eanair]

And all it is, is information. Why are people so afraid of that?

'Cause...you know...it might make them gay.

:D

[OutThere]

Some (many.) people in this country are so ********** backwards.

[opinioncircle]

Some (many.) people in this country are so ********** backwards.

agreed...

[Shivetya]

Ah yes, another example of "I'm too lazy to be a real parent, so let's ban it!". .

So taking action you don't approve of is being lazy?

It sounds like to me that these parents are taking action to keep their community as they want it and keep track of what their kids are exposed too.


While it may not fit the sensibilities of some, the fact remains it is their community and their children.



It is all so easy to vilify the parents but the simple fact is...

What they should be doing all depends on who is asked and I bet that if you used this thread as an example you could find as many different opinions as replies - 1.

[Zombie Acorn]

I don't know why we would need to promote heterosexuality, its basically the only reason we are and will continue to be here. Its not like one day you are going to lose the hetero/homo wars and the populace just dies off.
















Or is there? dun dun dun... okay just kidding.

[Heilage]

Right. Why are so many people under the conviction that anything they don't like is subject to be banned?

Example: As a heterosexual male, I would not like to see porn featuring homosexual men. Quite simply because it isn't my thing. But why the hell does that mean that it should be banned?


(I had to take a pretty darn liberal example, since I'm not a religious nutjob who things it's okay to sell my daughter into slavery (hey, if you wanna read the Bible literally, you can't pick and choose).)

[opinioncircle]

Right. Why are so many people under the conviction that anything they don't like is subject to be banned?

Example: As a heterosexual male, I would not like to see porn featuring homosexual men. Quite simply because it isn't my thing. But why the hell does that mean that it should be banned?


(I had to take a pretty darn liberal example, since I'm not a religious nutjob who things it's okay to sell my daughter into slavery (hey, if you wanna read the Bible literally, you can't pick and choose).)

Because the ban is the only answer...unfortunately...

[steve2112]

So taking action you don't approve of is being lazy?

It sounds like to me that these parents are taking action to keep their community as they want it and keep track of what their kids are exposed too.


While it may not fit the sensibilities of some, the fact remains it is their community and their children.



It is all so easy to vilify the parents but the simple fact is...

What they should be doing all depends on who is asked and I bet that if you used this thread as an example you could find as many different opinions as replies - 1.


No, it's not that taking actions I don't believe in is lazy. What is lazy is that there many parents out who refuse to be parents. How about monitoring what your kids read, watch on TV, or what games they play? Instead, there are too many parents who feel it is simply better to ban in than to prevent their kids from viewing/reading offensive material. Don't like the said book/video game/movie? Don't let your kids see it. It's no reason to ban it. Free speech is much more valuable than protecting your precious little snowflakes. I believe even hate speech should be protected. Shine the light of day on it and let everyone see it for what it is. I am a big supporter of public libraries, and I don't like attempts to ban materials from them.

Anyway, back to the subject. I have seen too many examples of parents being told that a video game is rated M, and they still go and buy it for their kid. The same is true with letting their kids watch R rated movies. Too many parents either don't care, or don't want to be a parent instead of a friend.

[bobber205]

I posted about this a while ago. I can't believe it's gone this far. People are truly stupid sometimes. All they have succeeded in doing is making their kids want to read the books even more.



Reminds me so much of the Clinton years. The wingnuts come out in full force when a Dem is President.

As opposed to running the place.

[emt1]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/22/wisconsin.book.row/index.html

I always thought Wisconsin was a pretty progressive state...

Milwaukee and Madison are pretty liberal, the rest of the state, for the most part, is not.