Thread: Banned Literature

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

That is just ridiculous unless you are trying to control how people think.

Isn't that the point of banning a book in the first place?

It's a shame that the best method of control that is used to control the flow of information is banning the medium, making information impossible to get to, instead of educating how the information should be used so it doesn't impact people in the wrong way. I'm sure 99% of the population aren't going to stand up and start dictatorships if they read Mein Kampf, I'm sure that people aren't going to go all witchcraft on your ass if they had read Reginald Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft back in the 1500's, and I'm fairly sure you won't have Christians abandoning religion if The Da Vinci Code wasn't banned in the Vatican.

When people are smart and know what is not homicidal, they could probably co-exist.

Originally Posted by Shades

Isn't that the point of banning a book in the first place?

Shh...you'll wake the children.

If I recall, isn't there a strange pattern regarding possessing multiple copies of 'Catcher in the Rye' and serial killers? And you say books harm nobody.

There are some books that shouldn't be read by some people. For example, I wouldn't want a second grader reading 'Under the Dome' by Stephen King.

I believe censorship or 'banning literature' should be restricted to protecting a population or more specifically, its children, rather than restricting the spread of beliefs or ideas.

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

If I recall, isn't there a strange pattern regarding possessing multiple copies of 'Catcher in the Rye' and serial killers? And you say books harm nobody.

There are some books that shouldn't be read by some people. For example, I wouldn't want a second grader reading 'Under the Dome' by Stephen King.

I believe censorship or 'banning literature' should be restricted to protecting a population or more specifically, its children, rather than restricting the spread of beliefs or ideas.

Protect them from what exactly? Themselves?

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

If I recall, isn't there a strange pattern regarding possessing multiple copies of 'Catcher in the Rye' and serial killers? And you say books harm nobody.

There are some books that shouldn't be read by some people. For example, I wouldn't want a second grader reading 'Under the Dome' by Stephen King.

Ask yourself: do you think it was the book that lead them to sociopathy, or sociopathy that lead them to the book?

In terms of children and reading horror material, I completely agree. Children, exposed to material like that, might no doubt be caused psychological damage. It's why they rate movies and so forth.

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

If I recall, isn't there a strange pattern regarding possessing multiple copies of 'Catcher in the Rye' and serial killers? And you say books harm nobody.

Isn't there a strange pattern regarding possessing multiple pairs of shoes and serial killers? And you say shoes harm nobody.