What criteria would you use for banning books and arresting their authors?

[ZombieHorde]

This question was inspired by the following thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x44506

I personally feel uneasy about banning books and arresting their authors.

If a book libels someone, I don't have a problem with the libeled person suing, then having a the results of the lawsuit placed in all future editions, and perhaps the libeled person could receive money for any damages.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Child pornography. That's about it.

The remedy for "bad" speech is more speech, not suppression.

[ZombieHorde]

7. How would you define child pornography?

An actual minor in a sexual situation?

An adult actor playing a minor having sex, such as the TV show True Blood?

A detailed description of a hypothetical minor in a sexual situation?

[social_critic]

24. Sounds good

I would use those. But the first one would definitely be part of it. I'd pass the laws, let the jury decide.

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. The last of those is a highly sketchy definition really

the first two involve actual exploitation of a real child. The latter does not, so criminalising it is essentially creating a category of thoughtcrime. By this standard you end up with the argument that Nabokov's Lolita should be banned.

[Codeine]

53. Only the first.

The other two would amount to criminalization of thoughts.

[HopeHoops]

2. War criminals like Dubya.

[Kennah]

9. Decision Points - people's exhibit A

[ZombieHorde]

13. People admitting to crimes in writing is an interesting criterion.

Though I guess a lot of drug using authors may get themselves in trouble.

[HopeHoops]

33. Drug use has a statute of limitations. Murder and torture do not.

Neither does rape, but I doubt his pickled gherkin would be of any use in that capacity even if he WAS to sober up long enough to try it. It is pretty obvious that Neil diddled Laura to make the twins - you know he'll do anything that shows up at his hotel room door.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. None

If I don't like what you have to write - then I don't buy it, take it out of the library, etc. etc.

[dixiegrrrrl]

27. Not buying it is one thing, taking it out of library is another.

the first prevents YOU from reading it
the 2nd prevents ALL from reading it.

We seem to have evolved in a culture that feels free to decide what is best for other people and the acting on it.

[Incitatus]

59. I think you misread their post.

They meant they wouldn't buy it or take it out (borrow)from the library. The poster did not advocate removing/banning books from the library.

[Myrina]

4. While there are some subjects that shouldn't be written about/publicized ...

... (IMHO) like the pedophilic "guide" books that caused the ruckus on Amazon a couple months back, and I'm sure there are other sado-masochistic/evil/hate filled subject matter out there ... I don't think any one of us, or any group for that matter, can determine what should be 'banned' or who should be 'arrested'.

I'd like to think it'd be a matter of 'nobody's gonna read/buy that shit' so it would go out of publication in a hurry, if it ever got published to begin with.

Yeah, rose-colored-glasses, I know ... but a girl can hope.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Only one criterion necessary

Were any people involved in the production of this book also involved in any way, shape, or form with the Real Housewives series of television shows?

[tularetom]

6. Anybody named "Sarah Palin" who writes a book should be arrested

[bemildred]

Never. nt

[DBoon]

8. only if the book is hollowed out and contains deadly contraband

any words on paper are OK with me

[damntexdem]

10. Just one criterion: DON'T!!!

We shouldn't even have to discuss that on DU.

So arrest him; but do not ban the book.

[Kennah]

11. Books should not ever be banned ...

... but if their book is a confession of their crimes THEN we can certainly arrest the author.

[Goblinmonger]

20. So William Burroughs and other authors

should be arrested for the drug use they admit to in their books? Hell, half the Beat Generation authors would have been in prison.

[Kennah]

29. My mistake

I was engaged in transference when I said what I said.

Please allow me to amend the phrase "if their book is a confession of their crimes" to read "if their book is a confession of their crimes that harmed others".

[ZombieHorde]

35. Yea. I understand the desire to punish Bush, but I don't want authors to

fear telling us their story.

[slackmaster]

12. Any booby-trapped book that physically injures or kills people would be banned

And its author and publisher arrested.

[ZombieHorde]

15. Not a bad criterion. nt

[Forkboy]

30. "If people place a nice chocky in their mouth, they don't want their cheeks pierced!"

[pitohui]

14. libel/slander laws relatively weak in the usa

if you have ever been libeled or slandered you will quickly find out that your right to sue for damages is pretty much without value in this country, you can be deprived of your reputation and your ability to be hired for a job and there's pretty much fuck all you can do about it

not sure why you even raised that issue, anybody can sue anybody, sure, but for the most part it's a dream that if you are injured by lies and slander you can recover your reputation -- anybody seen gary condit at work lately, mmm, thought not

be that as it may, as far as banning books, i would do that more liberally than ban/arrest -- i might ban many books that are clearly a pack of lies and slander, personal attacks on people w/ no merit at all or such things as photo images that violate someone's privacy that they never intended to put on public display...but to ban/arrest, i would need a higher standard, you don't take away a person's freedom because they expressed an unpopular view or because they wrote a bit of extremist satire


under what standard can any of the marquis de sade's work be legal in that county, or for that matter any of a number of other books that involve explicit descriptions of sex that involve underage characters or violent rape (anne rice has many books in this category, anybody gonna chase down a harmless old lady and arrest her? i think not, it's recognized that it's just fantasy)

a fictional character or a PRETENDED 'how to' book that's really a joke like "hitman" is not worth taking someone's freedom over, i'd say ignore the book, ignore the writer

if this writer has actually had sex w. any kids by all means lock him up, but if all he's done is scribble a book with some over-the-top suggestions, please, stop giving him the drama reward and just ignore him

didn't we go thru all this b.s. with "hitman" a decade ago? if you can't write about felonies, you couldn't write half or more of the thrillers/mysteries out there...many of them have step by step descriptions of felonies, the remedy seems to be don't worry, since serious violent criminals either can't or don't read

[Dorian Gray]

16. If the

book teaches someone how to commit a crime and not get caught, I have no problem with them arrested as aiding and abetting.

[LWolf]

17. Err on the side of caution.

I'm not comfortable with banning books, period. If a book advocates causing harm to others, I would consider it on a case-by-case basis, but would not want a policy in place to automatically ban books.

Basically, the same considerations that go with any kind of speech: free until it advocates hate and/or harm, and subject to libel laws.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. I see no reason to ban a book or to arrest their author.

[flvegan]

19. Too slippery a slope for me to even think about.

[ladjf]

21. I believe that pornography is likely to harm young people and if

at all possible, such materials should be kept out of their view. Also, depictions of extreme violence is probably harmful to everyone. There's no way to censor that. Most people's instincts guide them away from gross violence. (But, not always.)

[ZombieHorde]

39. My instincts are a little off on that subject. nt

[ladjf]

47. What do your instincts say to you?

[ZombieHorde]

49. Violent movies are awesome. nt

[ladjf]

61. Hmm, that doesn't sound good. nt

[apocalypsehow]

22. I cringe at any kind of censorship, but I've seen OP's crow about hiding books whose political

opinions they disagree with in bookstores - moving them to the wrong section, "burying" them behind unrelated material in sections they don't belong in, etc., etc. That behavior is every bit as much censorship as simply pulping or burning the books - and when I point that out I'm invariably called a scold, a nag, a humorless Church lady, among other personal attacks. When I point out that freepers engaging in the same behavior would be excoriated (rightfully so) here, I'm given the oldest of old self-justifying dodges: "that's different".

The pedophile book is a very tough call, because the conduct it advocates is not only illegal but morally reprehensible, its author a disgusting human being. But like you, arresting authors and banning their books, regardless of the content, makes me very uneasy.

I agree with you about the libel provisions - that's actually a very innovative idea. :thumbsup:

[ZombieHorde]

40. If by "OP," you mean, ZombieHorde, then I believe you are mistaken.

I don't recall hiding any political books, though the idea is a little funny. I don't generally do these types of things because I think it will be a pain in the ass for the employees.

[apocalypsehow]

46. No, I wasn't referring to this OP or you at all. If it seemed I was implying that, I apologize. n/t.

[KansDem]

23. If they try to take pictures of their grandchildren sitting on the laps of shopping-mall Santas...

...apparently.

[ZombieHorde]

38. Holy shit! nt

[Lyric]

25. I don't believe that any books should be banned.

At least not for adults. Reading a book--even a disgusting book--is not a crime. If you choose to take an illegal action based on what you read in a book, then you'll be punished for that action. But thinking (which is what reading and writing really are, at heart) should never be a crime.

[Ozymanithrax]

26. Are you really asking this about a book that teaches people to hurt children...

against their will?

As a society, we have a responsibility to protect children from blatant sexual exploitation. A book that violates that basic responsibility crosses the line.

But other than that, only if it has Fabio on the cover.

[ZombieHorde]

34. I am asking about the criteria, but that book is a great example of a book many people

would want banned and the author arrested. My question would probably seem silly without a real life example.

[Ozymanithrax]

56. As artists and citizens we have a responsibility to protect children.

A book that teaches people to harm children, to use them for their sexual pleasure, is the antithesis of art.

As an issue of free speech, it is not free speech to yell fire in a theater, and it is not free speech to tell people how to harm children for their sexual pleasure. This is very like the post cards that were once sold throughout the south of lynchings, where they sold photographs of black men and women lynched by racists.

Children can no protect themselves against such deviants.

Like pornographic images of children, snuff films, and Lynching postcards this book should not be sold.

If the guy wrote a book about asphyxiating one's lover for pleasure, go for it. Pornography is in the eye of he beholder. If two or more consenting adults want to do something to each other, write all the how to books you want.

How to guides for teaching people how to cause grave physical and mental damage to children are unacceptable in a civilized society.

[mainer]

50. The person who actually goes out and hurts children...

is responsible. He can't blame a book for "making me do it."

It's like blaming a video game on "making me go out and slaughter 200 people."

where does personal responsibility (the one who actually did the hurting) come in?

[Ozymanithrax]

57. The people that hurt children are responsible, but so is facilitating a crime...

so is accessory before the fact. The person that writes this book is an accessory before the fact of every ass-wipe that would use it.

As citizens we are responsible for protecting those who can not protect themselves. Encouraging the rape of a child isn't protection, because no matter what instructions are given, nothing can stop the grave psychological trauma such an event causes. No mater how gentle the penetration of a child, their bodies are not physically mature enough to accept such. Writing a book to show people how they can gently pry apart the legs of 8 year old and insert themselves with the least trauma isn't art.

This isn't about censorship. It is about protecting children. Hopefully they will send the guy to jail and put him in general population where he can research a how to book on prison sex. Because that is for adults, I would see no problem with it being sold. I would not buy it myself.

[Puregonzo1188]

28. None. First Amendment still stands, though maybe not with this court.

[mrfrapp]

31. Some things you don't joke about

I know your question is sincere but there are a couple of responses to your question that I find disturbing. To those respondents -- there are some things you just can't joke about.

[Forkboy]

36. As I'm one of the ones who joked about it....

I'll give you an answer.

First and foremost, my response is total gallows humor. I mean, what kind of society are we living in where this even becomes a question? Our society has reached the point of absurdity, hence an answer like mine. And in this day and age just how absurd is my response above? To me, sadly, it's barely even satire anymore.

I take the question as serious as you, and probably more serious than many who gave you a "serious" answer.

[ZombieHorde]

37. I think our society has always been absurd, but the absurdity changes.

I mean, what kind of society are we living in where this even becomes a question?

I know. I love outrage, it is really fun, but banning books and arresting authors seems to go too far. I don't feel good about it.

[Forkboy]

41. I don't feel good about it either.

[ZombieHorde]

42. You never struck me as the burn the witch type. nt

[Forkboy]

44. I like too many twisted movies for that.

:)

[X_Digger]

43. Damn near none.. but that's just me.

In spoken speech, you can have the immediacy element of incitement- a speaker standing on a stump shouting "Go right now, and kill Mister Suchandsuch!"

In written speech, that immediacy is much harder.

The Brandenberg Test is as follows:

"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

There is precedent for holding an author / publisher liable for civil charges, but not criminal- Rice v. Paladin. That case involved a 'how to' guide on how to be a contract killer. Additionally, don't forget the case about the vile Nuremberg Files anti-abortion website. Their speech was ruled to be not protected.

[pitohui]

51. you haven;t read hitman (rice vs. paladin) have you?

it WASN'T a how to guide, it was a JOKE!!! jeebus, people don't read and then shit on people who do read...

the book was clearly satire, indeed, while it should have been clear to any moderately literate person that the book was satire, once the testimony got to court and it became clear that the writer was a woman (if you've read hitman you'll know how deliberately over the top misogynist the book was and the hitman was posing as a MALE man) -- the case should have been thrown out of court

it's america, to take someone's business and their ability to earn a living is to kill them, we don't have a dole in this country

if we consistently got civil awards for true victims of libel, such as gary condit, fine, but we don't repair any true libel victim's life -- it just doesn't happen, you can lose everything and you will not be compensated

there was no libel victim or injured party in hitman, the book was a fucking joke, and anyone who thought it a guide to "how to kill" is someone who was incapable of reading, ANY murder mystery would be better advice on how to get away from murder than this OBVIOUS joke book

sheesh

i'm not saying pedophile dude is a joke or satirist, i have no idea either way, but i'm thinking IF he was a pedophile, why not charge him with raping a child instead of signing a book? you know? a little logic here?

as far as a civil lawsuit accomplishing anything that's an urban legend i'm really tired of, victims never see that money

[X_Digger]

55. Haven't read the book, but I have read the case..

I, too, wish the precedent hadn't been set the way it has, but until another case comes along and becomes the new precedent- it's the prevailing case.

[Iggo]

45. I gonna hafta go with Don't.

[lonestarnot]

48. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is that question anyway? I refuse to answer a question like that.

:evilgrin:

[mainer]

52. If author plagiarizes another and gets money for it...

that book should be banned. But author fined, not arrested.

[Codeine]

54. Actual child porn only.

By which I mean pictures of minors in sexual acts. No descriptions or stories about child porn would qualify, nor would adults pretending to be kids or CGI or any other such depiction.

[charlie]

60. CGI is gonna be a tough call one day

When CGI pulls itself out of the uncanny valley and the first stunningly real kiddie or snuff porn surfaces, the collision between unconscionable depravity and inviolable rights will be spectacular.

[JVS]

58. If they sucked, I'd ban them. And authors can only write one book that sucks before getting arrested