Banned book week. Why are such things necessary?

[blatherskite]

On another risk-related topic, I encourage you to do some thinking about "Banned Book Week", the last week of September.

We all face many risks these days, from unemployment to global warming, but risks to freedom of speech by those who arrogate to themselves the right to define what we can read are an ongoing risk, and we must remain vigilant. It's a short and slippery slope from banning books to dictating what thoughts we are allowed to hear and ponder or even what thoughts we're allowed to communicate.

So take a librarian to lunch, or at least make it clear you'll help them to keep the torch- and pitchfork-wielding peasants at bay whenever they feel the need for moral or physical support.

Comments

The shuttering of civlization

[(Anonymous)]

I think the most disturbing aspect of this phenomenon is that so many of the people calling for book banning claim to be educators.

The quality of public discourse in the USA has fallen steadily over the last few decades. People believe that they have the right to not know things; and more disturbingly, they honestly believe they have the right to make sure that others don't know them either.

Jim Royal

Re: The shuttering of civlization

[blatherskite]

It's certainly disturbing, particularly when combined with extremely conservative and often racist concealed objectives. The evangelical movement has much to answer for in this respect, but they're hardly alone.

I prefer to err on the side of protecting "the right to not know", even when that attitude irritates me beyond my ability to remain rational. The problem? It's not always clear when and whether someone should have the right to tell us something we don't want to hear, and establishing that right provides a legal right to others who have the same desire to educate us about things we don't want to hear.

It's a terrible tradeoff: I don't want to be subjected to attempts to educate me in creation science [sic], which is dangerous nonsense. But from a strictly logical perspective (probably from a legal perspective too), the anti-evolutionists would have an equal and opposiite right not be forced to endure attempts to educate them in evolution. I say that not because I support the anti-evolutionists, or believe they're being helped by remaining ignorant, but rather because establishing a precedent in which anyone other than the listener gets to decide which messages should be heard is very dangerous. At some point, the modern backlash against science could lead to you and me being forced to listen to lectures on creation science because someone believes that we don't have the right to remain ignorant. Scary stuff.

So I endorse the right to remain ignorant, even though I know many who could sorely benefit from being forced to think every now and then.

Insurance

[(Anonymous)]

In the end, censorship will not come via pitchfork wielding peasants, but via insurance. It's already happened with controversial plays wich were closed down because nobody would imsure the venue.

Zornhau

Re: Insurance

[blatherskite]

Or perhaps it will come as a result of pitchfork-wielding peasants accompanied by insurance or legal liability lawyers. Which reminds me of one of my favorite lawyer jokes (told to me by a lawyer, not that this excuses it):

What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.