Should songs be under government consent?

[Ryan_m_b]

Studies on whether or not violent music makes people violent will always be hard retrospectively. Most studies rely on trying to plot correlations between listening to violent music and being violent but do not outline a cause (nor do they show that the correlation they see is actually reversed).

A test would be to get a random selection of people and make them listen to violent music, then see if they act violently. I severely doubt they will because whilst music is influential it is nowhere near the super-potent memetic virus some people advocate it to be. It could be that if I'm having a bad day and I listen to some music all about punching people in the face that I might be more likely to punch someone in the face who makes my day worse but whether or not it does strongly relies on who I am as a person which is influenced by far more than music. Lastly, I think that suggesting that violent music makes people more violent is as tenuous as suggesting that listening to music about love makes someone more loving.

 

[Disconnected]

Music Preferences and Their Relationship to Behaviors, Beliefs, and Attitudes toward Aggression

This can go both ways, though. People with aggressive personalities are more likely to associate with aggressive music. I am not saying that music doesn't influence people - it certainly does - but I don't think that violent music is just churning out homicidal maniacs.

This still doesn't approach the main concern I have of the whole situation; how would it be done fairly and effectively? As talked about earlier in this thread, I don't think it can. Nor do I think it should (see the quote about freedom of speech), but I know people have differing opinions on that kind of thing.

 

[Norman]

Whats with the cursing and attacks? Relax yourself.

Music Preferences and Their Relationship to Behaviors, Beliefs, and Attitudes toward Aggression
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED507397.pdf

This shows no causative relationship between listening to violent music causing violence. They only discuss the "relationship" between violent music listeners and increased positive views of violence. Correlation not causation with no analysis of which came first.

Tragic Narratives in Popular Culture: Depictions of Homicide in Rap Music.
doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01122.x

Taken from abstract:

"Results show violent death was constructed in glorified ways, incorporated cautionary tales, or used as an analogy for powerful rhyming. The major themes found in these homicide-related rap lyrics were the normalization of killing, respect maintenance, confrontation with the power structure, vengeance, and masculine confrontation. Homicide was almost always male on male. Careful consideration is given to the multiple meanings of homicide, particularly the ways rappers have appropriated the word “killing” and transformed it into a term that indicates creative success."

Whats powerful about music aside from its sheer influential power is its ability to change paradigms and influence cultures.

I couldn't access this paper, so I cannot comment other than on the abstract. The abstract simply seems to be investigating cultural shifts based on rap music. As was already stated, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Dark Side of the Tune: Popular Music and Violence.
Authors: MASTERMAN, BRANDON P.
Source: Notes; Dec2009, Vol. 66 Issue 2, p282-284, 3p

Did you even read through this book? I read about 20 pages of the "inciting to violence" chapter. Violent music used to incite violence apparently goes back to biblical times - I guess that shouldn't be all that surprising. Half the book was cut out from google books, but it seemed like a very interesting read.

Need more? That was just a quick search too. It doesn't take a genius to understand that music can be really influential. Others have made good points that there are other influences such as the media which I am aware of. Get off your high and mighty horse its a discussion, don't assume a devout certainty, you are not a divine being. Social issues are incredibly complex, its not the type of thing that is either a or b.

I'm here for a discussion, tone it down a bit. Others have made pretty good points which I respected, if you feel so strongly about it go vent to your mother.

I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.

Point of order: Americans don't have a monopoly on Freedom of Speech ideals.

Other than that I agree with everything you've said.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Studies on whether or not violent music makes people violent will always be hard retrospectively. Most studies rely on trying to plot correlations between listening to violent music and being violent but do not outline a cause (nor do they show that the correlation they see is actually reversed).

A test would be to get a random selection of people and make them listen to violent music, then see if they act violently. I severely doubt they will because whilst music is influential it is nowhere near the super-potent memetic virus some people advocate it to be. It could be that if I'm having a bad day and I listen to some music all about punching people in the face that I might be more likely to punch someone in the face who makes my day worse but whether or not it does strongly relies on who I am as a person which is influenced by far more than music. Lastly, I think that suggesting that violent music makes people more violent is as tenuous as suggesting that listening to music about love makes someone more loving.

I don't see the problem with the studies that you talked about. The studies do not need to show a cause but rather that there is an influence. And its quite apparent that they do have an influence. But I agree with what you said for the most part except that I'm probably biased about this.

Furthermore, the problem with the study you proposed is that it assumes I am talking about music causes violence. Rather, what I've been proposing several times (seems that its getting overlooked) is that it promotes a way of life which leads to violence. It changes paradigms of being violent as a masculine thing to do among other things which if you listen to closely you will notice.

 

[Norman]

Point of order: Americans don't have a monopoly on Freedom of Speech ideals.

Other than that I agree with everything you've said.

I didn't mean to imply that. I was just contextualizing the discussion, since it seemed to be a very social science-based discussion. I should have been more general in my statement, but since I am an American, I felt it better to not overstep my bounds and rope anyone else into my generalization (since it was a generalization).

 

[Disconnected]

It could be that if I'm having a bad day and I listen to some music all about punching people in the face that I might be more likely to punch someone in the face who makes my day worse

This is a fair point. I find my use of the bird increases dramatically on days that feature Mr Shady on my playlist...

 

[Nano-Passion]

This still doesn't approach the main concern I have of the whole situation; how would it be done fairly and effectively? As talked about earlier in this thread, I don't think it can. Nor do I think it should (see the quote about freedom of speech), but I know people have differing opinions on that kind of thing.

Yes this is a major concern. I don't have a strong view of whether it can be done effectively or not. Rather I created the topic to see whether it would be better if these songs simply didn't exist. And that for the most part I definitely agree with. I didn't make the topic with the concern of attacking the major issues of enabling such censorship nor did it cross my mind.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't see the problem with the studies that you talked about. The studies do not need to show a cause but rather that there is an influence. And its quite apparent that they do have an influence. But I agree with what you said for the most part except that I'm probably biased about this.

Furthermore, the problem with the study you proposed is that it assumes I am talking about music causes violence. Rather, what I've been proposing several times (seems that its getting overlooked) is that it promotes a way of life which leads to violence. It changes paradigms of being violent as a masculine thing to do among other things which if you listen to closely you will notice.

The study you posted only has an abstract available, despite using many of the subscription services I have I cannot access it. Please post the full article so I can read what it is actually about. The abstract does not suggest that any investigation was done into the influence of music, rather it investigated the content of music and how it has changed.

I do accept that you are suggesting that the music encourages a way of life but this is irrelevant to the original point that this way of life includes violence. I do not accept that claim that censoring this music will lead to a reduction in the number of people taking up "gang" lifestyle as I have yet to see evidence for this claim.

 

[Norman]

I don't see the problem with the studies that you talked about. The studies do not need to show a cause but rather that there is an influence. And its quite apparent that they do have an influence. But I agree with what you said for the most part except that I'm probably biased about this.

Furthermore, the problem with the study you proposed is that it assumes I am talking about music causes violence. Rather, what I've been proposing several times (seems that its getting overlooked) is that it promotes a way of life which leads to violence. It changes paradigms of being violent as a masculine thing to do among other things which if you listen to closely you will notice.

I think maybe you are missing the point. There may not actually be an influence of the music on a person's actions at all. That is the point he was making. People who listen to this music AND perform violence may have been just as likely to perform the violence regardless of the music. (or live that lifestyle or whatever).

I am uncertain of your premise that a certain way of life will definitely lead to violence. Is there even an example of a lifestyle that 100% of the time leads to violence by the person living it? If something like that does exist, how do you disentangle the violence from that lifestyle?

But maybe I am the one missing the point.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think maybe you are missing the point. There may not actually be an influence of the music on a person's actions at all. That is the point he was making. People who listen to this music AND perform violence may have been just as likely to perform the violence regardless of the music. (or live that lifestyle or whatever).

I am uncertain of your premise that a certain way of life will definitely lead to violence. Is there even an example of a lifestyle that 100% of the time leads to violence by the person living it? If something like that does exist, how do you disentangle the violence from that lifestyle?

But maybe I am the one missing the point.

Exactly right, the fundamental issue is violence and crime. To suggest that music encourages this is tenuous, whilst people might see the common sense argument it fails to hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Nano-Passion]

This shows no causative relationship between listening to violent music causing violence. They only discuss the "relationship" between violent music listeners and increased positive views of violence. Correlation not causation with no analysis of which came first.

I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence.

I couldn't access this paper, so I cannot comment other than on the abstract. The abstract simply seems to be investigating cultural shifts based on rap music. As was already stated, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

The way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.

Did you even read through this book? I read about 20 pages of the "inciting to violence" chapter. Violent music used to incite violence apparently goes back to biblical times - I guess that shouldn't be all that surprising. Half the book was cut out from google books, but it seemed like a very interesting read.

The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.

I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.

I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.

Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.

 

[zomgwtf]

Exactly right, the fundamental issue is violence and crime. To suggest that music encourages this is tenuous, whilst people might see the common sense argument it fails to hold up to scrutiny.

Regardless of if it does cause violence or not isn't even that great of an issue in my opinion (although I also don't buy it).

We live in a society where we try not to punish the innocent. What's that saying about letting 100 guilty men walk free if it means one innocent person doesn't get convicted?

The vast majority of people who listen to this type of music aren't even violent in the slightest (This is demonstrably true due to the fact that this type of music is REALLY popular/mainstream and the fact that violent crime let alone violent gang related crime is very low it'd have to be much higher if there was such a strong causative link) Why should the majority of innocent people lose freedoms in order to 'protect' society against future crimes possibly committed due to some music?

First people are losing rights. Second the majority of these people are innocent. Third it's a pre-emptive revocation of rights to prevent crimes in the future. Something which there's hardly any evidence to even support in the first place!

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence...the way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.

But nano you haven't demonstrated that music that talks about violence leads to a higher probability of violence on the listener and secondly haven't taken into account that as a multifactorial phenomenon there are likely to be synergistic and emergent effects that make the A increases B argument tenuous in the absence of evidence.

The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.

I'm very surprised that you haven't read it. When citing references that one believes supports one's case you should have a thorough understanding of what that reference is saying. Otherwise you just look for things whose abstract or title tends to be in line with what you are saying. This is very wrong to do, it's a practical form of an appeal to authority. Without reading the actual study how can you know if its methodology is correct or flawed, what its data shows, what its limitations are etc. Have you got a copy of the article you referenced or have you not read that either?

I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.

Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.

There is a big difference between crime and talking about crime. The idea that you should have a system of censoring some of the latter is both highly impractical and very dangerous.

 

[zomgwtf]

I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence.

I contend that since, yet again you're making positive claims, that you must cite sources and as well you have to link this to how music will lead to a more positive view of violence. A change in the usage of the word kill to put it in a positive connotation does not mean that the negative connotation of the word is taken any more lightly. And if it IS taken more lightly it does not show at all that the change in view of the negative connotation of the word is due to any music.

The way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.

You see gangsters walking around shooting their nines every day all day do you? Rap music is very popular yet gangs still seem to be confined to certain areas. Hmm I wonder why rap music can break the barrier of poor socio-economic areas but 'gang' mentality and life struggles to break out to middle class and upper class people who also listen to rap. Granted there are cases where these people will 'act gangster' but that's a far cry from saying that they are now violent.

The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.

So you admit that when you made the claim you had utterly no idea what you're talking about and needed to do a 'quick' search to grasp for some straws? Your claim is still wildly absurd speculation. Your sources have provided no evidence to support your claim.

I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.

Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.

Name one freedom which has been lost for absolutely no reason other than speculation that was intended to curb violence, rape and murder. If anything some things which took freedoms away from people for no reason other than speculation in an 'effort' to do these things made it worse. AKA projects AKA not mixing whites and blacks etc. etc. etc.. things like 'not allowing anyone to own a gun' is not based on speculation if that's along the lines of what you're thinking.

 

[Galteeth]

I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence.



The way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.




The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.



I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.

Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.

Ok, so what happens if someone violates this hypothetical law? How are you going to enforce it? By asking them to stop? What if they don't stop? You are going to have force them to stop.

What is that you are advocating? Do you see the irony here?

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Keep thinking they want that over a normal life away from the ghetto. There probably are some like that but the majority of people? No way. They want what everyone else wants... money and a good life.

I don't mean people from the ghetto, I mean the druggies and drug dealers. Most people from the ghetto hate these.

 

[KingNothing]

Having a government with control over the music industry is much more terrifying than the music industry itself.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Regardless of if it does cause violence or not isn't even that great of an issue in my opinion (although I also don't buy it).

We live in a society where we try not to punish the innocent. What's that saying about letting 100 guilty men walk free if it means one innocent person doesn't get convicted?

The vast majority of people who listen to this type of music aren't even violent in the slightest (This is demonstrably true due to the fact that this type of music is REALLY popular/mainstream and the fact that violent crime let alone violent gang related crime is very low it'd have to be much higher if there was such a strong causative link) Why should the majority of innocent people lose freedoms in order to 'protect' society against future crimes possibly committed due to some music?

First people are losing rights. Second the majority of these people are innocent. Third it's a pre-emptive revocation of rights to prevent crimes in the future. Something which there's hardly any evidence to even support in the first place!

I actually agree with pretty much all of what you have said here. I don't see any point in taking the argument any further since my viewpoint has changed since then.

Though one last thing to note, I still hold the viewpoint that rap music has the power to influence and shape paradigms of which I thought would be commonly agreed. But that seems to be a pretty big topic in its own that deviates from the topic's original intention.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In the case of cigarettes there has been conclusive scientific evidence that there is actual harm.I doubt that this is true for "music with violent message", whatever that means.

Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.

Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.

Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?

There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.

 

[Ken Natton]

Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.

Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.

Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?

There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you zoobyshoe, but I can see a distinction. The problem of people being badly influenced by cigarette advertising was widespread, and thus the ban on cigarette advertising has had a significant effect at a demographic level. The problem of music being used to promote violence is much less widespread and thus is more realistic to deal with at the level of the individuals responsible for attempting to influence others and the individuals actually incited to real acts of violence.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don’t necessarily disagree with you zoobyshoe, but I can see a distinction. The problem of people being badly influenced by cigarette advertising was widespread, and thus the ban on cigarette advertising has had a significant effect at a demographic level. The problem of music being used to promote violence is much less widespread and thus is more realistic to deal with at the level of the individuals responsible for attempting to influence others and the individuals actually incited to real acts of violence.

I think that's a valid distinction.

The distinction I was actually hoping would be raised is that violent music is tied up with violent people and any sudden, obvious crack down is going to be fought. Smokers are a much easier target, and never put up much of a fight. The campaign against smoking has also been applied very incrementally over the years, unlike the sudden shock of prohibition. Cracking down too hard on music with a violent message would probably just elicit a troublesome reaction.

 

[Disconnected]

Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.

Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.

Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?

There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.

I think it has to do with intent. Cigarette ads intend to promote smoking, it's their main aim. Music with a violent message aims to sell CDs. It does not intend to promote violence, that is not it's purpose, it is a side effect.

Similar to attempted murder and reckless endangerment, the intent of an action is a major factor in the US legal system.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it has to do with intent. Cigarette ads intend to promote smoking, it's their main aim. Music with a violent message aims to sell CDs. It does not intend to promote violence, that is not it's purpose, it is a side effect.

Similar to attempted murder and reckless endangerment, the intent of an action is a major factor in the US legal system.

Another good point. The intent of cigarette ads was never disputed, and they could be condemned based on that intent alone.

But then, there's the Huckleberry Finn problem. It's been banned from a lot of libraries because it's full of the "N' word. I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate Mark Twain never intended to promulgate the use of that word. He was pro-black, anti-slavery. He used it only because it was used by the society he depicted: the south of his childhood. It seems whatever reason you give for banning that book could be used to ban the music in question.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But then, there's the Huckleberry Finn problem. It's been banned from a lot of libraries because it's full of the "N' word. I think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate Mark Twain never intended to promulgate the use of that word. He was pro-black, anti-slavery. He used only because it was used by the society he depicted: the south of his childhood. It seems whatever reason you give for banning that book could be used to ban the music in question.

I whole heartedly disagree with banning/censoring books too. The latest editions of Sherlock Holmes apparently have all the N words removed which is just ridiculous. By reading these books people can learn about different times, different cultures that ultimately gave rise to ours. They are part of our history! The Colosseum was used for gruesome executions but we haven't ripped it down and built a crappy sports stadium for the same reason we shouldn't re-write books.

 

[JDStupi]

Rather than trying to argue that "X is bad for the children so we should ban them" and then get defensive when other people make analogies to other potentially negatively influential media, you should take the fact that the lines are not clear and that arguments can be made for a number of things as being indicative of the wrong choice of action.

I agree with others who say that you need to go out and live in the real world. Are there people who listen to ganster rap and kill? Sure. Are there people who have a propensity towards violent behavior who listen to violent music? Sure. Are there also people who have a propensity towards sadness who listen to depressing music? Yes. People will listen to music that they feel closer to.

Do you honestly believe somebody was sitting around and then went and listened to a ganster rap song and said "Oh s**t, look at that! It turns out I can kill people, all this time I thought it was wrong or that I would get in trouble, but hey I'm going killing now!"

If somebody was that unstable that a song pushed them over the edge to go kill people, I would have to take a guess and say that some other stimulus probably would have had the same reaction.

The same argument can be made for violence in movies. If anything movies are more realistic and have more sensory modalities contributing to a greater overall experience.

Music, Movies, Comedy and a whole lot more fall suspect to "negative influence"

I don't like the childish mentality of "I am a naive child who thinks x is bad and not everyone agrees with me so I'm telling daddy (The Government) and he'll agree with me"

The main problem is that you should realize that getting the government to be the ultimate arbiter for such slippery issues is dangerous.

The problem could be that people who take advantage of that lifestyle accept a slightly conventional definition of success (money) but reject the socially accepted means of obtaining what they want.

Ban music and watch nothing happen. Nothing but angry people who rebel against a greater influence of stupid naive white prudes in their life.

 

[zomgwtf]

Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.

Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.

Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?

There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.

Like I said many times zooby, you show me a song which actively promotes other people to be violent then we can discuss that. No one has provided any example in this thread of such a thing being actively promoted in music. They talk about what real things that happen, things they think, things they do, maybe it sounds cool maybe not but I have yet to see a song in mainstream music or in this thread that says 'go out and kill this man.'

That IS illegal by the way and songs with those messages DO face the legal consequences.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Like I said many times zooby, you show me a song which actively promotes other people to be violent then we can discuss that. No one has provided any example in this thread of such a thing being actively promoted in music. They talk about what real things that happen, things they think, things they do, maybe it sounds cool maybe not but I have yet to see a song in mainstream music or in this thread that says 'go out and kill this man.'

That IS illegal by the way and songs with those messages DO face the legal consequences.

What's your reaction to the Hucklberry Finn ban? Show me one place where Mark Twain actually said "Black should be called N*****." He never endorsed it, but the book is banned in places based on the fact he depicted it being done by a whole society.

 

[Galteeth]

Nano, you still haven't responded to my question. How do you justify advocating violence (a government ban on music) when you say advocating violence should be banned? Would music that advocated the government killing people be alright?

 

[zomgwtf]

What's your reaction to the Hucklberry Finn ban? Show me one place where Mark Twain actually said "Black should be called N*****." He never endorsed it, but the book is banned in places based on the fact he depicted it being done by a whole society.

First is the ban done by the government? There's a difference between the government outright banning something in it's borders and from a Christian Library censoring certain books.

Second I don't agree with such a change of language in the book but if individual publishers want to republish the material (I think it's old enough to be republish this way no?) then they are free to do that. So long as it's made known that it's not an original copy and I my access to an original copy isn't stopped.

Third... it doesn't really apply to me anyways. I live in Canada. Last time I read Huckleberry Finn at the library in my school it had the word cool person. So did to kill a mockingbird... so did a bunch of other novels. Novels get challenged here all the time but normally the recommendation to the school boards is to keep the novel (actually of the times I've heard of these bans that's been the only recommendation...) and the school board complies.

One time in grade 10 English class while we were reading To Kill a Mockingbird I had to read the first part in the book that says 'cool person' I felt kinda weird saying it outloud in class so I said 'the big tall black person'. My teacher got so mad at me for changing the word. hahahaha

 

[Galteeth]

First is the ban done by the government? There's a difference between the government outright banning something in it's borders and from a Christian Library censoring certain books.

Second I don't agree with such a change of language in the book but if individual publishers want to republish the material (I think it's old enough to be republish this way no?) then they are free to do that. So long as it's made known that it's not an original copy and I my access to an original copy isn't stopped.

Third... it doesn't really apply to me anyways. I live in Canada. Last time I read Huckleberry Finn at the library in my school it had the word cool person. So did to kill a mockingbird... so did a bunch of other novels. Novels get challenged here all the time but normally the recommendation to the school boards is to keep the novel (actually of the times I've heard of these bans that's been the only recommendation...) and the school board complies.

One time in grade 10 English class while we were reading To Kill a Mockingbird I had to read the first part in the book that says 'cool person' I felt kinda weird saying it outloud in class so I said 'the big tall black person'. My teacher got so mad at me for changing the word. hahahaha

Modern book "bans" in america usually refer to a school removing a book from the curriculum and taking it out of their school library based on some Christian lunatic complaining. The children are of course, still free to read the book on their own time.

Here's a story about a recent "ban" of kurt vonegut's slaughterhouse five (by the way, it describes a very violent thing that happened in Dresden, maybe some people here approve?):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/29/national/main20085453.shtml

 

[zoobyshoe]

First is the ban done by the government? There's a difference between the government outright banning something in it's borders and from a Christian Library censoring certain books.

Second I don't agree with such a change of language in the book but if individual publishers want to republish the material (I think it's old enough to be republish this way no?) then they are free to do that. So long as it's made known that it's not an original copy and I my access to an original copy isn't stopped.

Third... it doesn't really apply to me anyways. I live in Canada. Last time I read Huckleberry Finn at the library in my school it had the word cool person. So did to kill a mockingbird... so did a bunch of other novels. Novels get challenged here all the time but normally the recommendation to the school boards is to keep the novel (actually of the times I've heard of these bans that's been the only recommendation...) and the school board complies.

One time in grade 10 English class while we were reading To Kill a Mockingbird I had to read the first part in the book that says 'cool person' I felt kinda weird saying it outloud in class so I said 'the big tall black person'. My teacher got so mad at me for changing the word. hahahaha

It's banned by many Public Schools in the US, which are part of the local department of education, so, it's essentially a government ban.

I think it's interesting that when it came down to it, you, personally, censored the word.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Modern book "bans" in america usually refer to a school removing a book from the curriculum and taking it out of their school library based on some Christian lunatic complaining. The children are of course, still free to read the book on their own time.

Here's a story about a recent "ban" of kurt vonegut's slaughterhouse five (by the way, it describes a very violent thing that happened in Dresden, maybe some people here approve?):

That ban is not a good example of what you are talking about. The original complaint was indeed from a Christian. However, 3 books were mentioned in the complaint and only two were banned. According to the school, they were banned based on age-appropriateness, not on moral issues. Even with the ban, the books are allowed for extra class material if parent approve.

 

[Nano-Passion]

Nano, you still haven't responded to my question. How do you justify advocating violence (a government ban on music) when you say advocating violence should be banned? Would music that advocated the government killing people be alright?

I didn't support advocating violence? I looked down upon things that advocated violence, I think you meant to say something else. Anyhow I've changed my viewpoint toward banning songs.

To the second question, no.

 

[zomgwtf]

It's banned by many Public Schools in the US, which are part of the local department of education, so, it's essentially a government ban.

Fair enough.

I feel for schools though it's a different barrel of fish (is that the saying?). On the one hand I see what you're saying. But on the other I also see the schools point of view. I mean it really comes down to if the parents think it's appropriate for their child and if it's reasonable. We wouldn't say the school blocking say pornography on school computers is govn't endorsed censorship would we? The question for school though is where the line is drawn and what age do we consider there to 'be no line'. (for instance in grade 12 English my teacher, who was also our homeroom teacher, showed us a video which amounted to pornography. I mean you saw everything... don't want to get too graphic though. This might be seen as unacceptable to some parents but is it reasonable for the school to enforce it now at that age? I don't think so but that's open to debate of course)

I think it's interesting that when it came down to it, you, personally, censored the word.

Yeah. It was sort of an awkward situation, I knew the class was laughing (you could hear some sniggering going on before hand cause people read ahead) and I felt pretty awkward and on the spot having to say it to the entire class sort of in a 'speech'. I mean with my friends and stuff I would say it sometimes but this instance it was just different. Perhaps it had to do with context of the word too... it was used pretty derogatorily in the book and I had never used it in such a way before.