The following is commentary intended for discussion. Add your comments.
Are the current moves to ban books-- and so many other legal things-- tyranny by the minority?
By the minority, I mean that I'm pretty sure a majority of Americans is still against banning, censoring or burning legal books, whether it's stopping them from being published or removing them from popular online sales sites and book stores.
But we are all being subjected to the judgment of a vocal few who seem to think there's value in controlling what our delicate eyes can see in order to supposedly keep us from having thoughts they don't want us to have.
Regardless of the subject matter, if it's legal, it should not be banished entirely. People can decide for themselves what they find objectionable. They can think thoughts they wish to think (whether we like it or not). That's what this country is about.
Why should people be allowed to think thoughts that others wish they wouldn't think? Why should the be allowed to express opinions that some may find objectionable or hateful?
Please refer to the founding fathers, the U.S. Constitution, and the definition of Slippery Slope.
What do you think?
Eric Kimmel says
Nailed it 100%
Gary Ellis says
Book banning is pure idiocy. It says the book banner has such low self esteem that they cannot accept that anyone else has an opinion.
It is so arrogant they should be ostracized and banned from society.
[[ Sharyl, copy to paper—then nix it ]]
It may be far more complicated than that.
Notice how critics NEVER mention which books
were burned, as if you wouldn’t put fire to books
explaining/describing how to groom, then
sexually molest kids. Or how to cover tracks
after raping women. Or . . . . :
KIDS' CULT OF VICARIOUS PERMISSION
- How Self-Censorship has Turned to 'Anything Goes’ Hedonism -
Parents of children have grossly underestimated the power - the powerfully bad influence - of movies, books, and music to seduce their kids into behaving in destructive and immoral ways.
One can hear liberals who read the above paragraph drop into their weak-brained drone about beginning censorship. That response only confirms their lack of insight into the ongoing struggle for self-censorship that many Americans would like to practice for the sake of their children and communities, but Hollywood's seduction is a formidable enemy to family values.
Hollywood and media types always say, in defense of the ever-declining standards for controlling sex and violence in movies and television, that "we only give the public what it wants to see"—as if the entertainment industry is only reactive and doesn't aggressively employ sexual titillation, provocative music, violence, and visual wizardry to seduce a gullible and MORALLY WEAK public, especially children and teen-agers.
For the average adult or child,
one's attempt at self-censorship
invariably fails to withstand the
"I'm just curious" attraction for
bizarre and strange entertainment
—or, at least, that's the initial
thought for many people, just to
observe out of curiosity. And
since curiosity is natural to humans,
we put aside self-censorship again
and again only to find ourselves
prepared to watch the next lowered
standard for perverse entertainment
—just out of curiosity.
America's moral decline can't be stopped without strong community standards, raised up between the purveyors of degenerate “entertainment” and a naturally weak citizenry. That's what moral leadership is for in our politicians, ministers, priests, rabbis, and community leaders—to set an example and a standard for which the public can gauge their ethical and moral health.
Good people attempt self-censorship; the majority understands the corrupting influence of giving in to Hollywood's hype. But they're continually being seduced into lowering their standards by a morally corrupt entertainment industry. Hollywood isn't just giving Americans what they want to see, but seducing them into consuming immoral entertainment, much like the street prostitute who bares her breasts for a passing family man, in hope of breaking his standard of moral self-censorship.
Any rational mind can see where such commerce in immoral entertainment eventually leads. We've witnessed the results of such fare for several decades. Once the veil of decency was broken - once Hefner won his court fight to publish Playboy (1953) and once Hollywood beat back formal censorship (1963) - a money-hungry entertainment industry was free to cycle over and over again their seductive scheme:
Present sexually and/or violently
provocative material for appealing
to the public's curiosity, then,
once the public has become comfortable
with that level of sewage, lower the
standards once again—but not so much
that formal censorship might be
triggered; it's a gradual, incremental
Such a process eventually degenerates into a total breakdown of civilization—as America is beginning to demonstrate, and as previous civilizations demonstrated before her.
We're witnessing in America the
result of kids getting vicarious
permission from Hollywood,
television, novels and music to
behave in destructive and immoral
ways. So while parents and churches
try instilling moral values in their
children, the entertainment industry
works hard to seduce them into
immorality. Which do you think has
the greater influence?
While a Madonna, a Cher, a Liz, or an Eddie Murphy or Mick Jagger or "2 Live Crew" stands uncontested as role model for the young, how are parents going to make their own case for honorable living (not to mention parents having to combat the influence of dozens of teen sex movies that spewed forth from Hollywood's sewer through the Seventies and Eighties, which vulgar fare glorified drugs and reduced sexuality to a "just having fun" pastime).
With the ACLU ever-primed and -ready to argue constitutional protection for most any public display of depravity - and without effectual opposition from judges, legislators, and community leaders - is it any wonder social/moral disintegration proliferates in America?
The decline continues apace, and only through well-reasoned censorship - through majority will - may the deadly course be altered.
The fault for America's decline in
civility does not lie with the public,
but with a powerful minority of evil
men and women who fight parents for
control of their children—by seducing
them through movies, TV, books and
music produced by a degenerate liberal
culture that gives vicarious permission
for kids to behave in destructive
and immoral ways.
Sharyl Attkisson is an all American hero!
Gerry Hoffman says
You’re being logical. They’re not. They’re pushing the envelope because only conservatives are offended enough to bitch about it. Libs are in control and feeling the power. Just remember basic physics. For every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction. Stand by.
Children find no prejudice in Dr. Seuss books, they don't yet have an adult frame of reference.
Adults with an undisclosed political agenda who are also hypersensitive to any possible racial suggestion may interpret anything they see as racially offensive even when it was not intended to be.
These people are projecting their fears and concerns onto others who don't see the same thing they do.
More than their harmful projecting they continue their undisclosed agenda by neuteri g the male female gender from kids toys. This is preconditioning to accept all types of sexual perversions to be accepted as normal.
The state has no right to mentally condition children without parental permission.
The state has no right to ban books someone finds offensive based on their fears or prejudice.
The state has no rights.
Is this beginning to make sense?
Jeff Zaat says
I'm not sure of the Constitutionality of what publishers may and may not do. I believe the American people and any other consumers of books should be able to legally purchase whatever they want.
Book banning is a moral issue. Book banning by the government, so far, should never be allowed.
The right needs to organize as a unit and get the Constitutional points back to the front of the line.
Get involved with organizations that that will align and get the Federal and local governments back to serving the Citizenry of these UNITED States of America.
Mark Cameron says
Some people's ids!
I support the right of any shop, store, or private library to select what to carry and what to exclude. Nearly all of what people characterize as censorship is simple abuse of monopoly position. Typically that foretells the erosion of said position. When Public services (many schools and libraries) cancel speech with prejudice, this is direct malfeasance. Officials involved must be challenged by all legal means, (and marginally legal ones too).
No, you have no “right” to an immoral privacy,
such as successfully luring, say, a 10-year-old
boy into your “right-to-privacy home,” then
sexually molest him there—and keep, privately!,
therein : books and magazines and videos of
adult men raping kids and babies. Right ?
Do you have a PRIVACY right to that material ?
Judge Bork had tried and explained : “There
is no right to privacy in the U.S Constitution.”
Why not?—because EVIL’s greatest, most
powerful advocates are LIBERTINES’ /
LIBERTARIANS’ / EGO-IDs’ Privacy !
—brain-dead PRIVACY arguments !
You have a right to be secure in your papers/
possessions!—but NOT immoral papers and
possessions (( unlawful things are We-the-
People’s RIGHT to oversee, to evaluate, and
to PROHIBIT, else no MERITOCRATIC /
Democratic REPUBLIC - Majority’s Rule ! -
can long be maintained )).
Cosa Nostra folks were able to keep stealing,
threatening, and murdering just because of
MIS-APPLICATION of that idea: “Right to
Agencies use it!—and use “Secrecy For National
Security” to effect present-day CORRUPTIONS
on a GLOBAL Scale (( find and study, “The
Franklin Coverup,” to get an insightful CLUE )).
“When one watches the TV sitcoms from the 50’s and the 60’s, the goals of society were clear. Work hard, get educated or trained, be successful, get married raise children, go to church and be kind to one another. We have flipped this conservative card on its face and the goal is to unleash as much perversion as possible [[ through libertines’ clever use of “Right to Privacy” ]], even to the point of denying the two genders that God created. [[ not mentioned, public school teachers instructing 4-year-old kids sexual PRRVERSION, such as “fisting” and oral/anal sex and . . . ]]:
Juxtapose information in above
paragraph with this anti-Christian
Christians in UK can’t Express Defence of Father/Mother families
Post, Post, Post America :
Satanists sue for abortions-as-human-sacrifice RIGHT :
I'm old enough to remember that when a book that received the label "Banned in Boston" insured that it would become a nationwide best-seller. That's the America I remember.
"Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate clink, whilst thousands of cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field." - Edmund Burke
The selection of Dr. Seuss and Mr. Potato Head to ban has instantly turned the sound of the quiet chewing into outright laughter at those silly crickets.
Sharyl Attkisson for president