Banned Books discussion

187 views
POLITICS/LEGAL/CURRENT EVENTS > First Ammendment Rights

Comments Showing 1-48 of 48 (48 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Shannon (last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:25AM) (new)

Shannon (shanannigans) | 1 comments Not only are our childrens books getting banned in school but their speeches as well since the supreme court ruled against a students right to free speech recently.Please read about Morse v. Frederick .This is insane!This could very well affect free speech in the future.


message 2: by [deleted user] (last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:25AM) (new)

This is Bong Hits 4 Jesus? Schools have always restricted free speech that promoted something illegal, such as drug or alcohol use. I would support that restriction, having worked with adolescents and being the mother of a teenager. They do not need any additional encouragement to use illegal drugs.
But if the kid had held up a banner that said Blow Jobs for Jesus, then he would have gotten the same response from the Principal,(and maybe his mother) and he would have won his Supreme Court battle. Interesting case- he has learned a great deal about how civil law in this country works, probably more that he got in high school. Wonder where he's going to college. Is this a young ACLU Lawyer in the making? We can only hope so- we need all of them we can get.


message 3: by [deleted user] (last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:26AM) (new)

the school issue is considered differently because usually the kids are minors, and their free speech is not the same as the free speech of adults, and safety- states have the authority to make rules for safety and health, for example. And there are some studies that suggest that advertising does cause kids to be more willing to try it-lots coming out of the tobacco industy, for example- Joe Camel being very recognizable to very young kids.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus was 18, and he was across the street, so he wasn't on school property. The Supreme Court, which has been very busy this week (!!) used only the argument that the kids at the school could see a message encouraging drug use, so the Principal was acting to protect the safety and health of the group, as she is responsible for doing.
But I agree with you, this is a very slippery slope. I heard Colin Powell say on Larry King last night that there have to be limits on what we can say publically- and his wife added that a degree of civility is called for in public discourse- they were talking about Imus and his unfortunate mouth. And I agree that civility in public discourse is a good idea, but when he said limits on what we can say publically, my heart nearly seized up.
Out where I've been living, on the Navajo Reservation, information is still printed up on flyers and posters and stuck with a pin to the wall of the Trading Post, or the grocery story bulliten board. Everybody stops and reads these, though most people don't have computers- I thought it was interesting in this case that this kid was putting his message out there in this fashion, in this old-fashioned sort of way, like an extremely short flash fiction story. Or the first few words of one, anyway. It makes me think there are lots of innovative ways to get fiction and poetry out there to people who don't usually read. But- I'm wandering off-topic!


message 4: by Skip (last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:26AM) (new)

Skip | 4 comments In cases of censorship and free speech, I generally err on the side of allowing the speech to occur, and Bong Hits for Jesus is no exception. Sure, the speech may have been in poor taste and kind of silly, (It was,) but to prohibit it is not in the interest of the spirit of the First Amendment.
I understand the arguments posed by the power of advertising on young kids, however, and unfurled hand-written banner on a public street off campus is hardly a glossy ad in school hallway.

But I think this week has shown everyone just how scary this new Supreme Court will prove. To whittle away Brown v. Board of Education (a sacrosanct ruling if there ever was one,) should be a wake-up call to everyone.


message 5: by Nated (last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:28AM) (new)

Nated Doherty | 24 comments I'm starting to wonder if we're just not, as a society, thinking: "Hmm, this totalitarianism thing doesn't seem to have worked out for other countries in the past, but..." Maybe because we've never directly suffered it, we (and I mean we in the broadest sense here, as a society) are just going to try it out. Ugh, I don't really want to live through that little experiement in idiocy, but there are a lot of little hints out there, mostly in the dialogue between cretins, that suggest that people really have no understanding of what their freedom is worth, what it's composed of, or why it matters. Maybe we just have to go through that growing pain, learn the lesson the hard way.


message 6: by Alex (last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:41AM) (new)

Alex (alexinmadison) | 9 comments I couldn't have said it any better than Pollywaffleus.


message 7: by Xysea (last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:41AM) (new)

Xysea  (xysea) I am a fierce free-speech advocate and protector. I am concerned about the interference of the government in what we read, watch or hear.

I do not think anything should be censored. It is up to the individual (or in the case of minors, their guardians/parents) to make that decision. If you don't want to see it, read it or hear it, don't. But don't censor what other people have access to. Period.

I'm with Pollywaffleus - don't take away my right to decide.

I do think Americans are generally to puritanical and parochial about such matters as nudity. Bare breasts, etc. We need to lighten up quite a bit in these matters. Some people act as if it's a floodgate that will open, that all of a sudden people will not be able to control their lacivious actions. Gee, that sounds to me like what happens when you repress someone's sexuality...hmmm.

I don't agree with hate speech, but if I have to tolerate its existence so that we as a people can guarantee freedom of speech for all, then that's what is going to have to be. An unfortunate consquence...


message 8: by Wendy (last edited Aug 25, 2016 11:42AM) (new)

Wendy Wanderer | 5 comments pollywaffleus sums up for me how I feel about assorted movements to remove/ban/hide various books from school and local libraries.

I hesitate to label people as lazy in their parenting but I cannot fathom any reason why I would need a library to remove a book I don't want my child to read other than not wanting to monitor my child's reading activities, not wanting to have to discuss certain topics with them and not wanting to be the "bad guy" who has to say no.

Along with this I notice most people seem to take part in activism to ban various books only at the prompting of some outraged organization sending out emails to "take action" People demand the removal of Harry Potter and ignore the existence in the same library of hundreds of other magical tales.

While I personally cannot recall taking any book out of my own children's hands I do know I have spent an awful lof of time reading either with them or reading books they have chosen after they have when I am curious about some new author they came across. I'm convinced that no censorship in our home on reading materials has led to the fact that my kids have often held a book under my nose to comment on something they find odd, unpleasant, exciting or misleading. I wouldn't trade the discussions triggered by those moments in for anything.


message 9: by Andrea (new)

Andrea (outlanderbookfan) | 1 comments I totally agree with that. My mother and I were in the local library so much that they finally just offered her a job, which turned into a career for her. She never banned my choices, but would steer me from more shallow, bland writing to more daring choices. For example, handing me Sybil, The Bell Jar, etc., rather than the typical young adult stuff. She would also read what I read that was more mainstream to my age group. I felt like I could read anything and we could discuss it. As an adult and mother, I hope to bring the same enlightenment to my kids and really open them up to the world of ALL literature, not just what some school board or other entity says is ok.


message 10: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
okay, a year and a quarter late on the dicussion but I had to chime in.

I think there are two issues here: censorship of reading material and freedom of speech for kids.

I do not advocate censorship of reading material. I do think that kids should be able to read what they want but I do think parents should know what their kids are reading. That's the job of the parents, though, not someone else informing them. I would be a little concerned if my child's school library were only buying up white supremecist books and right wing Christian texts and not also buying new works by thinkers with opposing viewpoints. Once it's there, don't take it out, but be sure there's a wide-variety to read, especially classics and age-appropriate works.

The issue of free speech for kids is different. Bullying is an enormous problem right now with kids actually committing suicide because of it. Often these kids aren't physically touched but only ridiculed and condemned for whatever reason. I do think it's the right and the duty of the school to curb hate speech but do so by having dialogs about those subjects. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to hurt others with your words.

I also think that kids need balanced information and if someone is trying to push forth their opinion about an issue (such as drugs being a-ok) it is appropriate for the school to have concerns and again, talking about it. However, sanctions against these subjects are only going to make them more appealing to kids.


message 11: by William (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) 'Bullying' is a consequence of the state school system. So is deciding what children are told is the truth. It is the system that is broken.

First Ammendent Rights are a joke ... just like all other rights.


message 12: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
How is bullying a consequence of the state school system? I don't understand.

I also don't know what you mean by the rights being a joke. We can speak out against our own government without fear of reprisal unlike people in the majority of other countries.


message 13: by William (last edited Jul 07, 2009 09:44AM) (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Kelly wrote: "How is bullying a consequence of the state school system? I don't understand.

I also don't know what you mean by the rights being a joke. We can speak out against our own government without fear ..."


The state school system regulates discipline, as well as content presented as truth. There is no real 'discipline' as was in pre-govt regulated schools. It is almost impossible to punish anyone for anything in any meaningful way In private schools bullies are removed ... there is no time to devote to coddling them.

Truth as taught in public schools is a matter of concensus, and has no metaphysical connection with reality.

You can speak out against lots of things, but if you draw sufficient attention you will find yourself defending yourself with your own resources against those of the state. Just as a for-instance there are/have been people stopped from writing about the unfairness of taxes. Look it up.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,

Recognize the above? It's from the US Constitution. Think it is true now? Our rights are a joke.
That makes no sense … writing is not illegal! I thought you said he was distributing provocative material?”
“Everything is illegal Jean. Whenever it needs to be illegal it is. As to being provocative … that’s in the eye of the beholder.”






message 14: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
My foster daughter was expelled from school for fighting twice. The first time the other girl started it, but she was suspended. The second time she started it and was expelled. The school also pressed charges so she had to go to court, too. We had to go through a hearing process to get her reinstated in the school system at a different school. She was out of school for two months and ended up dropping out all together. Luckily she went on to get her GED and a medical assistant degree. This wasn't even bullying, this was simply two kids fighting. I didn't and don't approve of fighting at all and think it was a fair punishment but it's a good example of the zero tolerance for violence schools have now. (We lived in a very not good area at the time.) If you don't like the state school system you can send a child to private school or home school them. Most states have online schools for middle school and up that are free and there's no discipline issues involved.

Truth is always subjective. Facts can always be manipulated to prove any point wanted. If you google "unfairness in taxes" you find all kinds of writing about it, including reprints from published magazines. If you feel you are not allowed to speak about a topic, you can get a lawyer, the ACLU, etc. to help you out.

You have to adjust the 20 dollar limit for inflation. Do you really think I should be able to co-opt 14 of my peer's time (including alternates) because my neighbor owes me $21 and won't pay it?

While I think we have a lot of problems in the US, I think we take our privileges for granted.


message 15: by William (last edited Jul 08, 2009 11:55PM) (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Kelly,

Don't take my word for it. There are numerous examples of problems in public schools. http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kp9809-...
As to going to private schools if you don't like the public schools ... true enough.

It's like going to the grocery store and having a clerk put GovSoap in your cart and you say I'd rather have Tide, and the clerk says "no problem but you have to pay for the GovSoap too".

You'll note I said if you draw enough attention ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Sc... ... so yes you can complain and write what you like ... unless you draw unfavorable attention. It isn't just taxes ... the conspiracy and anti-terrorism laws can cause you to be locked away or silenced if you say things 'inappropriate'.

As to causing problems by raising a jury ... you pay court costs in all cases if you lose. If you have a jury trial you pay for the jury. If you choose to pay why should the right go away?

The city,state,fed collects billions in fines for crimes for which you have no right to a trial. Which makes rights a joke. You are left with the rights the state chooses to leave you.





message 16: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Jul 09, 2009 01:32AM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
I agree that the Patriot Act took away some fundamental rights in a scary and unacceptable way. But I don't think it means we have no rights at all and I think time will show that it came out of fear and it will go away just like the McCarthy era ended.

What billions do we citizens pay for crimes where we have no right to a trial?

Schiff went to jail not for what he said but because he willfully broke the law. He refused to divulge what he makes or file appropriate taxes. I am unaware of a single country in the world where it is legal to not pay taxes. I don't agree with everything my tax money is used for but I guarantee that there are things I am happy it's used for that someone else is against. One person doesn't get to decide for everyone. One person doesn't get to decide he is above the law. If you want to argue that your rights are violated because you don't believe in taxes well then there is no place on earth where you have "rights." If you use roads, if you expect 911 to answer when you call, then you have no right to protest taxation. Taxes are a way to collectively gather money to pay for things we cannot as individuals pay for. We have something called the vote which allows us to elect people who will use those taxes the way we want them to. I believe in taxes, I support income tax as a fair tax, and I wish my state had income taxes. And yes, my family is fairly well off and has a large tax burden. We are very blessed.

In your example, you are helping to pay for GovSoap for all of the people who can't afford to buy any soap at all without help. There is never enough money to pay for GovSoap for the people who need it. You get to vote on whether the Government can even raise money to help pay for GovSoap whether you ever use soap or not. No the system isn't perfect but leaving it will only make it worse. If you want to change the schools, get involved in the PTSAs, join the school board, go to public hearings on school issues.

How many cases go by without the costs ever being paid by the guilty party? People don't have that kind of money. And the money juries get paid is barely anything. It does not make up for the time and pay lost from work, from paying for daycare if they're stay at home parents, etc. Our litigious society is based on selfishness and greed and I really don't feel sorry for someone who can't inconvenience a ton of different people over $21.

We can make a difference. Giving up and saying we have no rights and it's all a joke, is a slap in the face of all the activists who are out there every day making a difference, an insult to the people in other countries where people truly have no rights, to the people who have endured terror and reprisal for just being themselves in Germany in the 1930's and 40's, in Iran in the 80's and 90's, in Cuba for the past 60 or whatever years.

The world isn't black and white. We aren't all good or all bad. We aren't completely free or not free at all. We do have rights and we do have freedoms, including the right to whine and complain even when we are beyond fortunate.


message 17: by William (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) You have no right to a jury trial (any more) for being charged with violating an ordinance, or a crime for which you cannot go to jail (in most states). Billions each year are paid for breaking ordinances from parking tickets to speeding tickets to violating a food label, for any number of things. Billions of dollars are collected this way and you have no right to have your case heard by a jury ... as it says you do in plain English in the constitution.

Whether or not someone is speeding or drunk in public is not the point ... the point is the right has been taken away to have the case heard by a jury. Nor is the point the cost or time of a jury ... why do you think jury trial was made a Right? Because the govt cannot be trusted to impartially decide guilt ... especially when it means revenue to the govt.

Fines and such are revenue measures for the various forms of govt. and it amounts to billions of dollars.

Schiff and others were not just jailed for not paying taxes they were enjoined not to write or sell material which told people taxes were illegal. Whether you agree with that or not he has no 1st Ammendment Right to say/write what he wants. The same is true of a group of people that say the govt should go away by violence ... they can actually be arrested for it.

Why should the govt (some group of people that call themselves 'government') be entitled to a 'cut' on every trade/sale/transaction made? By what 'Right'? They used to be called Robber Barons. They had castles on the Rhine River and stopped boats as they went by and took part of their goods in payment to go on in peace. Why on Earth would anyone be in favor of such a system? The Nazi Germanys - USSRs - Red Chinas - Cubas are simply manifestations of the theory that the govt should get a cut taken to the extreme that their 'cut' should be everything.

The system is broken. It has been for a long time. So far we have managed to maintain a reasonable standard of living ... but this is not guaranteed. Things can and may get much worse. The more govt controls the worse things get. You have 1 vote out of a million ... you cannot change things with those odds in any significant way.

When you point to the plain English statement of a Right ... such as the right to a jury trial ... and you are told it really doesn't mean that at all then it is a joke ... a bad joke, but still it is a joke.

I haven't given up ... giving up is ignoring the reality all around you.




message 18: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
--Margaret Mead

I do not agree the system is broken. I do not believe in conspiracy theories about the horrors of the government. I do not believe a convicted felon deserves the same rights as everyone else. I have no problem with a man who has been jailed numerous times for tax evasion being told he can't keep talking about how he broke the law and you should, too. I have no respect for him or anyone who thinks they are above the law.

You said "The city,state,fed collects billions in fines for crimes for which you have no right to a trial." NOT a jury trial, a trial. You can go to court over a speeding ticket or parking ticket if you want. You have NOT lost your right to a trial. Our founding fathers did not anticipate the sheer numbers of people inundating our courts. I believe the spirit of the Right is still in place.

We will never agree. You are pessimistic, angry, and self-righteous. I am optimistic, hopefully and willing to consider other points of view as valid. (I have conceded several points to you, you have conceded none.) You consider yourself and others like you to be put upon. I consider myself to be incredibly lucky and want to help those not as fortunate. I have volunteered at least 10 hours per week for the past 20 years and I have seen incredible change accomplished through grass-roots efforts. I have no patience for those who complain and say they have no power.

Feel free to keep arguing about how much your rights are taken away. I'm not going to respond any more because you can't see how incredibly lucky you are and nothing I say or do will change that. So let's just end this conversation here.


message 19: by William (last edited Jul 12, 2009 06:39AM) (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Kelly,

This is the 2nd topic that you have shut down. The first being the Religion topic, where as now you claimed I was 'angry & provoking'.

I think you are missing the point of the group which is Bannned Books.This about BANNED INFORMATION.

Actually a small group of committed people are changeing the world day by day .... they are called 'oligarchies'. This is not a 'conspiracy theory' ... the fact is that the Congress of the United States of America is less than 500 people, and they set the standards and rules for more than 300,000,000 people, and the impact of their rulings are worldwide. This is a fact ... it is not a 'conspiracy theory'.

The reality is that you join the workforce in the US (everywhere in fact) in debt to the government. Someone will have to pay for these 'bailouts' and the 'someones' will be taxpayers. If you were willing to do some research you would find these 'recesssions' and 'depressions' are reoccurring themes worldwide, and the solution is always left to the government ... and more recessions and depressions follow. YOU owe this money the govt is spending! These are facts.

You CANNOT have a jury trial for speeding tickets or drunk in public or any crime which does not entail jail time. This is a fact ... I did not make this up. The US Constitution says otherwise.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,


You are welcome to rationalize this anyway you wish ... but the FACT is your Right to a JUry Trial is gone for many many crimes for which the govt rakes in billions.

Contrary to your 'concession' declarations ... I said you can pretty much say whatever you wish ... as long as you do not draw significant attention to yourself. There is tons of racism and hate mongering on the net which is not policed, but if/when such gets govt attention it can be curtailed by the govt at any time.

I think if you look at the American Revolution and the French Revolution you will see much written about the evils of taxiation. I think if you look at the Federalist and AntiFederalist papers you will see WHY the First Ammendment and the Right to Trial by Jury were part of the Ammendmments to the Constitution. Those who wrote such things back then were considered CRIMINALS.

The system is indeed broken ... the oligarchies rule unchecked. And YOU will pay the price. You are welcome to believe and rationalize that everything is wonderful and nothing is wrong anywhere ... but that will not sit well with all those who have lost their homes, retirement, and way of life.

You are welcome to say this is 'pessimism - anger -self-rightiousness .... but none of these things will change reality and it has nothing to do with my appraisel of current events. It is just one more discussion you have shut down.

“It is important to realize that almost no one is bothered by this system, and there is no evil conspiracy that created it, or that maintains it. Almost everyone is reasonably happy, if not ecstatic about his or her culture, and would quickly become defensive, if not offensive, should anyone complain about it, or try to alter it. The standard of living for members of the most successful of the national societies is such that few want for anything … except those things that would increase their perceived status beyond that of their neighbors.
“Most everyone admires the members of the oligarchy, wish they were members too, and encourage their offspring to aspire to such positions. They have every reason to be happy … they are told this repeatedly. For those who gain the ranks of the oligarchy, they are suitably impressed with themselves, and would argue that it proves the value of the system. They enact laws and regulations, garner more sources of revenue, and regard themselves as the ones to determine all of the solutions to any problems that might arise. All this is done with the best of intentions.
“Of course domestic birds in cages are happy also. They are born into their condition, and they have nothing with which to compare it.







Lisa  (not getting friends updates) Vegan (lisavegan) William, I am confused. Goodreads is about reading & books. This banned books group is about banned books. Are you talking about any particular book(s)? I don't see this group as a group to talk about ideas in general but about banned books, ideas, opinions, information, etc. about that situation.


message 21: by William (last edited Jul 12, 2009 08:42AM) (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Lisa wrote: "William, I am confused. Goodreads is about reading & books. This banned books group is about banned books. Are you talking about any particular book(s)? I don't see this group as a group to talk ab..."

Lisa,

All the information I have posted on this topic has come from a banned book. Fe Fi FOE Comes it is not banned everywhere ... yet. But in those countries which do not allow anti-government or ideas which do not match the prevailing religious ruling group.

These are not 'ideas in general' but information about our broken system. Hence the quotes.

From the Back Cover:

A warning to the reader ...
You may not wish for people to know you are reading this
book. In some jurisdictions such material is banned. In some
places there may be severe penalties should you be found
with it in your possession. Even in places with free speech
some authorities, or some of your neighbors, may be
suspicious if they read portions of this book, and find you
reading it. In the near future the consequences could be
worse. You may not wish to read it at all.

“Government is now pervasive in every aspect of our lives.
The revenue to maintain this engine continues to grow
geometrically, and is an ever larger percentage of our
income. Everything is illegal; whenever it needs to be illegal
it is. Freedom remains only to do the inconsequential.
There is no place to go to get away from it, and no way to
change it … or is there?”
Das
Alta Mira, Alaska



biLL


message 22: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Jul 14, 2009 01:07AM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
I did not shut this topic down nor any other. Here I said I will not discuss it with you any longer. You can discuss it with others all you want. I am a moderator. If I wanted to shut the topic down, I would not allow any more posts in the discussion. In the other topic, I asked you to keep it civil. I did not tell you to stop posting. But if you continue to see everyone who disagrees with you and doesn't want to talk to you any longer as banning your way of thought, then that goes a long way to explain your attitude.

You didn't even read my post carefully anyway. I said above that you had not mentioned JURY trial, just TRIAL. Which is true. Yes it is true you cannot have a JURY trial. But I was arguing with your statement about ANY trial.

I will not argue with someone who can't be bothered actually reading the posts he's arguing with.




message 23: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
William wrote: "All the information I have posted on this topic has come from a banned book. Fe Fi FOE Comes it is not banned everywhere ... yet. But in those countries which do not allow anti-government or ideas which do not match the prevailing religious ruling group. "

You did not mention that a single time. If you had said your comments were from the book itself, rather than as if they were absolute fact, I would have declined to comment as I have not read the book. This discussion group was started to discuss whether banning books in schools violates a student's free speech rights.




message 24: by William (last edited Jul 14, 2009 08:06AM) (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Kelly wrote: "William wrote: "All the information I have posted on this topic has come from a banned book. Fe Fi FOE Comes it is not banned everywhere ... yet. But in those countries which do not allow anti-gove..."

The point is there are no such rights anymore. Your rights are decided by something like 500 people who write laws and something like 5 who agree whether they are constitutional.

A country founded on tax-protest prohibiting people from writing about the 'evils' of taxes - legally. A country founded on the Ammendments to the Constitution that anyone that can read English can read.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
.
Yet denies such trials for breaking 'ordinances'?That was my point. I could post many more examples.

WORSE than banning certain school books is exposing children to out-and-out propaganda which furthers the interest of the ruling oligarchy.
The U.S. government did not repress its citizens in the fashion of totalitarian regimes, and most people’s standard of living was well above that of the average world citizen. But what federal, state, and local governments did was to pass law after law, tax after tax, and regulation after regulation on pretty much every aspect of life. They always spent more than they took in, and raised taxes to offset the deficit. People were getting wise to this though, so they began to augment taxes already in place by way of ‘nanny’ laws; or ‘big brother’ laws.
Laws passed because the state knew what was better for you than you did. Taxes to drive into town, taxes to rent a room, taxes to ride a boat were all extensions of traditional taxes, but then there were extensive taxes on smoking, liquor, fattening foods. There were taxes for driving certain kinds of cars, taxes for pleasure vehicles and boats, taxes for traveling to another town or state or country to buy things.
Many of the things taxed had some negative aspect to them; being overweight led to early heart attacks, and more cost to the state for medical benefits, travel by jet depleted the ozone layer, bigger cars and utility vehicles used more gasoline, produced more carbon dioxide, and so on.
The alleged theory was that if you tax the ‘bad’ things people would do them less. This is obviously silly and contradictory; since everything they could think of was ‘bad’ and was taxed. What wasn’t taxed was prohibited by ordinances: riding a bike without a helmet, smoking in a convertible, talking on a cell phone while driving or in certain locations, drinking on a public beach or in a public park, even while backpacking, and on and on.
There were the health and ‘lifestyle’ ordinances; children must have a certain level of sex education, and it had to include alternate lifestyle information. Tests for STDs became mandatory, positive results on HIV tests required the taking of prescription medicines; which were quite expensive, and made huge profits for pharmaceutical companies. Ordinances were special, the courts determined, and were not subject to the right to a jury trial if they were violated; thus a city or state employee, called a ‘magistrate’ determined guilt … and maintained the ordinances.
The point was control and revenue, plane and simple. Individuals or groups that did not have sufficient representation in city councils, state legislatures, or at the federal level were like dogs in a field of fleas.
Contemporary societies made a U-turn on their basic value of common respect for their neighbors. It was dog-eat-dog … any tax which did not land on ‘me’ was fine if it landed on ‘you’. The state propaganda reinforced this cannibalism by flooding the media with the promise that the tax on ‘them’ would lower the taxes on ‘you’. Of course this was nonsense; taxes never went down. Government cancer had progressed to the stage of revenue at the cost of whatever rights prevented its collection.

You see Kelly that was my point. The forest is the bulk of loss of rights ... the trees are the books here and there students are not allowed to read. Like the one from which the above quote came, which you will find in no public library or schoolroom.





message 25: by Jason (new)

Jason (boltbook) | 1 comments Amendment VII only applies to federal courts. It also only applies to cases that would have mandated jury trials under English common law in 1789, the year of its adoption. Traffic tickets seem to fail on both counts.


message 26: by William (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Jason wrote: "Amendment VII only applies to federal courts. It also only applies to cases that would have mandated jury trials under English common law in 1789, the year of its adoption. Traffic tickets seem to ..."

Not quite.
In the United States every person accused of a felony has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises from Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed." The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Both provisions were made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have abrogated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. Also, a person accused of any crime punishable by more than six months imprisonment is also entitled to demand trial by jury; the Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required, meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases.


I don't think there were many traffic tickets in 1789, but there has always been the impartiality of the state when a state (city) employee decides whether someone has broken a law. There is also something called 'Jury Nullification' which means 'bad laws' can be nullified by jury verdicts. You can find much discussion on the issue of jury trials ... http://nowscape.com/fija/fija_us.htm one source.

You are of course welcome to advocate doing away with jury trials for any offense. In California if you park your car in the garage, don't drive it, yet don't get plates for it the state can confiscate it ... without a jury trial. If you carry a large amount of cash to the airport and a police officer sees you with it he can confiscate the cash as part of the Rico statutes, and you have to prove - without a jury - that the money is legally yours. If someone borrows your boat and the Coast Guard boards it and finds someone with cocaine on board they can confiscate your boat - no jury involved.

Total control by the government is hardly new and rarely oppposed. I guess Freedom is passe'.




message 27: by Madeline (new)

Madeline | 3 comments Shannon wrote: "Not only are our childrens books getting banned in school but their speeches as well since the supreme court ruled against a students right to free speech recently.Please read about Morse v. Freder..."

Oi! Can they change the Constitution? Legally I mean. I know my essays and art projects were banned from being on display because they contained "explicit content" (in other words I would write about poverty and everything the government wanted to hide and my art was about death most of the time).. If this does become legal they better be ready for hell from everyone against them...


message 28: by William (last edited Aug 06, 2009 05:46AM) (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Can they change the Constitution?

The Constitution is virtually meaningless regarding rights. Thousands and thousands of laws and regulations have/are passed. I think the US has something like 30,000,000 laws on the books. Very few ever reach the level of a Constitutional challenge ... it is a difficult and expensive process. Unconstitutional laws/regulations mostly go unchallenged. Additionally the Supreme Court almost always holds for the state, even to stating that plain english rights do not mean what they say, and granting the government the unlimited power to tax, and almost unlimited power to regulate.


message 29: by Madeline (last edited Aug 06, 2009 09:05AM) (new)

Madeline | 3 comments William wrote: " Can they change the Constitution?

The Constitution is virtually meaningless regarding rights. Thousands and thousands of laws and regulations have/are passed. I think the US has something like ..."


So in other words they can do whatever they want and we can't do jack about it. Thats how Obama can hide his genocide clause (though I'm positive they'll use a happier sounding synonym) in the new health care hes pushing...


message 30: by William (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Kaila wrote: "William wrote: " Can they change the Constitution?

So in other words they can do whatever they want and we can't do jack about it.<.i>

Yes!




message 31: by Cathy (new)

Cathy  (cathygreytfriend) | 8 comments Kaila, William is just one person with strong opinions. He has offered a lot of information that you should study. But Kelly and others have different opinions and their own experiences and research to back up their views as well. Please don't get so upset over one set of remarks in one topic, but instead become an informed citizen by reading and debating multiple people from different backgrounds and perspectives. And most of all, vote. I have been involved with the behind the scenes world on Capitol Hill in Washington for 20 years and I know for a fact that votes count, as do letters to your representatives and actions at the local level. If you see something that upsets you, do your research to understand why it happens and then get out there and try to make a legal and responsible change.

That said, I'd really like this topic to return to books. This isn't a political forum. If you have controversial books that you would like to discuss as sources for conversation, great. If not, I would recommend that after 2 years this topic be closed, as the discussion seems complete.


message 32: by William (last edited Aug 07, 2009 02:36AM) (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Catherine wrote: "Kaila, William is just one person with strong opinions. He has offered a lot of information that you should study. But Kelly and others have different opinions and their own experiences and researc..."That said, I'd really like this topic to return to books. This isn't a political forum. If you have controversial books that you would like to discuss as sources for conversation, great. If not, I would recommend that after 2 years this topic be closed, as the discussion seems complete.


You make good sense Catherine, but I'm afraid I don't see how threads about 'Banned' (controversial) books could be anything other than a political forum. Controlling what people see/read/do is political.
Politics is a process by which groups of people make decisions.

Much of what you call my opinions come from books ... banned and controversial. Mostly they are aren't really opinions, but facts. Such as:
Take the U.S. as an example. There are one hundred Senators and four hundred thirty-five Representatives, and the number of Representatives has been locked in place by law since 1929. That means that if/when the U.S. has a billion people, there will still be only four hundred thirty-five Representatives. With one President, that’s five hundred thirty-six people (536) who rule (authoritatively) 303,824,640 people at last estimate. Of those three hundred million or so, 225,499,000 are registered voters. That means the ratio of represented to representing is 566,837 to 1, and the ratio of representatives to voters is about 421,493 to 1. Considering that the U.S. began with a ratio of 30,000 to 1, what is the value of your vote?
This is not an opinion it is a simple fact. In 1929 the U.S. population was 121,767 or a ratio of represented to representatives of 279,924 to one ... so representation is about half now what it was then.

It means talk about U.S. democracy is nothing more than platitude. Does this have to be written in a book and banned to be controversial? Or worth discussing in the Banned Books group in a thread about First Ammendment Rights?

Well maybe so ... but that's sort of a 'ban' itself, as is closing the discussion IMHO>






message 33: by Old-Barbarossa (new)

Old-Barbarossa William wrote: "Catherine wrote: "Kaila, William is just one person with strong opinions. He has offered a lot of information that you should study. But Kelly and others have different opinions and their own exper..."

Willaim, you seem to quote a lot of things but aren't referencing them. As I'm not from the US it would help me follow things if you could include sources, either as links or just titles.
As a foreigner I find this thread interesting but don't always get the subtleties of the arguements.



message 34: by William (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Barbarossa wrote: ".Willaim, you seem to quote a lot of things but aren't referencing them. As I'm not from the US it would help me follow things if you could include sources, either as links or just titles.
"


Guilty Barbarossa ... some of the plain-fact quotes come from Wikipedia ... the rest come from my own book. I did not wish to come off as if I were promoting my book, but used some of the salient arguments/passages that are in it that I consider relevant to the topic. That's why I did not identify the source.




message 35: by Cathy (new)

Cathy  (cathygreytfriend) | 8 comments My point is that this is supposed to be a discussion about a book or a group of books. Many discussions in this group become political, or moral debates, etc. But they are supposed to begin with a review of a specific book and continued discussion ideally should reference relevant source materials/books so people following the discussion can review the sources to form their own opinions. You know, find more books to discuss and debate, the point of the group. This isn't simply a group to debate politics, but to do so within the scope of books that are considered inflamatory enough to be banned by governments or other groups. I would like to see more about those books.

And I'm sorry, William, but wikipedia is not a valid primary source. Please reference original source material, or at least say that it's wikipedia so we can go to the page and verify the original sources and perhaps read them for ourselves. I would be interested to know more about your book, William, and your sources as well. Have you received challenges to getting it shelved for what appears to be inappropriate reasons?


message 36: by William (last edited Aug 08, 2009 10:33AM) (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Catherine wrote: "My point is that this is supposed to be a discussion about a book or a group of books. Many discussions in this group become political, or moral debates, etc. But they are supposed to begin with a ..."

Catherine. I would agree with you that Wikipedia is not a valid primary source for many subjects. However I think if you do a search for the number of Senators and Representatives you will find the material accurate. You will also find that the numbers of population and registered voters is accurate. You will also find that except for a couple of times the number of Representatives is/has been fixed at 435 since 1911 and by law since 1929. I think it is interesting that people talk about rights and democracy in a country run absolutely by 536 people.

The quote regarding this comes from the First Edition of Fe Fi FOE Comes which is my own book, and did not wish to seem to be promoting that. The material in my book is considered anti-government and anti-religion where religion becomes a political party. As I said in another forum, the book has only sold a thousand copies or so since publication in July of 2008, which means it is not banned by name but by content in certain countries.

I think you have to realize in a forum about banned books and threads within about 1st Ammendment rights any material which illustrates the loss of fundamental rights is or should be fair game.

I cannot think of a book banned specifically to circumvent the 1st Ammendment, but much material has been banned because it is labeled something which is (supposedly) outside material covered ... such as pornography.

My remarks are to point out the references to Constitutional rights are only platitude ... they do not exist as written and adopted, and have not for years. For this reason the thread is about that which is non-existant.


message 37: by Old-Barbarossa (last edited Aug 08, 2009 11:05AM) (new)

Old-Barbarossa William wrote: "My remarks are to point out the references to Constitutional rights are only platitude ... they do not exist as written and adopted, and have not for years."

I think the late George Carlin says as much here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1...




message 38: by William (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Barbarossa wrote: "William wrote: "My remarks are to point out the references to Constitutional rights are only platitude ... they do not exist as written and adopted, and have not for years."

I think the late Geo..."


This is perfect Barbarossa ... I wish I'd said it! Carlin is right on point!


message 39: by Cathy (new)

Cathy  (cathygreytfriend) | 8 comments Unfortunately, I can't view the video until later, but I'm sure we'd be cracking Carlin up, as much as he always cracks us up and makes his point as well.

William, whether accurate or not, Wikipedia is not a primary source. And while you have many interesting points, I fail to see how a book with low sales can be considered banned. Have people protested against it's sale and distribution or requested it be withdrawn from libraries? Have governments prohibited it's sale? There are many books for sale that criticize the US government and your arguments so far are nothing I haven't seen before, therefore likely in print. And in wikipedia. Furthermore, you have yet to suggest any solutions. It's broken. Fine. What next? Ranting against a problem without suggesting workable solutions is juvenile. It's grest to see a problem and try to draw attention to it, I appreciate that. But without ideas on how to overcome it, it's just grandstanding and rabblerousing. But thank you for answering my questions. I hope your book sales improve and you find better forums for these discussions. It's not that it wasn't appropriate at first, it's the extent to which you carried it out and the extreme distance it's come from the stated purpose of this site and this group. It's just too much. If you do indeed have solutions to propose, please post a link to a more approriate site where people can continue this discussion. I still vote that this thread be closed.


Lisa  (not getting friends updates) Vegan (lisavegan) Catherine, I think threads will die out. I think the key is to stop posting and they will sink to the bottom. ;-)


message 41: by William (new)

William Samples (WCSamples) Catherine wrote: "Unfortunately, I can't view the video until later, but I'm sure we'd be cracking Carlin up, as much as he always cracks us up and makes his point as well.

William, whether accurate or not, Wikipe..."


Catherine it is not at all clear what your point is beyond shutting down the thread. It is illegal in several countries to import material which criticizes govt or the ruling religion. You are welcome to believe this or not. If you think pointing out the loss of personal rights is grandstanding and rabble rousing well then I am in good company with those who grandstanded and rabble roused against the British govt and fought for an independent 13 colonies. The ideas to overcome it are in the book ... I don't think you really expect me to post 900 pages in this thread. Don't worry about the low sales ... those that read it understand the issues.

I guess here in the thread what is right and wrong is measured by how many people know about it and believe it.

I think Lisa is right. Stop posting to the thread.I will. I have found these discussions here and in other Banned Books threads to be mostly a waste of time. It isn't clear what people are looking for here, but it's clear enough it is not anything which is controversial or informative. Barbarossa's post was the nearest to any kind of meaningful dialogue.Carlin was right on. Maybe that should have been the only post here.




message 42: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Aug 09, 2009 09:13PM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
If you find them a waste of time, why do you keep posting? Catherine's point is that you're ranting about controversial topics without backing them up with legitimate sources. Regardless of accuracy, Wikipedia is not and does not intend to be a primary source. Anything that can be edited by anyone with an axe to grind cannot be a legitimate source.

William said, "I guess here in the thread what is right and wrong is measured by how many people know about it and believe it."
No one has said anything of the kind. The very fact that we're taking the time to discuss it with you shows that we're trying to analyze the issues not go by popular knowledge.

Please bring the topic back to a discussion of First Amendment rights. Future comments off-topic will be removed.


message 43: by Simon (new)

Simon Jester (simonjester) | 3 comments William wrote: "Catherine wrote: "Unfortunately, I can't view the video until later, but I'm sure we'd be cracking Carlin up, as much as he always cracks us up and makes his point as well.

William, whether acc..."


It is writers like you that abuse First Amendment Rights. If there was ever a book that deserved to be banned it is yours!


message 44: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (last edited Dec 03, 2009 11:44PM) (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
Simon, William may have started it and I agree that he abuses First Amendment rights but please refrain from direct attacks. He has dropped out of the group so we don't have to worry about his insane rhetoric anymore. I'm only saying anything because he accused me of being unfair and I'm trying to be consistent. :)


message 45: by Julie (new)

Julie S. So are we done talking about the First Amendment? I read over the last posts, but they were off-topic.


message 46: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
You are welcome to continue the conversation. It's a very important subject and very appropriate to this group.


message 47: by Kara (new)

Kara (karasmannequin) | 5 comments Shannon wrote: "Not only are our childrens books getting banned in school but their speeches as well since the supreme court ruled against a students right to free speech recently.Please read about Morse v. Freder..."

I agree completely. I honestly think people should be able to make up their own opinions..the disturbing thing is, people are wanting to so bias people's opinions that they would not even allow access to certain material. I'm not talking pornography or anything like that..I'm talking political books, even children's books that are banned simply because one or two people think that there is a hidden meaning in a book. Does anybody disagree that this is ridiculous? I find book-banning the equivalent of brainwashing...the Nazis did it (burned books), and look at the terrible atrocities hey did.


message 48: by Kelly H. (Maybedog), Big Kahuna, Ministry of Illicit Reading (new)

Kelly H. (Maybedog) (maybedog) | 623 comments Mod
I think everyone in this group agrees. It's very disturbing what people find to be acceptable.


back to top