Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:32:41 -0600, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
>Howdy,
I wrote the >> stuff --gt
>> Normally I wouldn't get into counting dancing angels on pinheads. The
>> above statements are idiocy of a dangerous brand. You hope "Mein Kampf"
>> would not be in your library? I suppose Henry Miller's writings are
>> taboo also? Who else shall be proscribed? Ray Bradbury for sure is a
>> dangerous writer; will you ban his works? And more importantly, who the
>> hell are you to even suggest what I may or may not have available to
>> read? If you don't want to read "Mein Kampf," then don't. Are you
>> afraid that if you do, you will start killing Jews? Or are you afraid
>> other, less right thinking people will turn into Nazi idiots due to its
>> taint, and this is your way of saving them?
>
> You misunderstand my point. I really don't care if someone wished to read
I understand your point exactly. It is you who doesn't understand what
you're saying.
>Mein Kampf, or any other trash for that matter. That isn't the point. My
>point is that I don't want *my* tax dollars to pay for it. I'm not saying,
>however, that you shouldn't be allowed to go buy the book, just not expect
>the library to get it on my (and every other tax payer's) dime.
So you're going to dictate how tax money is spent, based on your
minuscule contribution to the whole? My tax dollar is in there, too.
You want to deny me the benefits of my contribution?
> Also, I'm not against things I disagree with. However, I, like I think
>anyone else, draws the line at some point. Like someone else pointed out,
>does your library generally carry Penthouse? Should it? Should it carry the
Actually, it probably does. It is likely in a restricted area, or on
fiche or disk. It, like Playboy, Time, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated
are major periodicals and any quality library will stock them.
>writtings of Osama bin Ladin? There has to be a line somewhere, it's only a
What! Are you nuts? Of course bin Laden's writings, rants, and raves
should be readily available to anyone who wishes to suffer through the
experience. Not only bin Laden's stuff, but Mao's "Little Red Book,"
Marx's "Manifesto," and Hitler's "Mein Kampf." These are all mad men
who's belief that they owned the TRUTH has caused the world untold
suffering. It would be well that we all read these works so that we can
recognize the next would be messiah.
>matter of where. It's worth noting, at some point, everyone will say "that's
>enough." I might be stricter than you, but in the end, I think everyone is
>willing to censor something.
There is a major ethical difference between censorship and
discrimination. Discriminate is what I do when I choose not to read a
Stephen King book. Censor is what you suggest by removing my choice.
Discrimination is the choices we make every day as individuals. The sum
total of all choices makes the market. This is ethical. Censorship is
someone taking the choice away. This is unethical.
>
>> You exhibit all the symptoms of the incipient tyrant, much in the vein
>> of the fundamentalist preacher or imam. You somehow have the Truth with
>> a capital T and you're out to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming
>> into your version of Righteousness and Morality. Well, the world
>> doesn't need your kind of tyranny.
>
> Beings that I'm against most government interference in things, you seem to
>have concluded (falsely) way more off a few of my sentences than makes sense
>to do so. No offense, but you clearly don't have any idea how horrible a
>tyrant is.
I know the beginnings of censorship when I see them. I have read my
histories, especially related to the great ideas that led to our own
nation (USA). I have traveled in Europe and have seen concentration
camps. That was before they were shrines, when you could believe that
you could smell death. No, I haven't experienced tyranny, but I have
seen its aftermath. I will do what I can to chop off at the ground any
shoots I find. Censorship is _always_ the first step, whether by a
do-gooder or a schemer.
>
>> What we do need is a free and open exchange of all ideas, good and bad.
>> Trust people to do what they think is best. You may not always agree,
>> and either you or they could be wrong on any issue. As long as we're
>> not force-fed this view and deprived of that one, we make pretty good
>> decisions. Having all views available is the _sine qua non_, even
>> Hitler's "Mein Kampf."
>
> As I said, that is perfectly fine. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be
>happy if my tax dollars went toward buying Mein Kampf for a library. If you
So you would be happy to censor the stacks. Oh yeah, it would be for
the public good and general welfare, right? It is censorship. You
can't cover it up.
>want to go find a bookstore that carries it and buy a copy or two - that is
>your right, and something I would never think the government should prevent.
And you would deny anyone who's taste in books differs from your own
equal access.
>
>> ps. I wrote the above before noticing the writer's sig line.
>> That's one pin I hit on the head. :-)
>
> I'm curious what you mean by this? I don't see anything in my sig that has
>anything to do with anything you said.
The tone of your post had that "I don't believe in censorship, but some
right thinking people should make some rules... it's for their own
good... we shouldn't look upon evil... and in the end, I know what's
Right and True and Good...." I was reminded of fundamentalist Christian
preaching. Then I noticed this
>============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ==============
and thus my ps. If you don't fall into the fundamentalist grouping with
the likes of Torquemada, Khomeini, the taliban, or Jerry Foulwell and
his clinic bombers, I apologize for the insinuation. It's just that so
many who want to control others 'for their own good' hide behind
religion by putting their religion well out in front.
--
gt
Yes I fear I am living beyond my mental means--Nash
Reply to: