Freedom of speech: Salman Rushdie on American students, and the latest list of “banned” books

63 thoughts on “Freedom of speech: Salman Rushdie on American students, and the latest list of “banned” books”

1. sub

   1. sub

2. Sub

3. I’m really surprised that the list includes “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time.” I might have to re-read it to see if I can identify what could possibly be offensive about it.

   1. Me too, I thoroughly enjoyed and was surprised by that book. A great read and gets my highest recommendation.

      1. I just gave it (Curious Incident) to my grade nine daughter to read for an independant novel study. Ironically she just finished Looking for Alaska for the same English class!

   2. I also recommend the stage version. I do not know if it has made it out of London yet but it, like the book, is an interesting and insightful take on autism/ asperger’s. I am amazed that this most kind-hearted book could cause any offence to anybody.

   3. Me too. I am at a loss to understand what is offensive about it.

      1. Cited for religious viewpoint and atheism. Can’t say I recall it as a red hot atheist tome, but its effectiveness and popularity probably count against it on that score.

         1. That surprised me too. I read it because I have a teenage nephew with Aspergers. It’s quite a while since I read it, but I don’t even remember anything about religion or atheism.

            1. Somewhere in the 1st half of the book, when Christopher was thinking that his mother was dead, he mused about God and afterlife – that these were just inventions by people too weak to accept that after their death others will leave them behind and discard their favorite things.

   4. Curious Incident is the only book on the list, other than the Bible, that I’ve read. (And even if I had read Fifty Shades of Grey — which I most definitely did not! — I wouldn’t admit to it here, even if you came at me with a bolus of sodium pentothal and a waterboard.)

      Like my fellow commenters, I found it to be charming and well-written; I’ll be damned if I recall anything in it that merited its inclusion on a list like this.

   5. The main character, Christopher, argues with a priest that there is no God because he is not in the universe. The priest says something along the lines of, “He’s in another place altogether”, and Christopher says that there is no “other place” than the universe. The religious may be offended because the main character is an atheist and is not convinced of the error of his heathen ways by a priest.

      1. Great book, and National Theater production (which I saw on film). Hard to believe anyone objects to it.

4. Curiously, a book that was once challenged was Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451”, whose whole point is that banning book is bad.

   Apparently, at one point, Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” was challenged- it pretty much jump-started the revolution.

   I am inclined to agree with the high school commencement speech given somewhere by Stephen King, wherein he said when you hear about someone wanting to ban a book, run and get it, because that’s the book that has what you need to know. (with the possible exception of 50 Shades of Grey)

   1. I haven’t read the entire 50 Shades, just parts, and I agree that it is poorly written, yet I think it could benefit some young ladies by serving as an antidote to Cinderella stories.

      1. Gilbert Gottfried reads 50 Shades of Grey

         Hold onto your hats, ladies

         http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=f39_1385508561

   2. In 1986 at the Virginia Beach Library Banned Books Week lecture at the Virginia Beach Pavilion, I heard Stephen King say “I would just say to you as students who are supposed to be learning, as soon as that book is gone from the library, do not walk, run to your nearest public library or bookseller and find out what your elders don’t want you to know because that’s what you need to know. Don’t let them bullshit you and don’t let them guide your mind, because once that starts, it never, it never stops.”

      1. Or, what my grade 9 and 10 English teacher did, deliberately select items that were controversial or likely to be (attempted to be) banned. Stephen King was on that list – with things like _To Kill a Mockingbird_, _Merchant of Venice_ and _The Grapes of Wrath_.

         1. To Kill a Mockingbird and The Grapes of Wrath (two of my favorite books of all time), were to be banned?!

            What is wrong with those people?

            We pretty much let me son read whatever he wants (which often turned out to be silly manga comic books). But I make sure he reads good stuff too.

   3. Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451”, whose whole point is that banning book is bad.

      Bradbury seems himself to have mixed feelings about the message of his book. At different times he commented that he was really writing about state censorship, or about illiteracy and (what he saw as a negative) popularity of TV, radio etc. over books, and about the public-driven censorship (what Jerry now calls the authoritarian left).

      I think the best thing to say about it is he wrote a book so thematically effective it sent more messages than even the author could anticipate. 🙂

5. And that is a simple point. The rebuttal by the Regressive Left is that “hate speech” is not “free speech,” and therefore it’s okay to ban the former

   And who decides what speech qualifies as hate speech?

   Someone recently made a comment on a new SJW blog, along the lines of “any speech that we disagree with should be illegal in this country”

   The comment made it through moderation.

   I have no words.

   1. I have hope that that comment was satire.

      1. It was a Poe.

6. My kid has ‘I Am Jazz’ and ‘Nasreen’s Secret School’. Both are well liked.

   I do so like these lists of challenged and banned books, they usually turn out to be interesting reads.

7. I read “Fun Home”, by Alison Bechdel, just to see what all the hubbub was about. It wasn’t my cup of tea, and I wasn’t sure it was a great choice for required college freshman.

   But banning it? That’s crazy.

8. However, some research implies that prejudice exists at least in part in the eyes of the target. Research on microaggressions (Sue et al., 2007), for example, takes the target’s perceptions of prejudice as clear evidence of its existence: If a target perceives a slight as evidence of prejudice, then it is taken as such, even if the slight is ambiguous and its author denies it

   From Johnathan Haidt’s new paper:

   http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/04/09/the-most-dangerous-creep/

   If I have very speshul FEELZ that your speech is hate speech, then my subjective experience trumps objective reality.

   But the biggest change, with enormous implications for how students behave when they get to college, is that intentionality is no longer necessary. All that matters is what the victim feels:]

   If I was a bully, I would claim that I was victimized constantly and reap the rewards.

   1. “If I was a bully, I would claim that I was victimized constantly”

      And that is everything wrong with the world these regressives want to build in a nutshell. The best way to bully people, is to be a victim.

      1. And that sucks for people who really *are* victims, because the loud drown them out.

9. “When people say, ‘I believe in free speech, but …,’ then they don’t believe in free speech,” [Rushdie] said.
   I see that as an exaggeration, a pardonable one, but an exaggeration nonetheless.
   I believe in free speech, but I don’t want to have to listen to some of it.
   Does this mean that I want to shut you up because of your viewpoint? – no, it just means that I don’t want to listen to you: “your right to free speech ends at my ears”.
   And my choice is to walk away, turn the TV off, shoo the proselytizer from my front door, or whatever; but it isn’t to call the thought police and demand that you be silenced.

10. Wait, wait. I’m not really a fan of watching people neck on the subway, but encouraging public displays of affection is a reason to ban a book?

11. First, hate speech is protected free speech so blow that out your ass, haters!

    Second, female authors are over represented in the list of books to ban. why is this? Are people afraid of what women have to say?

    1. Patriarchy’s a bitch.

12. As noticed on Fark.com earlier today: “Not surprisingly, on the list of ‘most challenged books’ in schools nationwide is a book that is full of scenes of incest, murder, adultery[,] genocide, and graphic depictions of bestiality.”

    1. They sure know how to hype the advert.

13. “Donald Trump is what happens when you forget what America is,” Rushdie said.

    I find this right on target.

    – Carl Kruse

    1. And it would be nice if the reason were that simple. Just remember and Trump goes away. But the cause for Trump and for Cruz is more like a slow motion train wreck that started many years ago and one that both parties can take some blame for. The political parties and the system has been laying the ground work for at least 35 to 40 years.

       1. You’re right. But, since 2008, the proximate cause is the GOP’s cleaving to its bosom the birthers and the freepers and the associated haters.

       2. I ran across this fascinating article looking inside Trump’s campaign. It’s a bit of a lengthy read, but worth it. There’s one point towards the end of the article where it mentions that Trump himself never expected his campaign to make it this far and that he originally entered “for other reasons.”

          I suspected all long that a main driver of his run for POTUS was his own ego and self-promotion. He saw an opportunity to 1) Promote himself; 2) Take advantage of a political party that is self-destructing.

          The most ironic part about all this is the claim I hear from his followers that “Trump isn’t a politician.” No, Trump isn’t a politician by profession, but he certainly is better at politicking than anyone else currently in the race. I may disagree with him on nearly every point he makes, but the man isn’t stupid. The biggest mystery is what Trump actually thinks about any issue; but to think that matters now is to completely miss the reason why his campaign has been so successful thus far.

14. The appropriate response to that was tendered by Christopher Hitchens: “Who would you want to decide what speech is allowable?”

    Yes. IMO a good exercise is to consider free speech to be like a child’s cake-cutting game. Only instead of “you cut the slice, I choose which slice is mine” its “you decide what powers government has to censor speech; then I decide on what speech (…of yours…) the government uses those powers on.”

    Its a way to make explicit that calls for censorship typically include the hidden assumption that people like the would-be censor will be the ones with the power. Take that assumption away, and pretty much nobody wants censorship.

    1. + 1

    2. Reminds me of the Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

       1. Thank you. I hadn’t come across that concept before.

15. There’s a bit of confused analysis in one aspect of Page’s report. He relates that Rushdie campaigned against the banning of the Pakistani movie which traduced him “because a ban would have made it ‘the hottest video in town.’”

    I believe Rushdie opposed the ban on principle, that the it would’ve run afoul of free expression, and that its thereby being kept from becoming “the hottest video in town” was merely a serendipitous consequence thereof.

    If, however, Rushdie’s opposition to the ban was (as the quote from Page suggests) motivated instead by his Machiavellian desire to deny the film a broader audience, then in this instance at least Rushdie was acting not on principle, but on (a thoroughly understandable) self-interest — as, I’m sure, Rushdie himself would be the first to concede.

16. I’m certain the legal system would never go for it because it would put some lawyers out of business, however, I have a suggesting on the bill of rights and Constitution. Put together a committee of experts in Constitutional law and history and ask them to produce a clear and complete definition of each amendment plus any part of the constitution that raises lots of questions. Then call it amendment number #28 or whatever is next and just say — see definitions in the record. Wouldn’t that be nice?

    Then, if you were wondering about that one about free speech or maybe religion or that pesky 2nd amendment, just look at the 28th. The one about quarters for British soldiers — I think they can deep six that one.

    1. Amend. 3, anent the quartering of soldiers, is nationality-neutral on its face — although the framers no doubt had the Brits in mind, since we had to boot the pommies off American turf twice in the Republic’s first three decades. 🙂

    2. But that’s exactly why we have the Supreme Court. And it’s a more practical solution, because no matter how much you clarify the Constitution, there will always be situations that would require further clarification.

17. I used to print off lists of banned books (or pick up lists at Powell’s City of Books in Portland, OR during Banned Book Week) hoping
    I would read all of the in time. I know I’ve read quite a number of them, but can’t say I’ve read them all yet. I’d better read faster!

    1. Dang fat fingers!: “…hoping I would read all of them in time”.

    2. So glad you brought up Banned Books Week. It is a great excuse to celebrate. I’d love to see more groups incorporate Banned Books week into their schedule so there would be more events to enjoy. When my daughter was growing up, we always read at least one book from the list of challenged books during the week. It was a great way to spark discussions. Whenever I am able, I add it to my classes.

18. Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

19. I was surprised to see that none of the old reliables made the Top 10: “Huckleberry Finn,” “Catcher in the Rye,” “Slaughter-House 5,” etc. Do schools no longer teach them?

    1. I wondered about that too – it seemed to be some other sort of list. Maybe “adult library” bans?

20. What kind of libraries are we talking about? General public libraries? I think “unsuited for age group” could be a legitimate reason for keeping a book like 50 Shades out of a young persons’ library. Other books that I might not want kids having access to would be, “How to make explosives out of common household products” or “How to start your life as a serial killer”.

    1. There is this little thing called the internet. It’s just possible for a child for a child to get information on explosives there.

       “Age group”? Won’t SOMEBODY think of the children?

21. People are wondering what happened here in North Carolina. Mostly,it is that a multi-billionaire named Art Pope spent a tiny part of his fortune running adds that basically said “Democrats bad, Republicans good.” I think Art Pope should be able to say anything he wants [short of slander or falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater]; the question is, I guess, how many times should he be able to say it?

22. Where’s the list of books they don’t keep due to space limitations or whatever other reasons? This looks like propaganda by government affiliated librarians in a push to mainstream behaviours that all societies tend to discourage especially for impressionable children.

    1. Give me a break.

    2. So reading a book about behaviors makes you engage in (and/or approve of those behaviors)? I, and several of my friends, love American Psycho as well as the film adaptation with Christian Bale. Last I checked, none of us are serial killers; we neither engage in nor approve of feeding stray cats to ATM machines, killing homeless people and sex workers, doing copious amounts of drugs in night club restrooms, etc. Where in the world do you get the idea that anything depicted in a book is an attempt to mainstream the behavior?

    3. Exactly how does holding a book in a library constitute a “propaganda push?” Libraries typically include books on all religions (and atheism). On all political systems. On the national history of multiple nations. It will have Mein Kampf and Diary of Anne Frank. Clearly they can’t be endorsing contradictory religions, political systems, or social commentary. They can’t be propagandizing that every country is the best. That’s self-contradictory.

       If you don’t like the subject of the book, don’t read it. If you don’t want your kid reading something because you think its not age appropriate, be involved enough in their life that you know what they’re reading and can direct it appropriately. But claiming that a library merely holding a book constitutes propaganda of it, is absurd.

23. “Who would you want to decide what speech is allowable?”

    How about a reasonable person on virtually any European hate speech committee? You all know that most every European country has been running a parallel scientific project about free speech for 3 to 4 decades now?

    They have said there ARE a few topics of hate speech that reasonable people can agree should not be permitted to be spoken by certain people in certain public venues under certain conditions.

    And while the occasional bad decision were made, most were corrected and lo and behold, the sky has not fallen.

    Indeed, in the civilized world it is the American model which is the odd man out. Or rather, it is the American perception of the American ideal of free speech which is very odd. Because compared to many European countries, we see way more instances of speech being disallowed in the U.S. than in Europe.

    There are a few instances of prosecutions in Europe every year for hate speech laws. But, here in the U.S., every day there are thousands of examples of speech which is not allowed: sexual expression in media; student expression in schools; political speech of certain government employees; tobacco and liquor advertising; sedition laws; wartime censorship (even of returning caskets under Bush – embedding continues today); McCarthyism – if you declare yourself a member of the Communist party on a registration form, you can not buy a gun; free speech zones; corporate censorship of the media; wikileaks blocks.

    This idea that all political speech must be allowed is based on what rationale? That all political speech is valuable and must be protected? Or is it because it seems too difficult to judge which political ideas are so abhorrent that they might be banned, and which ones are valuable enough to keep?

    Personally, I don’t believe that all political speech is valuable. Hearing yet another creep spread lies in public about the Holocaust, for example, doesn’t add anything of real value to society, and, it could well be argued, actually degrades us all. And almost all of Europe agrees.

    1. This idea that all political speech must be allowed is based on what rationale?

       I would put it this way:

       1. Who gets to decide if the political speech is allowed? One party? A committee? How would they be chosen? Could they say anything they wanted to in the contest to be chosen? Who would decide that question?

       2. In a free democracy, all points of view need to be allowed to be aired. Else it’s not free. I think we need to have the confidence that our fellows will, by and large, reject bad ideas. (I think our history, overall bears this out.) How would anyone know if an important political opinion were being suppressed?

       3. When certain undesirable political opinions are banned, you get: Stalinist USSR, McCarthyism era USA, Saudi Arabia, present day China, North Korea, etc.

       Seems to me that Europe views “hate speech” as akin to falsely shouting “fire” in a theater, as incitement. I think they are wrong about that.

       If you can’t counter speech you disagree with with stronger/better arguments against it, then maybe it’s time to reassess your position.

24. So little time, or I’d wonder if I should read these items, just because …

Comments are closed.