Gary, I would like to know what books you that you consider " encourages destructive & unhealthy life styles ".
Why on earth was "To Kill a Mockingbird" banned? That's insane! I love that book, read it the 1st time when I was in elementary school...have revisited it many times. How tragic.
I dont mind the vicad using censorship when certain people continuously get very personal with there attacks. Normally these individuals become very frustrated if they cant prove there point, they then resort to personal attacks that are angry, hostile, insulting, irreverent, dis respectful etc etc. IMATURE
I do wish the Vicad would just delete the main offenders & let the discussions continue. If the Vicad feels any of my comments are inappropriate please let my know so we can fight it out in private (just kidding).
So the 2 amendment says I can enter a crowded movie house & scream fire?? NO then books or any other thing should be banned when it encourages destructive & unhealthy life styles that will eventually burden society.
Thanks Gary W
Victoria Advocate Staff,
Thank you for you invitation to your community session and if I am available I will attempt to participate. I still have an issue regarding responding to public reaction when there is a controversial article by "making it just go away" like it never happend..
When you say you will attempt to answer our questions that indicates the issue is a forgone conclusion. "This is the answer" and that is the end of the discussion. A "general" approach has a very vague feel to it. In math we would call that "kinda" right.
I feel that without dissection and careful inspection no divisive issue can hope to be resolved. I respectfully submit that an open and civil forum will always result in community support and those that use course or inapropriate languge will be thinned by the public at large. To just make the conversation "go away" only serves to feed the fire.
Vet43,We encourage people with specific questions about moderation to contact us directly to discuss, whether in person or via email. We don't find online conversations about moderation practices in general to be productive. Our general approach is spelled out in our user policy.We hope you will attend our upcoming community sessions, particularly the one focused on new media. We will attempt to answer any specific questions there or through another direct exchange.
I really don't think you are out to "get" anybody. The problem appears when your staff produces an article that a few readers have issue with and "zap" they (or thier comments) are gone. It would support your actions to explain to the readers what caused the threat to vanish with out a rational reason. That is, in some ways, the same as censorship or "banning".
When you ask for input you will always get a few "crank calls" but once in awhile there is a comment that by it's extreme language should tell you there is something that needs deeper inspection.
I think the words " does not condone" describes the actions of UHV/VC rather than banned...Banned sounds like it's forbidden by law, but the books are available online or elsewhere, just not at those two schools...IMO..I might be wrong.
Probably the best way to get a book banned is to write something that offends a majority minority. An example is changing the wording in Twain's books. It is funny how Disney can use the term "cracker" in their animated movies and no comment is ever made. As far as sick sexual acts, vulgar language, vivid discriptions of murders and such get a clean bill of health because that is art. I agree that banning books is a dangerous idea, especially if it is done by the government. Placing books in school librarys by the age of the readers has some merit.
When I was in school the books listed on your "banned classics" were required reading. At least in the honors classes they were. Some were required reading in junior high.
Banning books was a tool used in Nazi Germany to control the thoughts of the masses and it seemed to have worked pretty well. I often find myself perplexed as to the reasons why people feel the need to ban things that they personally don't agree with. I personally think that the time I spent reading "Catcher in the Rye" is time I will never get back, but that doesn't mean other people shouldn't read it or have the opportunity to read it.
Sexuality, violence, drug use, vulgar language, racism, etc. are all parts of the human existence. Do those that want to ban books that include the issues think that by banning them they will cease to exist?
If you don't like what the author has written, by all means don't read it or buy it. It is not my place to tell someone what they can or cannot read and it's not theirs to tell me.
I'd like to hear from someone that supports book banning and why they feel the way they do. I find it very interesting and would like to know more about their kind of rational.
We think the story and the video are well done and thought-provoking. The issue raised at the UHV/VC event merit discussion.
How about commenting on them rather than this vague notion that the Advocate is out to get everyone?
The VicAd owns the newspaper, they do not own the news. True, they can print or not print as they see fit. But, when they selectively manipulate the news they become just another tabloid.
As far as banning any book smacks right up against the good old 2nd Amendment. Keeping you from reading about a subject is a dark attempt to keep you from thinking about that subject.
New Law: You can not think about anything that I don't like!!!!!!
Siub,You have provided a good example of trolling. You aren't actually commenting on the story at all. Rather, you're just trying to instigate something.