Censorship in books, should it be done?

[Limelight788]

Having recently read an article at school regarding the censorship of The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn, it along with the book itself gave me an idea for a topic (I have the uncensored version that I'm read as a project).

The book has over 200 uses of the N-word and there has been attempts to censor the word to "slave" in order to not offend audiences. Due to the N-word, the book is the fourth-most banned book in the country (In schools that is).

I am not in support of this idea. Trying to rewrite a story just to make it more friendly is never a good idea. Without them realizing it, censorship in books compromise the quality of the book and the message of the book is not easily as sent out as an uncensored version.

What do you think of this?

Edit: Just want to clarify, I am not involving the government into this, obviously, they shouldn't censor books as well, just if other people have the legal rights to do so, which I have already said "No" to.

[Korashk]

Never by the government. That's about it.

[Iceman]

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=92780&highlight=Huckleberry

That's the thread from when it was decided to be censored earlier this year. I think I'm going to secure some un-censored ones though.

[anonymous53]

I don't think the government should require censorship of anything. I think if the n word bothers people that much in the book they can purchase a censored version. In Huck Finn the n word is used in a certain context. It was not used in an offending way much of the time. Overall I dislike censorship in all forms.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

There should not be government censorship unless it can be shown that such writings have a high likelihood of causing harm to people (i.e. books designed to teach people how to commit crimes child porn, and etc.) When it comes to publishers censoring books I do not think they should do that especially if they are books that were written during times where the morals of the time in which they were written are different from the morals of the day. However, I would be happy if both censored AND uncensored books are available and clearly labeled so that consumers know the difference.

[tpzy94]

nope never ever

[User Deleted]

It depends, if it seriously puts down a living person, like insulting them or saying they should die, I think it should be censored, otherwise, never.

[Amnesiac]

Unless it's a guide on how to build a nuclear weapon or other high-security information like that, a book should never be censored to appeal to the social conservatives.

[Death]

Censorship has to be one of the worst things our nation has embraced. All it does is turn people into pussies who can't stand simple things like the contextual usage of the historic term "nigger" and other things like our own bodies. I voted that it depends though because I believe that, although the authors of a particular book have a right to censor what they write, outside parties should not.

[TheSleepingInsomniac]

the only time i believe Censorship is ok it in a revised version targeted at a younger audience that the original book other than that never

[deadpie]

the only time i believe Censorship is ok it in a revised version targeted at a younger audience that the original book other than that never

So what you mean is you're completely ok with censorship even if it means pissing all over Mark Twains grave by editing his book and taking a word out of it that was there for a reason. You mean you're ok with Texas editing text books to erase the history of Thomas Jefferson and say that texans actually killed a few people in the alamo.

Also, I think you forgot to finish your sentence.

[Spook]

I recently wrote a piece along with a story on censorship, and I supported the idea that it should never be done.

As Judy Blume says, quote: "It is silencing the voice of writers."

[Sith Lord 13]

Unless it's a guide on how to build a nuclear weapon or other high-security information like that, a book should never be censored to appeal to the social conservatives.

This, except, as in the case with the example, sometimes it's the liberals who do the censoring.

[Amnesiac]

This, except, as in the case with the example, sometimes it's the liberals who do the censoring.

In the U.S., both sides of the political spectrum can be socially conservative. Take, for example, the recent bipartisan effort (http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=132603) by Republicans and liberal Democrats to censor some legal and consensual types of porn.

[Sith Lord 13]

In the U.S., both sides of the political spectrum can be socially conservative. Take, for example, the recent bipartisan effort (http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=132603) by Republicans and liberal Democrats to censor some legal and consensual types of porn.

Using the term social conservative, while accurate from certain points of view, is also misleading on a forum where the majority of posters feel conservative and Republican mean the same thing.

[Amnesiac]

Using the term social conservative, while accurate from certain points of view, is also misleading on a forum where the majority of posters feel conservative and Republican mean the same thing.

Well, there's really no other way to say it. To most people, anything "family values" or concerning the word "conservative" automatically points to the Republicans. I can't think of another term that could describe social conservatives without the Republican bias.

[Happz]

Words should never be censored, unless the use of it is just plain uneccasary...

[Death]

plain uneccasary...

How do you define, "unnecessary" (yes, that's how it's spelt)?

[Limelight788]

Decided to look at the thread Socko linked to and found this particular report:Look at Texas and how they've changed history and science text books around. They're editing fucking history books and putting lies in them. They're changing fucking history that they're supposed to be teaching. You know they won't even mention Thomas Jefferson in the school text books now? Your kids will grow up not knowing who he is, even though he plays a very fucking important role in this country.:mad:

I'm calling bullshit on the government. It was because of him that our country received such dramatic expansion during his presidency, that Lewis & Clark was able to explore the western part of our country, that the Declaration of Independence was signed (Among with other founding fathers), etc. Thank god my history book for my class this year is from 1999, so I can at least read history about him (I also have a 1992 version at home that I can read at any time).

[Jody Jackson]

You should be able to choose.

[A.J.]

It depends, if it seriously puts down a living person, like insulting them or saying they should die, I think it should be censored, otherwise, never.

Not sure theres alot of books like that being pushed towards kids. I remember how angry I was though reading about how they were censoring huck finn. Theyre trying to censor all of the media that kids NEED to absorb. :mad:

[Sith Lord 13]

Well, there's really no other way to say it. To most people, anything "family values" or concerning the word "conservative" automatically points to the Republicans. I can't think of another term that could describe social conservatives without the Republican bias.

Then perhaps just saying "censors" is the most appropriate course of action. What you imply is just as important as what you say.

[User Deleted]

Not sure theres alot of books like that being pushed towards kids. I remember how angry I was though reading about how they were censoring huck finn. Theyre trying to censor all of the media that kids NEED to absorb. :mad:

1, how old is it, are the characters still living (if they were ever real)
2, dose it go on seriously putting someone down?
If one doesn't apply, the book shouldn't be censored as I see it.
thats what I meant

[pageplant77]

If the author decides to censor their work, then that's fine.
If the government does it, then that alienates the author of their 1st Amendment rights.

[Modus Operandi]

No, it shouldn't. The government is rapidly devolving into a 'morality meter' of sorts that thinks it needs to decide what's good for us.

[PROGAMEMASTER]

Books should not be censored as it takes away from the book. If To Kill A Mockingbird was censored it would totally ruin the book. So in my opinion no