Repost This Article
Photo by mind on fire
The other day, I came across a list of fourteen downloadable files of books that have been made illegal or banned.
“Banned books?” I thought to myself. “Feh.” I generally look skeptically whenever I hear something has been banned because experience has shown me when someone says a book shouldn’t be read it’s an attempt at censorship and not because there is truly something harmful in the book.
And really, how can a book be harmful?
A quick scan through a list of banned books through the ages only confirms my initial feeling.
- The Diary of Anne Frank banned in Lebanon for portraying Jews favorably.
- The Da Vinci Code deemed offensive to Christianity
- Gustave Flaubert was prosecuted in France for “offenses to public morals” because of his Madame Bovary.
- Not Without My Daughter banned in Iran because it shows Iran in a bad light.
Do you see a pattern here? People and political bodies excise literature and art that conflicts with their world view. As world view shifts, as it inevitably does, the list of censored and outlawed materials changes too. While truth may be a difficult entity to determine, when a government or other body seeks to limit and thus carefully construct the information their citizens receive, propaganda overtakes our vision of reality.
George Orwell’s novel 1984 — banned by Joseph Stalin in 1950 — vividly portrays the type of world created by just this type of censorship.
It Begins By Indoctrinating the Children
According to the American Library Association, parents challenge books more often than any other group under the guise of protecting their children. I’m so proud! “Anti-family,” I believe is the doublespeak term used to justify these actions.
Ironically, when a government wants to censor the actions of its people, they first indoctrinate children in the ways of “correct thinking” and those children then spy on their parents. Refer back to Orwell’s 1984 to see how this happens.
But are there some books that shouldn’t be open for public consumption?
Last week, I would have said no. All books should be open and readily available to those who want to read them.
Of course, I get that certain books contain materials that aren’t appropriate for younger children – be that with sexually explicit or violent content – but you don’t protect children by simply removing the offending material from public consumption.
Then I came across this list of 14 books.
Should Simply Reading About Illegal Subjects Be Outlawed?
Photo by PugnoM
This list includes a Beginner’s Guide To Growing Marijuana and another on How-to Grow Psychedelic Mushrooms. Fine, I understand they might be banned because they encourage and teach people to cultivate illegal crops, but those are plants, right? How much harm can they really do and how many mushrooms will the average person grow? That and whether or not these crops should even be illegal is a topic worthy of another article in itself.
Then I come across a book with 100 Ways To Disappear and Live Free. Or the secrets of manufacturing methamphetamines by Uncle Fester.
All of these are already available for sale or even free over the internet. While my Amazon search for Justin Gombos’ Fooling the Bladder Cops only lead me to a small selection of deluxe hydration bladders, Yahoo brought me right to what I wanted to read.
That’s when my initial resolve begins to waver.
While many of us might find it a great party trick to pick a lock or help a friend set up grow lights in an empty closet, the bottom line is these books help train you to commit crimes or learn to get away with them.
Do you really want someone at the wheel of your flight or train ride having tricked a urine test?
How many of those people living free and clear off the grid are law abiding citizens who mean and do no harm but simply want to be alone. (If my experiences living on a tiny island off the coast of Panama is any indication, that number is extremely small.)
Some other titles to consider:
- Twenty-one Techniques of Silent Killing.
- Silent But Deadly: More Homemade Silencers.
- The ever maligned Anarchist’s Cookbook.
Is Information Dangerous In Itself?
When I originally found this list of books, my thought was to publish the titles as a list of interesting banned and illegal books with quotes and links to them, but then I had a second thought. After all, there’s plenty of information to suggest these books are indeed dangerous.
Do you agree with our decision? 
COMMUNITY CONNECTION
Is our responsibility to maintain an honest press and thus open paths to information that could be dangerous? Or should we take on the role of protecting people from potential harm?
Leigh Shulman
Leigh Shulman is a writer, photographer and mom living in Salta, Argentina. There, she runs Cloudhead Art, an art & education group that creates collaborative art using social media to connect people and resources. You can read about her travels on her blog The Future Is Red
Connect with Facebook
Generally, I’m against banning books/censorship. For example, the books in the article’s first picture – specifically “The Lorax” and “A Light in the Attic” which I enjoyed as a child – shouldn’t be banned. Other examples of banned-but-shouldn’t-be books include “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, “Catcher in the Rye” and “Lord of the Flies” all which shapped my high school education.
I’m a bit torn on banning the books like “Beginner’s Guide To Growing Marijuana” and “Twenty-one Techniques of Silent Killing.” It’s easy to say they should be banned based on the illegality of their content, but then where does one (or, the government) draw the line? After all, the information would probably be available to those who want it on the Internet or through other sources anyway.
Information is only something when you add intention to it. That said, anything about to abuse or be violent should be censored.
Nice dispatch and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you seeking your information.
Money makes the world go around
I don’t like the idea of the government censoring anything. That idea does not bode well…
It is easier to get forgiveness than permission
All the things I had thought of to type, they all fail to express the deep disappointment I feel.
The sight of authors, of writers, arguing for the banning of books leaves me with a queasy feeling in my stomach.
I am a child of the Internet. Quite frankly, anything I want rests at my fingertips–the Narcotic’s Cookbook, the Anarchist’s Cookbook, any album a band has produced, any movie, any game, you name it. I may reach a few roadblocks in my quest to find what I want, but rest assured: I will get it in the end.
I was raised in an upper middle class neighborhood, am going to one of the more expensive and progressive liberal arts schools in the country, and have parents that are slightly mentally ill but ultimately raised me well. The least of what can be said in their favor is that they taught me hitting others is wrong, that other people have feelings too, and that education is the ultimate pinnacle of the human experience. Truthfully, though, I can say that my father taught me what compassion is, and also what passion means; and one passion he passed on to me was certainly a passion to learn.
The thought of any book–I mean any work of literature–being banned makes me sick to my stomach. It is the word of the people, the thoughts and feelings of a singular human being. Perhaps they’re writing, somewhat illegibly, on how to make methamphetamine, but it is still their right as a human being to produce such works. If we are to live in a free society, they should have the right to publish such things.
Does owning a copy of a book equate to actually committing the crime?
If I read the sentence “I grow pot” out loud, am I admitting to actually growing pot or am I merely saying something?
These are the questions we have to ask ourselves as a society when the topic of censorship of “dangerous materials” comes to the fore. In my mind, it isn’t illegal to write about killing someone (or else, quite frankly, many of our most beloved authors would be behind bars), nor is it illegal to read about doing the deed: yet it is illegal to commit the act. But reading Wuthering Heights isn’t going to exactly make a child run outside, find the nearest tan-skinned person in the neighborhood, and then treat them poorly. Along that same vein, reading a novel about the 21 most effective ways to silently kill a person isn’t going to inspire a person to kill. (If I’m going to be honest with myself, I would read that book, just to see what it has to say!)
Thinking isn’t a crime. Writing isn’t a crime. Talking isn’t a crime. Acting is a crime. There is certainly a progression from the thinking stage to the acting stage, and one fairly conservative person could easily make an argument that thinking about murder is akin to committing murder, but the fact remains that thinking does not equal acting. I am positive that everyone reading this comment has moaned, “I wish I could kill that person!” at some point in their life. Would you appreciate it if a police officer came up to you immediately after you said this, cuffed you, and claimed that you had a motivation and was clearly planning the act, ergo he had the right to detain you and hold you in custody? How, if we are going to be honest with ourselves, is that scenario any different than the blatant censorship happening in our country this very moment?
As one commenter said, if the book already exists in a society, the problem was prevalent prior to its publication. The book is simply a symptom, not a cause.
So, to this young 18 year old with bright hope for the future, any form of censorship is Orwellian and crude. It is not a matter of squelching the writers, but those who act upon the written words.
And, besides, in this day and age, it’s all available on the Internet anyway.
People such as those who want to keep books like this out in the open are not only morons, but also drug addicts, drug sellers, gang members, killers, etc…. If you really want these books, then you are obviously eiter 2 things: 1 – A Horrible person in ones self and needs to be aprehended for your deeds. or 2 – An Officer of the Law that needs to look for things in said books.