Censoring Huck Finn

[ack44]

With the fairly wide array of opinions represented on these forums, the near consensus on this topic makes me wonder what type of people wholeheartedly support and encourage this type of censorship.

The near consensus in this thread is really the result of how the issue was presented. Nobody here actually believes that editing art in all circumstances is wrong.

[Adami]

With the fairly wide array of opinions represented on these forums, the near consensus on this topic makes me wonder what type of people wholeheartedly support and encourage this type of censorship.

The near consensus in this thread is really the result of how the issue was presented. Nobody here actually believes that editing art in all circumstances is wrong.

I can't think of a circumstance where it's not wrong. Unless it's the artist themself doing it.

[bosk1]

Editing art or other forms of censorship are entirely appropriate in some circumstances.  It just depends on what you are censoring and why.

[Orbert]

With the fairly wide array of opinions represented on these forums, the near consensus on this topic makes me wonder what type of people wholeheartedly support and encourage this type of censorship.

The near consensus in this thread is really the result of how the issue was presented. Nobody here actually believes that editing art in all circumstances is wrong.

I can't think of a circumstance where it's not wrong. Unless it's the artist themself doing it.

Some woman decides that running around naked except for combat boots and singing original songs which are mostly profanity, is art.  She chooses to do this downtown in the middle of the day, and promptly gets arrested.  This is caught by a number of people with cell phone cameras.  Because the words "naked" and "woman" are involved, they of course feel the need to show some of this footage on the evening news, censored of course, except that literally none of it can be shown (or heard) without violating various FCC regulations, so they use the traditional black rectangles on screen and mute the sound but print the lyrics on screen with asterisks outnumbering actual letters.

Or should they have played the uncencsored footage on the news because it's "art"?  Remember, we do not decide what is art and what is not.  Others do.

[Adami]

I don't think nudity should be censored. Sorry.

[ack44]

I can't think of a circumstance where it's not wrong. Unless it's the artist themself doing it.

What comes to mind first is sampling, which can be HEAVY alterations of the original sound clip. Then there's the famous Mona Lisa with a mustache painting... then there's the internet which edits art in a billion different ways, such as



So I don't think it's exactly the editing that people have issues with.

[orcus116]

But people aren't taking those depictions of the Mona Lisa and putting it in art books and teaching kids that this is the new modern accepted version of the Mona Lisa.

[Adami]

That's not really what I'm talking about.

[Orbert]

I don't think nudity should be censored. Sorry.

What about a non-stop string of profanity?

[Adami]

I don't think nudity should be censored. Sorry.

What about a non-stop string of profanity?

No, I don't think Quinten Tarrantino should be censored either.

[ack44]

But people aren't taking those depictions of the Mona Lisa and putting it in art books and teaching kids that this is the new modern accepted version of the Mona Lisa.

That's not what my last two posts were about nor is it what this Huck Finn issue is about (yet). The original question was "Do you guys think its ok to censor the "N" word out of Huck Finn for the sake of political correctness?" and everybody's initial reaction was "censorship is evil!" But I'd hope for a little bit more consideration into the details of things if you're going to label a certain practice to be wrong.

[Adami]

But what you posted has nothing to do with censorship as far as I could see.

[7StringedBeast]

But people aren't taking those depictions of the Mona Lisa and putting it in art books and teaching kids that this is the new modern accepted version of the Mona Lisa.

That's not what my last two posts were about nor is it what this Huck Finn issue is about (yet). The original question was "Do you guys think its ok to censor the "N" word out of Huck Finn for the sake of political correctness?" and everybody's initial reaction was "censorship is evil!" But I'd hope for a little bit more consideration into the details of things if you're going to label a certain practice to be wrong.

The fact is, its just a dumb idea and there is no reason for it to happen.  The problem is they are trying to update it for modern times and give it to kids to read in school.  Which is crap.  There is no good reason to ban the book in the first place.  Schools that are so god damned scared of the N word need to learn what education is and start teaching kids what really went on in the country.  Banning books is absolutely absurd in its own right.  No book should be banned.  The Nazis burned enough books for the rest of existence already. 

I hate that art is so damn easy for people to target and use as a scape goat for the world's problems.  Violent video games, violent movies, MTV, Authors we don't agree with, Profane music, shock art, disturbing paintings.  All this shit comes under fire simply because its easy to blame an inanimate object instead of people.

[sonatafanica]

I just have to reemphasize

I find that usually the people who are concerned about censoring art have no understanding of what art is to begin with.

[ack44]

But what you posted has nothing to do with censorship as far as I could see.

Lol true. But I'd say there's no clear line between censorship and editing. And taking things out of context (plenty of demonstration of that in this thread) is more subtle and much more powerful than mere censorship of offensive words.

[William Wallace]

But what you posted has nothing to do with censorship as far as I could see.

Lol true. But I'd say there's no clear line between censorship and editing. And taking things out of context (plenty of demonstration of that in this thread) is more subtle and much more powerful than mere censorship of offensive words.

Publishing a new edition of the book is not censorship. But replacing the original text with that edition for the sake of political correctness is.

[Orbert]

Interesting distinction.  So you're saying people can edit all they want, but to present this edited version as a substitute for the original just so people won't be offended, that's the problem.  Correct?

[7StringedBeast]

Interesting distinction.  So you're saying people can edit all they want, but to present this edited version as a substitute for the original just so people won't be offended, that's the problem.  Correct?

If this book is in the public domain, then anyone can change it at will.  You can make some other art out of it, make movies out of it, whatever.  Whoever has the rights to it, can change it.  But seeing as its an American classic and depicts a certain time of American history it shouldn't be screwed with and then handed off to kids to read.  There is no need to "protect" children from reading the original version.  It's completely misguided.  These kids are just going to go home and play CoD and virtually kill people for hours.  If that doesn't hurt them, reading a book with the N word won't either.  In fact it will hopefully help them grow as people if taught correctly.

[ack44]

Same generic irritated post with no contribution on how to resolve the issue.

[7StringedBeast]

Same generic irritated post with no contribution on how to resolve the issue.

Don't ban the book from any school.  Don't hand out the edited texts to schools.  Done.  Problem solved.

[ack44]

Bypassing the democratic process has never delivered so strong!!!

[7StringedBeast]

Bypassing the democratic process has never delivered so strong!!!

Who said I was bypassing the democratic process?  What is with you?  I just stated what I would have advocated to happen.  I think there should be a law the prohibits the government from censoring anything.  If private organizations want to censor, so be it.  But the government should stay out of it.  This law could be voted in just like any other law.

Schools shouldn't have censorship, especially when you get to the high school level.  Seeing as public schools are government run, this law would effect public schools.  End banning books from public schools. 

[ack44]

Bypassing the democratic process has never delivered so strong!!!

Who said I was bypassing the democratic process?  What is with you?  I just stated what I would have advocated to happen.  I think there should be a law the prohibits the government from censoring anything.  If private organizations want to censor, so be it.  But the government should stay out of it.  This law could be voted in just like any other law.

Schools shouldn't have censorship, especially when you get to the high school level.  Seeing as public schools are government run, this law would effect public schools.  End banning books from public schools.  

1. Does this thread have anything to do with the government censoring things? I don't live in the U.S. so I'm not too familiar with the system, but does the federal government have any say in which books are to be banned or what versions of books should be used? I thought it was more of a local thing.

2. It seems evident to me that there are always going to be people offended by the language in this book, and people continuing to push this book out of the school system on local levels. A law on censorship will have no effect on these people's efforts. If anything it will encourage them to ban offensive books altogether. How do you end banning books from public schools? Nobody would even agree that books of all sorts should be allowed in a school library.

[7StringedBeast]

The fact is, public schools are a part of the government system.  So if a law gets enacted anywhere above the authority of the school district, that school would have to abide by that.  State law could say that banning books from public schools is illegal.  In my opinion I hope that a law like that would get passed.

[bosk1]

Does this thread have anything to do with the government censoring things?

The thread has everything to do with government censorship.  We are talking about public schools offering a censored version of the book.  How do you not understand this?  If it were merely an instance of private censorship, this thread would make little sense.

[El Barto]

Publishing a new edition of the book is not censorship. But replacing the original text with that edition for the sake of political correctness is.

I think this is a dandy interpretation.

[Orbert]

Yeah, I was actually agreeing with it; I just wanted to make sure I was understanding it properly.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

I for one, hated Huck Finn.  It was one of the most awful things I've ever been made to read.  Probably why I never finished it.

[William Wallace]

Interesting distinction.  So you're saying people can edit all they want, but to present this edited version as a substitute for the original just so people won't be offended, that's the problem.  Correct?

Yes. As usual, my irritation stems from one group of Neanderthals attempting to impose their tastes on everyone else. They're not content to withdraw their kids from the class or have only them read the edited book; they want everyone subjected to the dumbed down text.

[ack44]

Does this thread have anything to do with the government censoring things?

The thread has everything to do with government censorship.  We are talking about public schools offering a censored version of the book.  How do you not understand this?  If it were merely an instance of private censorship, this thread would make little sense.

Give me an example, then, of how the federal government is involved in censorship in public schools. Or a case where when a book like Huck Finn was taken out of a curriculum the government was involved. I wasn't saying it was merely an instance of private censorship, I was rather suggesting it was more of a local school district censorship issue. And I don't appreciate a mod ripping my question out of context...

[7StringedBeast]

Tinker V Des Moines protects student's free speech.  Which means if a student wanted to read the real version of the book, I don't think the school could justly take that away from them because using the Tinker test, I believe reading the book in school could be a part of free speech.  I'm not sure if it directly applies, but I feel like it could.

[bosk1]

Does this thread have anything to do with the government censoring things?

The thread has everything to do with government censorship.  We are talking about public schools offering a censored version of the book.  How do you not understand this?  If it were merely an instance of private censorship, this thread would make little sense.

Give me an example, then, of how the federal government is involved in censorship in public schools. Or a case where when a book like Huck Finn was taken out of a curriculum the government was involved. I wasn't saying it was merely an instance of private censorship, I was rather suggesting it was more of a local school district censorship issue. And I don't appreciate a mod ripping my question out of context...

As stated in the post before mine, public schools are a branch of the government.  And nobody ever said federal government.  Whether the censorship is from the federal, state, or local government doesn't matter. 

And for the record, what *I* don't appreciate is people who post in threads only to cause arguments and stir the pot, which is what you've been doing in this thread.  Knock it off.

[ack44]

If schools are considered part of the government, then I suppose a number of people in this thread would have issues with, for example, efforts to censor porn novels from classes libraries.

[bosk1]

No they shouldn't.  It's appropriate for the government to censor porn from children.

[7StringedBeast]

Porn novels?  You are sounding like you are from outer space man.  It's illegal for children under the age of 18 (21 in some places) to consume pornography.  It also serves no educational purpose.  Stop raising really bad arguments just to raise bad arguments.

Besides, earlier in the thread you stated that you agree that the book should not be censored.  so... the hell?