We're back to the Harry Potter series here, but there's more to it than that in this article put out by MSNBC. Are these books worthy of banning?

I don't know about y'all, but when I'd hear of a book about to be banned by someone, I'd ensure that it was on the summer reading list for my kids. Catcher in the Rye has come up more than once. Mark Twain's stuff has come up more than once. I hadn't heard that Maya's stuff was up for censorship until this article.

Have we become too over-protective of our children? Are we unwilling to have them experience alternative thought to the extent that we eliminate the challenges of counter thought that they might experience by reading things contrary to OUR beliefs?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000

Answers

I say give the children PlayBoy and Hustler to read, they need to grow up fast in this world, may as well start them young. The TV and computer are now childrens alternative parents. Anything and everything they want to know and experience about growing up is at their finger tips. If we fill their minds while they are young with what we think is adult material, when they become adults they will be emotionally equipped to handle whatever comes their way. No matter what your beliefs are, the child has a right to his own mind and what he/she chooses to put in it. "It Takes a Village to Raise a Brat."

-- liberal one (liberalone@liberaloneee.com), September 15, 2000.

Liberal One:

Your post reminds me of one of the first jobs my oldest daughter took. There was an ad in the apartment complex in which we lived for a cleaning person. She applied and got the job [for an unmarried male.] I think she cleaned his apartment twice before he'd left one of those mags you mentioned laying around open in his bathroom. She quit that job that day. I couldn't blame her. MOST folks would realize that a young woman was coming to clean and put that type of material out of view. The fact that he didn't indicated to HER that he wasn't a man to be trusted.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000.

If I had to choose one or the other, I'd rather my kids watch hardcore ponography than hardcore violence.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 15, 2000.

I see so many children who had a problem with reading that I don't mind that they're reading an actual book, even if it's on the "banned" list, a list which I think is silly, to say the least. Good parents supervise the TV shows that their children watch, occasionally giving them "the family view." The same is true with books. When my younger cousin started reading Twain's works, we had some decisions about cultural and historical context.

As for me, I was absolutely thrilled that she had moved on from fairy tales and horse stories. And speaking of horse stories, didn't some group try to ban M. Henry's "King of the Wind" at one point? Talk about silly.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), September 15, 2000.

decisions = discussions ... can you tell it's Fried Day??

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), September 15, 2000.

"I don't know about y'all, but when I'd hear of a book about to be banned by someone, I'd ensure that it was on the summer reading list for my kids." --Anita

Wasn't it Gore and Lieberman who two days ago warned Hollywood if they didn't clean up their act and quit producing violent and sexual films and video games targeted at children, that they would legislate censorship? Anita plans to vote for the very people who will take away her children's freedom to choose what goes into their little minds. And, they won't stop at banning films and videos, next comes music, art, and freedom of speech. Cast your vote for the greatest dictatorship coming soon - vote for Al Gore.

-- liberal one - NOT (liberalone@liberalonneee.xcom), September 15, 2000.

LiberalOne:

I think you're grossly misrepresenting what was said regarding Hollywood. The problem with Hollywood seems to be that movies rated G are including more and more stuff that some parents may consider inappropriate. If this is true, all Hollywood needs to do is rate the movie PG, R, or whatever. I've enjoyed the rating system, although it seemed silly in some cases. I've particularly enjoyed the commentary included with the ratings, such as R [due to violence], or R [due to nudity], etc. This [along with the ratings on CD's] allows freedom to market a product, while still providing at least a clue to content. In no way does it equate to BANNING a product.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000.

Some parents consider some of the books your wanting your children to read inappropriate. It should be left up to the parent and not the government to legislate what you see and hear. How about legislation that says you must have a Bible in your home or go to jail? Hmmm?

-- liberal one (liberalone@liberalloneee.xcom), September 15, 2000.

I believe that was what Anita was saying.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 15, 2000.

About that movie rating system...we took the kids to the drive-in a year or so ago to see the Disney "Tarzan" cartoon. The movie had been changed to the rated-R "Event Horizon". We had all our blankets and snacks and stuff, so we asked the fellow taking tickets if there were any objectionable sex in the movie. He said not that he was aware of, but maybe we ought to take the kids home anyway. He didn't want our kids to be too scared. We told him we didn't mind them seeing a scary movie.

If you haven't seen "Event Horizon", you might not understand why he was right. The kids and I spent most of the evening with our heads under our blankets asking my husband if the current scene were over yet. At one point he answered that he didn't know because he had his hands over his eyes. It was that bad. We found NO redeeming quality in that movie, and we've been more careful about what we take the kids to see ever since.

Ratings don't keep kids from seeing objectionable material. Parents do. Legislation to reign in the movie/television/music industry could result in banning more than we thought we were agreeing to ban in the beginning.

-- helen (b@s.f), September 15, 2000.

Tarzan, that is like the equivalent of saying you'd rather your kids smoke crack than shoot heroin. It's ALL harmful!

Cin <---> shaking head in disgust

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 15, 2000.

p.s. I was once told my a regular poster here (won't mention any names) that they would not object in any way to letting their 5 year old child view pictures or hardcore gay pornography.

HELLO?! I'm like... you have got to be kidding me

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 15, 2000.

p.s.s..helen, what a horrible movie that was; just plain evil.

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 15, 2000.

Sorry, I don't think pornography is as harmful as hardcore violence. It's a lot more natural to bonk someone than it is to eviscerate them.

I equate it with having my kids smoke pot rather than crack. Taking drugs is a bad thing, but some drugs are much worse than others.

Put another way, if you had a choice, wouldn't you rather find your teenaged son or daughter en flagrante decto than shooting up a classroom?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 15, 2000.

Anita,

I think you're grossly misrepresenting what was said regarding Hollywood. The problem with Hollywood seems to be that movies rated G are including more and more stuff that some parents may consider inappropriate. If this is true, all Hollywood needs to do is rate the movie PG, R, or whatever. I've enjoyed the rating system, although it seemed silly in some cases. I've particularly enjoyed the commentary included with the ratings, such as R [due to violence], or R [due to nudity], etc. This [along with the ratings on CD's] allows freedom to market a product, while still providing at least a clue to content. In no way does it equate to BANNING a product.

Not to nit but the dems have stated that they want artistic freedom for the entertainment industry but that they will restrict how they market to kids, that is, not show advertisements for violent videos during the 3-5 hour on TV and the sort. The dems haven't really talked about redefining the labels, even though I think this would be appropriate.

Tarzan, I agree with you but sometimes it doesn't take much to leap to violence when there's sexual overtones. I'm thinking about a movie, 9 1/2 weeks, with Kim Bassinger. I found it totally degrading to women with very little porn. In the end she left the abuser but one had to sit through the ninety minutes of viewing this innuendo of sexual abusive behavior. I guess what I'm saying is that in most cases of porn, one will find violence.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 15, 2000.

To return to the original topic of banning books for kids, I'm against it. That's leaving the decisions to a few people on what's appropriate and what's not. Dangerous.

When it comes to books, I'm a lot more liberal than for the TV, Music and Videos/games. That's because I reason this way: Parents who encourage their kids to read books are also much more inclined to select books appropriate for their mental age (i.e, every 9 year old is not exactly at the same maturity level and so on.) And by the time a child is able to buy books on his/her own, via the internet or at a book store thier own, well then that child is pretty much able to view ANY material, adult or not. Their curiosity will ouwit the parent's attemps at shielding them from life.

TV, music, movies and videos on the other hand I consider a totally different matter. Those media saturate our senses and kid's, all day, anywhere. Not just in our own homes. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for parents to monitor what their kids see on tv's, hear on radios/audio systems and play on computers outside our homes. Public medias should be censored to a "G" extent, IMO, and for parents who can't or won't monitor what their children see and hear, enforcing the rating system (carding kids). Liberty is well and fine, but when the liberty of the public in general is threatened because a segment of the population can't raise their children in functional ways, the good of the greater takes precedence.

-- (Smarty@wannabe.one), September 15, 2000.

I read Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Too Afraid to Ask when I was 8 years old. My mother knew I read it, but we didn't discuss it. There were no pictures. The subject matter was over my head in some cases because my dictionary didn't define terms such as fellatio, etc. At the age of 8, I don't think I needed to know what fellatio actually meant. I got other information that was useful, and I think getting that information at a young age was a good thing. There were no hormones attached at that age.

Pornographic pictures, on the other hand, are designed to arouse a sexual response. Children are capable of being sexually aroused by this material, but they aren't old enough to understand that they are too young to participate. I don't think it's a good idea to present porn to kids. You can get bogged down in arguments over what constitutes art versus porn, and that's where a parent must make the decision based on personal knowledge of the child's ability to handle the material.

-- helen (b@s.i), September 15, 2000.