[oneofus]

On the One Of Us blog, I mentioned a news story (Should Harry Potter be Censored for Promoting Witchcraft?) about a school teacher who quit her job because she was disciplined for refusing to hear a child read out a Harry Potter book (because of her religious views). For me, the real issue is whether fiction should be censored because it includes themes that are frowned upon by religions. What are your thought?

Please note, this is not a discussion criticising religion or religious groups, it's about the issue of censorship. Please keep away from religious views or criticising others' religious views. Thanks.

[Katarina]

I do not feel that fiction should be censored for any reason.

If you start dictating what people can and cannot read, where does it stop - censoring what music we listen to or what we watch on TV?

People have a choice. They don't have to buy or read a book if the content may be offensive to them.

I think the world is going crazy with all this censorship and political correctness - we still have the freedom to choose and use our own discretion, let us use it and decide for ourselves what we want to read.

Katerina

[oneofus]

Personally, I think it was a missed opportunity by that school teacher.

If she felt so strongly that Harry Potter promoted witchcraft then why didn't she try and educate the kids about what witchcraft really meant? She would cover the Salem witch trials, teach the kids the church's view on it etc. She's a teacher, she had an opportunity to teach! I'm disgusted that she took a book-burning attitude to it but that's the American Bible-Belt area for you.

[Vandalin]

oneofus, on Jun 20 2007, 10:42 AM, said:

Personally, I think it was a missed opportunity by that school teacher.

If she felt so strongly that Harry Potter promoted witchcraft then why didn't she try and educate the kids about what witchcraft really meant? She would cover the Salem witch trials, teach the kids the church's view on it etc. She's a teacher, she had an opportunity to teach! I'm disgusted that she took a book-burning attitude to it but that's the American Bible-Belt area for you.

Ok, taking a moment to comment finally. I agree somewhat with you Paul, except for the problem that if this assistant teacher reacted so strongly about the book and witchcraft then she would not be a very good choice to teach about witchcraft unless you wanted the kids to learn a one-sided possibly fanatical lesson. From the article it sounds like she is not accepting of other peoples beliefs otherwise she would not have pushed her beliefs on the classroom by not allowing the book to be read.

And what do you mean "American Bible-Belt area". This happened at Durand primary school in Stockwell and the case was dealt with in south London. (by the way what happened?)

As for my own beliefs on this subject, as a new mom, I would be very upset if someone stopped my child from reading anything without first contacting me or my husband. I believe that the only person(s) responsible for censoring the children are the parents/guardians of said child. Unfortunately this doesn't always work out as some parents don't care or "have the time" to check what their children are reading, but if a teacher or school staff are concerned they should contact the parent not punish or embarrass the child. Also from the article it sounds like the HP book was on the approved reading list.

Basically the assistant teacher should have called her mentor or whomever is in charge of her and left the room so the kid could read her book.

My $.02

ps. here is another article with more information: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...pell/article.do

and here are the results of her case: http://www.bignewsda...?code=KF938455B

This post has been edited by Vandalin: 20 June 2007 - 06:30 PM

[oneofus]

Whoops, my bad... I had another story on my mind when I wrote the "American Bible-Belt" comment. Apologies!

[Phosie]

I think that with a film it needs to be censored because the person sees what they see and there's no changing that, really. Take 1492: Conquest of Paradise: that needed to be rated because of the horrifying scenes at the beginning. However, with a book, that kind of thing is up to the reader's mind to picture, and also up to the author's quality of description. In France they have guidelines (I think Harry Potter's recommended for children over eight, which is fair enough), but I don't think they're strictly enforced: just a guideline for children. Also, I was reading John Grisham and Michael Crichton at 11 and I would have been horrifyed if my teacher had stopped me reading it and I think that if any book makes a child enjor reading, that pleasure shouldn't be taken away from them.

[Rahvin]

Fiction should never be censored, not least because it's a choice to read it anyway. It's like what has recently happened (well... flared up again) with "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie. Just because someone dislikes it does not mean that it should be banned. Recommendations are fine, but don't ban it outright.

This post has been edited by Rahvin: 26 June 2007 - 02:42 PM

[Hantergantick]

Hello everyone, vis pros and cons of censorship...

The word censor is derived from the Latin censere - to assess… There is always the chance, in a society of pluralistic convictions or comprehensive doctrines (pace Rawls), that conflicts between ideological concern will obtain. In fact society develops through the lively dialogue of contested opinion… that is up to a point where reason flies out the window.

Censorial assessment of one kind or another occurs whether we like it or not. The decisions to exclude certain content or include a certain style above another occurs as part of the publishing industry- as a matter of course. These are forms of negative and positive censorship when all is said and done. Most of the time responsible authors and editors tend to self-censor out of respect for their potential readership and hopefully for society as a whole.

There is a clear imperative that goes beyond the demands of a libertarian notion of free speech where the latter has the potential to cause real harm. For example, few of us would wish to write a book that actually promotes child abuse, sexism, slavery or genocide. However, neither would we wish to be constrained from ever referring to such material in our writing where the context was legitimate: such as expressing arguments against such monstrous notions or searching to understand why they happen.

Therefore the issue is not that we replace censorship with extreme deregulation but that we want sensitive censorship that constrains those freedoms of expression that might curtail similar expressions of freedom claimed by others.

We need a system of censorship, in other words, of intelligent assessment underwritten by logical argument not by doctrinal bias or a crudely liberal doctrine - because one person's uncensored free expression has the potential to provide the cage for another's heart-felt belief.