Desdichado
Hero
Actually, I'd think people have the right to say either of those things. Both the libraries and any interested individuals do, of course, have the right to completely ignore them, however.Djeta Thernadier said:
Banned Books Week
- Thread starter mossfoot
- Start date
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Djeta Thernadier said:
To be put a fine point on things, you're wrong on both counts as well as right on both counts.
Speaking about things as they are in the U.S. (which seems sensible since the U.S. is what I know), I have every right to protest the inclusion or exclusion of book X in a public library. Other likeminded people can join me if they so choose. Unlikeminded people can, if they so choose, start counter protests. Et cetera. These rights - of free speech and free association - are fundamental and cannot be rightfully denied.
However, I do not have any legal or constitutional right to have my demands met. The powers-that-be can ignore my demands, comply with my demands, agree to some sort of compromise. Et cetera.
IOW, let's say I don't like book X. I start a campaign to have book X removed from public libraries - including those libraries affiliated with public schools and public universities - in my city. I make TV appearances, schedule press conferences, stage a legally organized and licensed rally, gather signatures on petitions, yadda yadda yadda. Then, when all is said and done, the powers-that-be say, "Sorry, Mr. Chance. We're not removing book X from our shelves."
When that happens, I cannot legitimately claim my rights have been violated because no one was obligated to agree with me to begin with.
Likewise, suppose the powers-that-be say, "Fine, Mr. Chance. We will remove book X from our shelves." Those people who objected to my crusade also have no legitimate claim that their rights have been violated.
This is how government by the people for the people is supposed to work. It is messy, noisy, and frequently quite ugly. It also, oftener than not, works quite well.
Djeta Thernadier
First Post
Mark Chance said:
This is what I meant. saying people "did not have the "right" , I did not mean "right" in the way it comes across when typed. Like legal right. I mean what you said above.
Sorry for the confusion.
d20Dwarf
Explorer
Don't worry, Djeta, nobody was confused except "anal-retentive Chance" as we like to call him here (well, I work alone at home, so that's a royal "we"Djeta Thernadier said:This is what I meant. saying people "did not have the "right" , I did not mean "right" in the way it comes across when typed. Like legal right. I mean what you said above.
Sorry for the confusion.
).Ummm, hi Mark, how's it going?!
MerakSpielman
First Post
That happened right here in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Honestly, we're part of the USA!Elf Witch said:
(New Mexico magazine has a page called "One of our 50 is missing" where people write in with their stories about people not realizing New Mexico is a state. Funny as all heck if you live here. "Don't drink the water down there!" "Wow, you must speak really good Spanish to live there." "We have to charge you the international shipping fee." etc....)
Remember, if you want to get people to read a book, the best thing to do is start trying to ban it! My wife and I picked up Harry Potter for the sole reason that we heard people were burning it. Now we're addicted to the series. Excellent advertising! We can't thank that fundamentalist preacher enough!
Last edited:
d20Dwarf
Explorer
Umm, I highly doubt that the majority of Americans supported those policies at the time they were finally abolished. Certainly not today.jaerdaph said:Sorry, I don't agree at all, or at least not entirely.
If this were the case, this "majority always rules" mentality, we might very well still have segregated schools and swimming pools, for example.
Mark Chance
Boingy! Boingy!
Djeta Thernadier said:This is what I meant. saying people "did not have the "right" , I did not mean "right" in the way it comes across when typed. Like legal right. I mean what you said above.
Sorry for the confusion.
That's okay. I wasn't confused. As has been pointed out:
d20Dwarf said:
And it's a good thing you hyphenated anal-retentive!
Oh, and I'm doing kind of bad actually. Too much stress: deaths, sickness, et cetera.
jaerdaph said:
The scenario I related isn't about the ballot. It's about people having the right to petition their representatives. Direct democracy is, IMO, a dangerous thing for precisely the reasons you hint at. A representative form of government based on a defined set of constitutional limits is an entirely different beast (although it is often still a beast).
Camarath
Pale Master Tarrasque
Look, a state of constant conflict with in the bounds of the law tends not to result in the "majority always rules" but in better protection and justice for all. Democracies depend on conflict to remain viable. Nazi Germany is an example of a democracy that failed because it lacked an effective internal governmental conflict. To deny any group their right to legally challenge the actions of the government or other opposing groups is to deny that right to all groups. If segregationists wish to resegregate schools or what not they are free to try because if it was illegal for them to try then one could make it illegal for civil rights groups to question racism in public intuitions. You are free to lobby the government, make court challenges, and to espouse any view you wish. If I don’t think public libraries should stock dictionaries it is my right to try and change the policies of the libraries and the local law to accomplish my desire. But if I wanted to make it illegal to own a dictionary I would need to amend to the constitution. Typically the more fundamental the change you intent to enact the greater the forces of opposition you must over come. This means that while I could legally become Dictator of America this is unlikely to happen because of the internal forces of opposition that would attempt to prevent me from legally changing our form of government. But if there was no opposition or if opposition was made illegal it would be a very simple matter to become Dictator. Strife is there for the guardian of our freedom.jaerdaph said:Sorry, I don't agree at all, or at least not entirely.
If this were the case, this "majority always rules" mentality, we might very well still have segregated schools and swimming pools, for example.
(Not sure if my post is very clear but the necessity of conflict in the preservation of liberty is a complex issue that runs contrary to many peoples assumptions.)
