laurpr2 t1_j9e4o1k wrote
No, for two reasons:
- I feel like I should have at least read a given book before advocating for its destruction, and I've avoided all the really controversial/gross stuff out there. I've read stuff I disagreed with, but nothing so offensive that I feel it's unfit for consumption.
- I'm fundamentally against book burning as a concept. Everyone should have the right to freedom of the press, not only because censorship pretty quickly becomes a slippery slope, but also because people don't stop having vile ideas just because they're restricted from publishing them. All restrictions do is fan the flames of a persecution complex (justified or otherwise) and hide the discussion from the rest of society.
LoreHunting t1_j9efc5q wrote
Agree with these points.
I would note that there is a significant distinction (that is often lost) between freedom of press and platforming. I would not put the Unabomber’s manifesto in a high school library or go out of my way to encourage people to read it; we shouldn’t encourage high schoolers or people in general to get radicalised by hateful ideologies, and the UK is already seeing the consequences of that. But I do think there is a place for it in the records. There is a place for all written work in the records, be it Nazi rhetoric or weird smutfic.
Organized_Khaos t1_j9h3g87 wrote
Okay, I’m down with that. But then I think the Unabomber’s manifesto, or Nazi files, etc. should be something you really do have to work hard to read. Technically available, but in the “black collection” at an archive, where you have to present yourself in person, show your ID, work directly with an archivist, and look at the material on microfiche. An archive that’s open 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. on Tuesdays. No physical copies to check out, and no different than what academic researchers do with rare works.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments