Now ask those same people if they support book burning. It would probably be surprisingly a high number.

I'd want to see it broken out into "hard" vs. "soft" programs/sciences. I'd bet you'll see a lot more willingness to ban on the "soft" science professors and students than on the "hard" sciences (such as chemistry, physics, etc.).

These people dont have to read the books they dont like; they just want to keep ME from reading the books that I DO like.

Right, but you are not confusing parenting with the proper role of government. Many do, and most of those that do identify as Republicans on First Amendment issues. They are Democrats when economic issues are being discussed.

Hard to twist Rand to fit collectivist thinking wouldn't you think?

You bet. You would get very high numbers for banning books which purportedly supported "discrimination," "racism," "homophobia" or, worst of all (and ironically), "intolerance." In fact, I bet a high percentage of college students would advocate banning books which opposed "diversity" or which supported "selfishness."

It is pointless to ban a book unless you also control the internet.

Jan

The tinfoil hat may be the safest one to wear: No one will take you seriously.

Jan

We read about things like the holocaust, and say, "tsk, tsk, how could they?!? I'd never do that." Then, when we get the opportunity to act on that assertion, we do exactly as the Germans (and many others) have done. Part of the problem is that we're never taught the Constitution or the Federalist Papers or the writings of the enlightenment, so we're operating on emotion only. For Voltaire to get what he meant when he said that he would fight to the death for your right to say what you want, he had to go far beyond emotion. If we're going to be like Voltaire, we must think deeply about what we believe and how we'll act. Otherwise, we'll be carried along on any stray current, like most of the people who've gone along with the massacres. It's our choice, but it has to be a choice based on reason (or not).

Holy Dark Ages, Batman!
One more coin in the wishing well of collectivism.

Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act, also known as the FAIR Education Act (Senate Bill 48) and informally described by media outlets as the LGBT History Bill, is a California law which compels the inclusion of the political, economic, and social contributions of persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people into educational textbooks and the social studies curricula in California public schools by amending the California Education Code.
(BTW if you find time to teach the subject that would be considered a plus.)

"Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Papa bear.
"Someone's been eating my porridge," said the Mama bear.
"Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.

Now children, I must point out the correct statement from the forest dwelling creatures should be more inclusive and socially just it could actually be said like this:
"Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Papa bear.
"Someone's been eating my porridge," said the other Papa bear.
"Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.
OR
"Someone's been eating my porridge," growled the Mama bear.
"Someone's been eating my porridge," said the other Mama bear.
"Someone's been eating my porridge and they ate it all up!" cried the Baby bear.

Children we all know that it is perfectly natural that some of you have two mothers and some have two daddies. The way this works will be explained next year when you are in first grade.

Some may not like this type of book. Just saying.

I agree with your observation.. Note systems that purport to 'know better'. Few groups other than this one perceive the real danger of the state/media complex and the steady drive towards control and monolithic thought.. Thanks.

Ray Bradbury, Aldous Huxley, Ayn Rand, and George Orwell novels were not meant to be guide books, bur rather warnings. I am also fairly sure that most of these authors wouldn't be on the "Banned Book List" because their words can be twisted to fit.

As a kid in the 50's, I went to a Catholic grade school. Of course my buddies and me would go to the library to cull the National Geographic to see if there were any naked folks, and of course the nuns had beat us to the draw and cut out any pictures that they considered "obscene."

I guess from these results of the survey freedom of speak is also on the list of being banned.

The "I suport publik skools" crowd raises its ugly head a little higher.

It makes sense. Before the Internet, people lived in their bubbles and felt that the world around them shared their beliefs. Being exposed to other views makes one resent those of other opinion. They have always been self-righteous bigots, but now they're in contact with other bigots.

I don't support the banning of any book. I do however strongly suggest that Parents monitor and guide what books that their children read. I myself have several books that I don't feel my 15 year old daughter should read yet. 50 shades of Grey is a good example of what I don't feel she is ready for.

I agree. I bet we'd be surprised. I personally am torn regarding some books showing up in jr high and HS libraries. But parents and teachers can help to navigate that. One time in here there was a thread about how old people should be when they first read AS. I think (informally) alot of people say they were 14 when they first read the book. At 14, I would have missed so much, I'm not sure I would have identified the same way. It's completely a personal experience. But the mom made that same argument-she thought 16 was a more appropriate age and that's the agreement she and her daughter had. I thought it was interesting they had an agreement. In my house you could read whatever was on the shelf. So one time, I was 13, I pulled down a book called Tobacco Road. I'll never forget the feeling of "I'm too young for this." lol

Oh sure.

Americans want to ban books, and do many other totalitarian activities. They're ready. I've been saying this for a couple years now but every time some report like this comes out everybody around me seems so shocked. I'm not shocked one bit. There's a quickening now. The people are ready for this, so of course the establishment is ready. The next few years will blow your mind... Note the banter lately about taking people away for their thoughts and beliefs? Oh yeah. Hold on to your hats (even the tinfoil ones).

I'd be interested to see a similar poll done exclusively on college campi in the United States, especially in the so called Ivy League.

I expect that the results would shock most people.

Here is the link to the actual Harris Poll cited in the article: http://www.theharrispoll.com/health-a...

"Politically speaking, Republicans are nearly twice as likely as Democrats or Independents to believe there are any books that should be banned completely (42% vs. 23% & 22%, respectively).
In addition, adults who have completed high school or less are more likely than those with higher levels of education to believe there are any books that should be banned (33%, vs. 25% some college, 24% college grad, 23% post grad)."

I am surprised. We have more openness of ideas today because of the Intenret. Its seems pointless, even if for those who don't agree with free speech to start banning or rating books. Moreover we don't have recent sensationalized stories of neo-Nazi books or something like that becoming popular. It seems like these would-be censors should focus their efforts on modelling China's Internet firewall.

Apart from the methodolgy, I'm truly surprised people favor censorship in any form more today than in the recent past. .

From what, pray tell. :))

quit trying to distract me