Book-burnings, by their very nature, are authoritarian and anti-libertarian.

[howard112211]

By no means is a book-burning suited as a mean to make some sort of statement in favor of freedom of expression, as some have suggested. What other reason is there to burn a book, other than to destroy the written word, and in effect, censor it?

In our society book burnings are legal. Just as is marching with a swastica. That doesn't mean that these things aren't the fundamental anti-thesis of the foundations of our values, our constitution, and our free society altogether. They are.

[Drale]

1. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

[cleanhippie]

9. That really all depends on ones perspective though.

If we all did not do something because we were afraid someone else would be offended and harm an innocent person over it, nothing would ever get done.

[boston bean]

2. So you would like to see an amendment to the First Amendment?

[cleanhippie]

3. Burning books in order to ban them, yes. Burning one's own copy is a protest.

Two very distinct acts.

I think both are asinine and childish, but one may do with one's property as one sees fit.

[howard112211]

4. To burn them as a symbolic gesture is to make a pro-censorship statement.

[cleanhippie]

5. Perhaps, but burning one's personal copy is a form of speech.

We may not like the speech, but it is protected speech.

[howard112211]

6. Yes, but that wasn't my point.

They are protected speech. Like a swastica.

[cleanhippie]

8. I guess we are in agreement then?

:shrug:

Not following your line of thought here.

[howard112211]

12. I suppose we are.

My point is that apparently some people believe they are making some sort of tribute to freedom of speech by burning books. I am pointing out the paradoxical nature of this.

[pnwmom]

Bottom line is they're legal, just as flag burnings are legal.

They're both protected forms of speech.

But we're free to use our speech to condemn either action.

[howard112211]

14. Yes, and my point is that we should condemn them.

[pnwmom]

21. I agree. What Terry Jones did was contemptible and should be denounced.

However, the book-burnings didn't CAUSE the people in Afghanistan to carry out the murders of innocent UN workers. They did that of their own free will.

[aquart]

7. I would give anything to have the books that Bishop Landa burnt.

Or the ones from the library of Alexandria. Fire is inimical to books. They should never occupy the same space.

[formernaderite]

10. as long as it's not govt sponsored

it is a fundamental freedom.
Sorry... my right to offend is still intact.
And people wonder why we atheists are the sane ones.

[Edweird]

11. If I buy a copy of the koran and burn it, nothing has been 'censored'.

If anything, it was a sale of a koran that otherwise would never have taken place.

[howard112211]

13. I'm speaking more of the symbolic gesture.

[Edweird]

16. So am I.

If I buy it, it's mine. I am free to dispose of it any way I see fit (complying with local statutes, of course).
Nothing has been 'censored'. It IS, however, a big 'FUCK YOU' to those that are attempting to control free speech with threats of violence and outright murder. Fuck them.

[Withywindle]

15. Has anything good ever come out of book-burnings?

Ever? In the history of the world?

[Lyric]

17. I'm sorry, but the entire premise of this OP is just ludicrous.

There are plenty of reasons to burn a book that don't necessarily mean that you want the book banned/censored. You could burn a Bible to protest Christianity; that doesn't necessarily mean that you want Christianity outlawed. It could just as easily be an expression of disgust or anger with Christianity as an institution--or an expression of disgust with one particular *translation* of the Bible...or an expression of support for a secular government free of religious influence.

If I go out and burn a copy of "Twilight", it doesn't always mean that I want "Twilight" BANNED. Maybe I'm just pissed at the idea of sparkly vampires, or maybe I'm protesting the fact that a chunk of Stephanie Meyer's profits are going to the Mormon Church.

You are taking the most EXTREME example of what a book-burning COULD mean and propping it up as if it's the ONLY possible interpretation. That's like saying that flag-burning is anarchist by nature, and that all flag-burners want to see America destroyed. Don't you think that's just a bit ridiculous?

[Igel]

26. It's also possible to burn a book to show you can.

Or that you're not afraid.

It's the same with any sort of symbol: What meaning it has depends crucially on the person "meaning."

(For the ludicrous, on an episode of Red Dwarf, Lister burns books to keep warm.)

[Lost-in-FL]

18. Because the absolute mean of expressing our rights is by... burning books.

Absolutely nothing else that can compare or resemble burning the quran. Supressing the burning of all religious books would be an abomination and a disgusting ploy to supress our rights of expression. :sarcasm:


Obviously the drawingmohammed-burningquran thing is not working. The west need to employ another platform to demonstrate their disagreement. The west need to get more creative and effective. Book burning is so 213BC. :eyes:

[darkstar3]

19. Bullshit.

Burning one copy of a book has nothing to do with censorship. In fact, telling someone that they can't or shouldn't burn their own copy of a book sounds like censorship to me. Interesting little problem you have there.

[Rebubula]

20. The Horse is Dead, Jim

EVERYONE has piled on top of this asshole in Florida and condemned his actions. EVERYONE. His actions are despicable and ignorant.

However, he had every right to do it. EVERY SINGLE RIGHT.


The arguments can exist side by side without hypocrisy.

[snagglepuss]

22. No their not. Book burnings are only authoritarian and anti-libertarian if they

are meant to censor and prevent a book from being read.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. I concur...the context matters

A single copy burned by an individual is a statement/demonstration, nothing more

[mr_liberal]

24. Its not censosrhip unless youre

also calling for government to pass a law.

[ZombieHorde]

25. "What other reason is there to burn a book, other than to ..."

What other reason is there to burn a book, other than to destroy the written word, and in effect, censor it?

Yes, protest.

Burning books is no longer a method of censorship. Mass production and the internet have assured popular books will be easily accessed by almost anyone in a first world country.

That doesn't mean that these things aren't the fundamental anti-thesis of the foundations of our values, our constitution, and our free society altogether. They are.

Three illusions. We lie to ourselves and each other about our values, our Constitution means whatever judges and lawyers says it means, and our free society locks up people for altering their own consciouses (thought crime). We have made these things meaningless, or perhaps they were always meaningless.