/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17704211]

>Dude we're just allowed to censor a bunch of books that was written by somebody else 70 years ago because we have the government's blessing to be the only ones allowed to publish it

[Anonymous No.17704224]

>it was okay when they were censoring books I didn't like tho

[Anonymous No.17704243]

>>17704224
No, intellectual "property" is a violation of basic human rights and unconstitutional

[Anonymous No.17704249]

>>17704211
That's the free market chud, get used to it

[Anonymous No.17704252]

>>17704243
>intellectual property
>human rights
>the constitution
spooks

[Anonymous No.17704594]

>>17704211
1. theyre not being censored, a publishers has decided not to publish some books
2. Theyre childrens books, whose purpose is to teach about the world and be fun at the same time. Racial caricatures are not accurate

[Anonymous No.17704873]

>>17704594
>If a book isn’t literally on fire, it’s not being censored

[Anonymous No.17704878]

>>17704873
It's only censorship if is done by the state, if a private company does it is called a business choice

[Anonymous No.17704882]

>>17704211

[Anonymous No.17704883]

>>17704878
Are you trolling or are you genuinely retarded?

[Anonymous No.17704887]

>>17704211
Shouldn't it be free domain at this point?

[Anonymous No.17704892]

>>17704594
>Racial caricatures are not accurate
Are you sure you want to teach children accurate information about races

[Anonymous No.17704894]

>>17704887
No, Dr. Seuss' estate holds the rights to all of his works for several more decades. There should be a use it or lose it clause to copyrights.

[Anonymous No.17704905]

>>17704887
his family still holds the rights and lives comfortably off of his work

[Anonymous No.17704914]

>>17704883
>no counterargument just petty insults

[Anonymous No.17704932]

>>17704878

[Anonymous No.17704935]

>>17704594
>2. Theyre childrens books, whose purpose is to teach about the world and be fun at the same time. Racial caricatures are not accurate
This. I don’t like it but I realize it’s necessary.

[Anonymous No.17704949]

has /lit/ unironically been reduced to posting about the cat in the hat
somehow i feel like you retards still can't read that

[Anonymous No.17704961]

>>17704932
>all those words boil down to "baaaaaw I can't offend minorities! I am sure people would buy books otherwise!"

[Anonymous No.17704976]

>>17704594
You heard it here folks. Start teaching kids FBI crime statistics and IQ bell curve. I am, for one, all for it.

[Anonymous No.17705000]

>>17704949
I have posted about the Cat and the Hat several times in the past on this board, and am a bit annoyed I will have to stop doing so now that Mr Seuss is some kind of idpol lightning rod.

[Anonymous No.17705158]

>>17704961
>no counterargument just petty insults

[Anonymous No.17705182]

>>17704211
oh no, what am i gonna do, buy one of the thousands of second hand copies available everywhere? go to *gulp* the frigging library??

[Anonymous No.17705206]

>>17704892
Based as fuck.

[Anonymous No.17705224]

>>17705182
First they came for Dr Seuss and I said nothing...

[Anonymous No.17705234]

>>17705182
Do you really think libraries are going to stock those six books from now on? All it takes is on black Karen to change that.

[Anonymous No.17705252]

>>17704594
>>17704914
>>17704878
>using government force to stop a book from being produced isn't censorship

[Anonymous No.17705283]

>>17704249
That's literally not the free market
How are you on /lit/ and never fucking read Hobbes or Ayn Rand?

How do you function?

[Anonymous No.17705305]

>>17705283
>IT'S NOT REAL FREE MARKET! MY PERFECT VERSION OF THE INVISIBLE HAND HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED!

[Anonymous No.17705311]

>>17705252
>>17705283
Do you seriously not know anything about the situation? No government has intervened.
>How are you on /lit/ and never fucking read Hobbes or Ayn Rand?
Holy shit

[Anonymous No.17705316]

>>17705252
>government forces to stop a book from being produced
take your meds

[Anonymous No.17705343]

>>17704211
censorship is good. the problem is we don't have enough censorship. rightists need to be thrown into camps.

[Anonymous No.17705362]

>>17704961
Could you, given access to a press, produce and distribute copies of If I Ran the Zoo?
If not, why? Who is stopping you?

[Anonymous No.17705419]

Leftists deserve to have their brains drilled into.

[Anonymous No.17705486]

>>17704594
>Racial caricatures are not accurate
there are actual humans who embody certain stereotypes, and if you are deeming their existence offensive, you are the racist.

[Anonymous No.17705658]

>>17704594
It’s not just a decision not to publish. Many “neutral” marketplaces such as eBay have banned the selling of these books as well, even by third party resellers.

[Anonymous No.17705703]

>>17705486
I think that kids can handle the stereotypes as well. People don’t give kids enough credit and with guidance, you can help them find the value in older books, like The Dr. Seuss books in question while also getting them to understand that not everything in the book is accurate.

[Anonymous No.17706345]

>>17704878
Like if a private company makes a business choice not to hire blacks?

[Anonymous No.17706426]

>>17704249
>>17704224
>>17704594
>>17704878
>>17705343
How the fuck could someone defend this bullshit? What next? You're going to support torture? Execution without trial?

[Anonymous No.17706462]

>>17706345
Not employing somebody is not censorship. It might be discrimination and morally unjustified, but it's not censorship.

>>17706426
On what grounds would you argue that the publishers HAVE TO keep publishing the books?

[Anonymous No.17706491]

>>17706426
Banning the Cat in the Hat is the same as mass murder?

[Anonymous No.17706493]

>>17706462
>On what grounds would you argue that the publishers HAVE TO keep publishing the books?
They own the copyright but plan to do nothing with it. They should lose the copyright and it should revert to the public domain.
Once these books which you claim aren't being censored are in the public domain, and when a publisher attempts to publish them, you will see them taken to court for attempting to publish the book. It will then be a criminal offence to publish these six books. Things like this have already happened in France. Publishers get sued for publishing public domain books deemed racist.

[Anonymous No.17706507]

>>17704594
Based. I can’t even imagine being so pathetic that I would care about this. Dr Seuss even edited one of the books to change an asian characters skin tone anyway.

[Anonymous No.17706516]

>>17705252
There is no government force lmao.

[Anonymous No.17706526]

>>17706493
So be it, humanity has been built on discarding things.

[Anonymous No.17706548]

>>17706526
That's not the point. There's a difference between society naturally forgetting something (when was the last time you thought about Dr. Seuss before this) and a certain vocal minority telling you what you can and can't read. It's about someone limiting my free thought and telling me I can't read this book and we're going to make damn sure you can't get your hands on it.

That's the issue. A free intellectual society, which all Western societies claim to be, cannot do this.

[Anonymous No.17706611]

>>17706493
So, first of all, you want a revision of copyright law of historical proportions. Good! I fully agree that ideally it has to be corrected, and that one copyright owner should not be able to bar the audience from accessing a work just so. That revision, however, might have some important ramifications in other regards. But, let's not worry, copyright law is not going to change no matter what any time soon. Perhaps a communist revolution might do the trick?
As for the rest, it would be good to let us know more - what exactly were those cases, and what was the court's verdict? And are those books merely "deemed racist", or do they actually promote things that go against the law (advocating for violence, spread malicious misinformation, etc.)?

[Anonymous No.17706640]

>>17704249
K den Imma make some racist ass cartoon books

[Anonymous No.17706712]

>>17706611
>Glaudes noted that among the books included in the ruling was “Salut par les Juifs,” written 122 years ago by Leon Bloy. This book, he wrote, “was re-edited countless times without being struck down by the law – until today.” He added that the ruling was a “dangerous judicial anachronism.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/forward.com/news/breaking-news/188143/international-jew-publisher-fined-10k-by-french-c/%3fgamp
https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2020-09-26-alain-soral-ordered-to-pay-134-400-euros-to-the-licra.rJHaIYg6Bw.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Léon_Bloy
It's only a matter of time in the US before you can't publish Mark Twain, Dr. Seuss for his racial caricatures, Joel Chandler Harris's Uncle Remus, etc., etc., etc.

[Anonymous No.17706904]

>>17706712
Now, my dear phoneposter, let's just get a few things straight - the editor of those books is a rather open antisemite.
>Blanrue’s 321-page book contains “hundreds of anti-Semitic statements by well-known figures throughout the ages,” according to the news agency AFP. The court said it contained “incitement to racial hatred” and “denials of genocide,” which are illegal in France.
Exactly what I expected. They decided to fuck him whole, including in the punishment the book by Bloy that he edited. Had he only published Bloy without being an absolute edgelord, most likely nobody would give a shit. For example, you can easily see that the book can still be found even on the French Amazon(!), an "edition originale non censurée".
As for how much of a look into the future this case is...
>Yves Baudelot, a lawyer who specializes in literary rights, told AFP rulings to ban books were “very, very, very rare” in France. The ruling by the court in Bobigny is the first such ban in years, he added.
Not to mention the negative reactions to the ruling, including one from a Sorbonne professor. I know that right-wingers masturbate to the idea of being oppressed in increasingly absurd manners even more than SJW negresses do, but I still beg you to rethink the idea that punishing denial of genocide is just a step away from outlawing "Can in the Hat".

[Anonymous No.17706934]

>>17706516
see
>>17705362

[Anonymous No.17706988]

>>17706904
Ignoring the part I quoted which disproves your point. Typical retard. The issue is Salut les Juifs doesn't fit YOUR DESCRIPTION which I will quote in full
>do they actually promote things that go against the law (advocating for violence, spread malicious misinformation, etc.)?
It's ridiculous he got fined for republishing Bloy. Try to worm your way out of this one...oh wait you already did by completely ignoring it.

[Anonymous No.17707000]

>>17706904
Absolute retard. Can't even read an article and glibly says censorship is ok as long as one book is deemed racist, fuck the nonracist books and censor them too.
Complete retard.

[Anonymous No.17707058]

>>17706640
Nothing keeping you *shrug face*

[Anonymous No.17707076]

>>17706934
Not him, but are you seriously this retarded? They government would punish you for publishing pirated books, not for publishing books that the copyright holders decided not to publish anymore. If you really think that copyright is censorship, that's lovely, I'd be glad to fight along with you against the rotten capitalist system that controls the spread of ideas through such logic.

>>17706988
I explained how it went, most likely - the court wanted to fuck the guy over as much as possible, and they included the Bloy book as a part of the verdict. The inclusion was clearly criticised and is the first such case in years. Hate it or not, but it's literally the only case of sort-of-censorship that you managed to come up with, and it can say nothing about the future practices.

>>17707000
It's not even censored, for fuck's sake, the book is ON AMAZON, just not the editions by the edgelord in question.

[Anonymous No.17707135]

Does this mean I can sell all my Seuss books for major gainz now?

[Anonymous No.17707146]

>>17706988
Also, holy shit, the case is from 2013.

[Anonymous No.17707168]

>>17707076
>I explained it! Therefore it is ok!
Retard

[Anonymous No.17707175]

>>17707135
Check if you have any of these 6. Asking prices are huge now on Abebooks.

>And To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street
>If I Ran the Zoo
>McElligot’s Pool
>On Beyond Zebra
>Scrambled Eggs Super
>The Cat’s Quizzer

[Anonymous No.17707187]

>>17704594
what does boot polish taste like?

[Anonymous No.17707196]

>>17707175
>I have If I Ran the Zoo but it's crayon-annotated
I'm ngmi

[Anonymous No.17707218]

Ok those fucking leftoids have gone too far this time. The fuck happens next, banning every 19th century author guily of crimes such as using the term "negro", or even worse, being transphobic?

[Anonymous No.17707240]

What pictures were deemed offensive? I know yall got them

[Anonymous No.17707270]

Curious to see if Banned Books Weeks features any of these this year, or whether they're "banning books is bad unless it's the kind of ban I like" hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.17707280]

>>17705252
The government doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.17707289]

>>17707168
No, I don't really think it's ok. I think that it is, by itself, absolutely idiotic and deserves criticism.
My explanation shows that it's "ok" because it's a questionably done case that has gathered negative attention from figures as respected as Sorbonne professors. Its validity is low, it clearly hasn't been a precedent case - considering the fact that it's from eight years ago and it's the only case you could come up with. Your explanation, on the other hand, can only see a boogeyman about to annihilate all culture in some ridiculous fashion, your fixation on an irrelevant case from nearly a decade ago from outside the US is some sort of "proof" of a great censorship campaign directed against you and your unclean conscience, and (above all) the poor, poor Dr. Seuss.
Get a grip, you melodramatic faggot.

[Anonymous No.17707299]

>>17704892
based

[Anonymous No.17707300]

>>17704249
>government putting people in jail for printing books under copywright.
>free market

[Anonymous No.17708561]

>don't want to print racist cartoons anymore
>censorship

Go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.17708576]

>>17707300
Author's life +70 years is ridiculous. Need to go back to 14 year copyright term.

[Anonymous No.17708577]

>>17706426
>torture? Execution without trial?
both of these things are based when done to people i dont like

[Anonymous No.17708664]

for me its amelia bedelia

[Anonymous No.17708667]

>>17708577
I love everyone though, so therefore those things are not based.

[Anonymous No.17708700]

>>17706426
exactly