[Yudster]

I am also against censorship, it is self defeating and oppressive - not just to people, but to knowledge. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't choose to avoid certain books, artists, film makers's work if I didn't want to personally contribute to their income for whatever reason. But censorship is the start of a long, slippery slope that inevitably ends somewhere very very bad. I'm not saying that all things should be accesible to all people - for instance it is appropriate to regulate and monitor what children watch and read, especially when they are very young - but appropriate discrimination is not censorship.

[MK Chris]

Another interesting point. Were this true, my opinion of him as a man would drop through the floor, but I think the analogy is different; there are no other alternatives to Einstein's work, he discovered a lot of things that have been put to good use in today's society. By contrast, this guy is a recorder teacher, however good, but there are other recorder teachers that do essentially the same thing.

Topher the Bopher, you can't weigh up the bad things people have done against the goodness they've done. Was Harold Shipman a lesser murderer than others because he was a respectable doctor, as opposed to a illegal immigrant murderer?

No, he wasn't. But had Harold Shipman discovered, say, a cure for cancer, would you refuse to be treated by that cure (if you needed it) because of what he did?

I'm not saying he was any better, but had he discovered something that was for the good of mankind, for which there was no alternative cure, you should have to say that you need to use it.

[MK Chris]

Can I just say, I never said it was right to ban the guy's books, I like most on here, think people should have a choice. I don't particularly think it's right for schools to use the books without explaining and requesting permission from parents first because I believe the parents should have the opportunity to make an informed decision for their child.

[Mcqueen_]

I don't particularly think it's right for schools to use the books without explaining and requesting permission from parents first because I believe the parents should have the opportunity to make an informed decision for their child.

That's just stupid. "Dear sir/madam, would you mind if we used a book written by a paedophile to teach your child." You're automatically making it in to an issue so they'd say they do mind. How are they making an informed decision for their child? It's totally irrelevant who wrote the book in such a decision, the deciding factor should be the best materials for the child to learn. Should someone go through the whole of school libraries checking for authors that may have committed a crime and ask the parents if thy mind those books aswell?

I Studied Eric Gill at University, and had several lectures all about him.
Funny the private stuff was never mentioned, I didn't know that till just now.

Should people have been asked if they wanted to study Eric Gill then because of his private life then Topher? I think it was left out because it wasn't relevant. Should parents be asked if it's ok for the school computers to have the Gill Sans typeface on them?

I could understand it being an issue if he was profiting from his crime but he's not. He's profiting from his work. His punishment for his crime is the same as everyone else, why should people then enforce their own punishments by boycotting his works.

[MK Chris]

I don't particularly think it's right for schools to use the books without explaining and requesting permission from parents first because I believe the parents should have the opportunity to make an informed decision for their child.

That's just stupid. "Dear sir/madam, would you mind if we used a book written by a paedophile to teach your child." You're automatically making it in to an issue so they'd say they do mind. How are they making an informed decision for their child? It's totally irrelevant who wrote the book in such a decision, the deciding factor should be the best materials for the child to learn. Should someone go through the whole of school libraries checking for authors that may have committed a crime and ask the parents if thy mind those books aswell?

I wouldn't word it like that but at least informing them of the decision would be the courteous thing, in my opinion. Ultimately it is the parent who has to bring up the child.

I see your point and obviously there has to be a line, but I think the difference in this case is that at the very time he was writing these books, he was also abusing kids.

I Studied Eric Gill at University, and had several lectures all about him.
Funny the private stuff was never mentioned, I didn't know that till just now.

Should people have been asked if they wanted to study Eric Gill then because of his private life then Topher? I think it was left out because it wasn't relevant. Should parents be asked if it's ok for the school computers to have the Gill Sans typeface on them?

I could understand it being an issue if he was profiting from his crime but he's not. He's profiting from his work. His punishment for his crime is the same as everyone else, why should people then enforce their own punishments by boycotting his works.

I think the Gill case is different again, because he died nearly 70 years ago and it's less likely to cause distress now. Pick holes in that if you like, but that's my opinion.

I'm not saying everyone should boycott the works, I'm just saying in this case (not Gill) I wouldn't choose to use the books, were there alternatives available.

[Mcqueen_]

I wouldn't word it like that but at least informing them of the decision would be the courteous thing, in my opinion. Ultimately it is the parent who has to bring up the child.

But what does bringing up a child have to do with whose books are used? The books haven't got subliminal messages in them that will corrupt your child. If you have two books take away the author names and have to pick one, you pick the one that is the best and most relevant in the situation. That is in the best interest of the child.

Using his books in no way condones his activities, that's totally irrational. The only thing you achieve by not using them is punishing the author financially.

[fish heads]

There is a branch of society that considers Homosexuality as grossly wrong as Pedophilia, who morally therefore has the right to say that is we judge and censor for one sexual perversion, should we not treat all "perverts" in the same way, and if we did that the Male portion of the Library would shrink dramatically.

Please for clarity I do not hold that Homosexuals are perverts, not in any way, but I am saying that some people claim this to be so on Moral grounds, as we all clearly do with reference to Pedophillia.

That falls down when you consider that Pedophillia is against the law and Homosexuality isn't.

[MK Chris]

Using his books in no way condones his activities, that's totally irrational. The only thing you achieve by not using them is punishing the author financially.

Yeah, but we are dealing with an irrational person; he may take it as that, or, someone who is currently being abused by someone else may see it as tolerance of their behaviour and it may be a deciding factor in whether to tell anyone or not. It shouldn't be, I agree, but abuse does funny things to people.

[Mcqueen_]

Your post is irrational. Your opinion is based on your own irrational speculation of what someone else might think.

A child being abused isn't going to check the background of books they may be learning from to see if the author was a paedophile. They might find out if you start making an issue out of it. And even still seen as its purely an educational book there's no correlation between being abused and the actual book which would suggest tolerance of the behaviour.

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

So there should be no ethics in their decision making? I believe there is a need (particularly for Public Bodies) to take this in to consideration.

[Boboff]

There is a branch of society that considers Homosexuality as grossly wrong as Pedophilia, who morally therefore has the right to say that is we judge and censor for one sexual perversion, should we not treat all "perverts" in the same way, and if we did that the Male portion of the Library would shrink dramatically.

Please for clarity I do not hold that Homosexuals are perverts, not in any way, but I am saying that some people claim this to be so on Moral grounds, as we all clearly do with reference to Pedophillia.

That falls down when you consider that Pedophillia is against the law and Homosexuality isn't.

Not really, there is a difference between the law and morals, and Morally, you could look to the Church say, and the church would be against both.

Also it is really only in the last what 40 or so years that homosexuality has been legal in this country. ( I know there is some thing about it not being homosexuality which was unlawful but buggery or something )

And I understand that the church and politics are bastions of Hypocrisy and I am not taking a stand on this, just simply that as a moral argument, Homosexuality "COULD" be considered as bad as pedophilia, which it obviously is not, as Homosexuality is perfectly nice and lovely, where as Pedophilia is a grotesque act of a depraved person, but if you took that view, then much literature would also have to be banned.

Hope that makes sense.

[MK Chris]

I still have no idea how homosexuality could be considered immoral. It's none of mine or anybody else's business what type of hole the bloke standing next to me decides to stick his * into.

[Ballbag]

I still have no idea how homosexuality could be considered immoral. It's none of mine or anybody else's business what type of hole the bloke standing next to me decides to stick his * into.

hahaha, homosexuality as defined by Topher.

[Boboff]

It's Historic, and Biblical Toph, Women & Blacks were considered inferior at the same time as Homosexuals were considered immoral, obviously all these notions are complete Pish.

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

But there is a distinct difference as one act is a form of abuse.

[fish heads]

That falls down when you consider that Pedophillia is against the law and Homosexuality isn't.

Not really, there is a difference between the law and morals, and Morally, you could look to the Church say, and the church would be against both.

Also it is really only in the last what 40 or so years that homosexuality has been legal in this country. ( I know there is some thing about it not being homosexuality which was unlawful but buggery or something )

And I understand that the church and politics are bastions of Hypocrisy and I am not taking a stand on this, just simply that as a moral argument, Homosexuality "COULD" be considered as bad as pedophilia, which it obviously is not, as Homosexuality is perfectly nice and lovely, where as Pedophilia is a grotesque act of a depraved person, but if you took that view, then much literature would also have to be banned.

Hope that makes sense.

It does - but not a whole bunch. You could say that about any sort of minority into society - at the end of the day if people take those views against homosexuality that is their cross to bare. If they don't agree with their choice/lifestyle/skin colour then that's their problem - but it's hardly a moral dilemma for the rest of the public as they won't care because they aren't biggoted or small minded. I am aware that homosexuality was illegal until comparatively recently, but barring the most idiotic u-tern of all time I doubt pedophilia will ever be legalised which is the major difference between the actual moral dilemma topher posed and the flight of fancy you suggest - which I know aren't your views but the point needs to be made

[foot-loose]

The whole moral thing about homosexuals is a tough one - obviously im a bit biased on the whole thing. There still seems to be a fairly large chunk of society who think that gay folk choose to be the way they are and maybe that is the case, but as far as I am concerned, its not a conscious decision. I think that can contribute to the opinion that gay folk are in some way perverted because they have chosen to live a certain way. I don't really know what the reason is for folk being gay, it might be a choice, it might be genetics - i dunno. It certainly wasn't a conscious decision as far as I'm concerned - far too much hassle.

I do, however, feel that while someone may not have much control over whither or not they are gay, they do have a control over the type of lifestyle they lead. What seems to be traditionally seen as a 'gay lifestyle' strikes me as weird and unneccessary (for more info, watch queer as folk). The number of gay folk I have met who bang on about gay rights etc but then make as much effort as possible to stick out in society - I don't get it.

That kinda leads me onto another thought that I have had which is that I think the "gay lifestyle" is kinda seen as cool these days by some young folk. I think its kinda like you get the goths and the skater folks etc and now you get the gays as well. While thats not really a bad thing in itself, if a lad of 14 or 15 tells everyone he is gay at that age - what is he gonna do at 29 when he realises that he isn't really? Yea, course he can go get himself a wife or whatever and just get on with it, but in reality I think that could leave someone quite messed up. Its not like he can just wash off the white face paint like he could if he was a goth.

[MK Chris]

There still seems to be a fairly large chunk of society who think that gay folk choose to be the way they are and maybe that is the case, but as far as I am concerned, its not a conscious decision. I think that can contribute to the opinion that gay folk are in some way perverted because they have chosen to live a certain way. I don't really know what the reason is for folk being gay, it might be a choice, it might be genetics - i dunno. It certainly wasn't a conscious decision as far as I'm concerned - far too much hassle.

I think it's impossible for gay people (as in people who are truly gay) to have chosen to be that way; gay or straight, you don't choose who you fall in love with, it's as simple as that.

Also:

gay folk... folk being gay... queer as folk... gay folk... young folk... goths and the skater folks

How many times can you fit the word 'folk' into a post?

[Gaspode_The_Wonder_Dog]

folking loads.

[Walter Sobchak]

I think that the activities of any criminal that enters something into the public domain should be known to the public; which then gives individuals the right to choose what they should or shouldn't buy, even if a notification inside the front cover was inserted, but I dont agree with most censorship.
Saying that some censorship is needed, simply because it may be inappropriate in a certain place, but only to move it to the correct forum for people to view.
For instance you wouldnt expect porn to be sold in a childrens bookshop, and you wouldn't expect distasteful images to be allowed on a site such as this.

[Sistermoon]

As a parent, I have to say I would not want attention drawn to the private illegal activities of the author of my child's music book! How would I answer those questions?!

I don't research the authors of all the books I read, or those of my children's books. I do monitor what my children read about and I certainly would be VERY offended to find something printed in the inside of my kids music book informing me that the author of this book is currently doing time for pedophilia!

Maybe a better line of thought would be where the income for these books went. Maybe it would be better to keep selling the books, if they truly are good, and give the profits to a group that supports abused children?

[Boboff]

I agree with Foots.
The point you make about it's cool to be Gay I can see, and the fall out as you say is going to be tough, it's not the sort of gang I would want to take part in, the initiation could leave you buggered.

I think Aled just does his for effect, and I bet secretly he has a stash of Fiesta mags under his bed !

[Yudster]

A different thread made me think of this - where would reading Alice in Wonderland to your children sit in this moral issue? Lewis Carroll's (Carles Dodgson??) sexual preferences were widely believed to have been paedophilic, and his relationship with the little girl who "became" Alice had always had a big question mark over it.

[MK Chris]

I've not read up on it, but my personal opinion is that innocent until proven guilty is the right and proper way to judge someone; were it proven that he was a paedophile I'm not sure I would be happy reading the book to my kids, much less if the Alice in the book was based on a real girl, whom he had a relationship with because then it could be argued that the book was part of his 'grooming' process. However, isn't it true that all that is purely speculation?

[foot-loose]

lets not go down the rabbit hole then.