Placeholder Content Image

Censorship or sensible: is it bad to listen to Fat Bottomed Girls with your kids?

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/liz-giuffre-105499">Liz Giuffre</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a></em></p> <p>International music press has reported this week that Queen’s song Fat Bottomed Girls <a href="https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/queen-fat-bottomed-girls-greatest-hits-1235396348/">has not been included</a> in a greatest hits compilation aimed at children.</p> <p>While there was no formal justification given, presumably lyrics “fat bottomed” and “big fat fatty” were the problem, and even the very singable hook, “Oh, won’t you take me home tonight”.</p> <p>Predictably, The Daily Mail and similar outlets used it as an excuse to bemoan cancel culture, political correctness and the like, with the headline “<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12424449/We-woke-Classic-Queen-song-Fat-Bottomed-Girls-mysteriously-dropped-groups-new-Greatest-Hits-collection.html">We Will Woke You</a>” quickly out of the gate.</p> <p>Joke headlines aside, should children be exposed to music with questionable themes or lyrics?</p> <p>The answer is not a hard yes or no. My colleague Shelley Brunt and I studied a range of factors and practices relating to <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Popular-Music-and-Parenting/Brunt-Giuffre/p/book/9780367367138">Popular Music and Parenting</a>, and we found that more important than individual songs or concerts is the support children are given when they’re listening or participating.</p> <p>A parent or caregiver should always be part of a conversation and some sort of relationship when engaging with music. This can involve practical things like making sure developing ears aren’t exposed to too harsh a volume or that they know how to find a trusted adult at a concert. But this also extends to the basics of media and cultural literacy, like what images and stories are being presented in popular music, and how we want to consider those in our own lives.</p> <p>In the same way you’d hope someone would talk to a child to remind them that superheroes can’t actually fly (and subsequently if you’re dressed as a superhero for book week don’t go leaping off tall buildings!), popular music of all types needs to be contextualised.</p> <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VMnjF1O4eH0?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Should we censor, or change, the way popular music is presented for kids?</h2> <p>There is certainly a long tradition of amending popular songs to make them child or family friendly. On television, this has happened as long as the medium has been around, with some lyrics and dance moves toned down to appease concerned parents and tastemakers about the potential evils of pop.</p> <p>Famously, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oim51kUg748">Elvis Presley serenaded a literal Hound Dog</a> rather than the metaphorical villain of his 1950s hit.</p> <p>In Australia, the local TV version of <a href="https://nostalgiacentral.com/music/music-on-film-and-tv/bandstand-australia/">Bandstand</a> from the 1970s featured local artists singing clean versions of international pop songs while <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guembJBOOyI">wearing modest hems and neck lines</a>.</p> <p>This continued with actual children also re-performing pop music, from the Mickey Mouse Club versions of songs from the US to our own wonderful star factory that was <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-my-loving-young-talent-time-still-glows-50-years-since-first-airing-on-australian-tv-159533">Young Talent Time</a>. The tradition continues today with family-friendly, popular music-based programming like The Voice and The Masked Singer.</p> <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oim51kUg748?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <p>In America, there is a huge industry for children’s versions of pop music via the Kidz Bop franchise. Its formula of child performers covering current hits has been wildly successful for over 20 years. Some perhaps obvious substitutions are made – the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkctByJbtNY">cover of Lizzo’s About Damn Time</a> is now “About That Time”, with the opening lyric changed to “Kidz Bop O’Clock” rather than “Bad Bitch O’Clock”.</p> <p>In some other Kidz Bop songs, though, <a href="https://pudding.cool/2020/04/kidz-bop/">references to violence and drugs have been left in</a>.</p> <p>Other longer-standing children’s franchises have also made amendments to pop lyrics, but arguably with a bit more creativity and fun. The Muppets’ cover of Bohemian Rhapsody, replacing the original murder with a rant from Animal, is divine.</p> <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tgbNymZ7vqY?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Should music ever just be for kids?</h2> <p>Context is key when deciding what is for children or for adults. And hopefully we’re always listening (in some way) together.</p> <p>Caregivers should be able to make an informed decision about whether a particular song is appropriate for their child, however they consider that in terms of context. By the same token, the resurgence of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/apr/05/how-the-wiggles-took-over-the-world-and-got-the-cool-kids-on-side-too">millennial love</a> for The Wiggles has shown us no one should be considered “too old” for Hot Potato or Fruit Salad.</p> <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/quHus3DwN4Q?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <p>When considering potential harm for younger listeners, factors like <a href="https://kidsafeqld.com.au/risks-noise-exposure-baby/">volume and tone</a> can be more dangerous than whether or not there’s a questionable lyric. Let’s remember, too, lots of “nursery rhymes” aimed at children are also quite violent if you listen to their words closely.</p> <p>French writer Jacques José Attali <a href="https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Noise/OHe7AAAAIAAJ?hl=en">famously argued</a> the relationship between music, noise and harm is politics and power – even your most beloved song can become just noise if played too loudly or somewhere where you shouldn’t be hearing it.</p> <p>As an academic, parent and fat-bottomed girl myself, my advice is to keep having conversations with the children in your life about what you and they are listening to. Just like reminding your little superhero to only pretend to fly rather than to actually jump – when we sing along to Queen, we remember that using a word like “fat” and even “girl” isn’t how everyone likes to be treated these days.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212093/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/liz-giuffre-105499">Liz Giuffre</a>, Senior Lecturer in Communication, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/censorship-or-sensible-is-it-bad-to-listen-to-fat-bottomed-girls-with-your-kids-212093">original article</a>.</em></p>

Music

Placeholder Content Image

Fans fume as classic film undergoes censorship treatment

<p>Film fanatics are in outrage after discovering an unannounced edit in William Friedkin’s 1971 classic movie, The French Connection.</p> <p>The scene causing the trouble comes just 10 minutes into the drama, when two characters - Gene Hackman’s ‘Popeye’ Doyle and Roy Scheider’s Buddy ‘Cloudy’ Russo - are having a conversation, and one of them uses a racial slur. </p> <p>The sequence was removed, and the new edited version cuts to the latest in the conversation, omitting the part with the slur. </p> <p>Disney has been the subject of blame for the move - as the company took over Fox in 2019 and subsequently the rights to the film - with fans accusing them of censoring the scene in the United States, while in the United Kingdom and Canada, the unedited version of the film is still available for streaming on Disney+.</p> <p>Most took to social media to share their complaints, with the majority in agreement that Disney had missed the mark, and The Film Magazine’s Joseph Wade even calling it “corporate vandalism”.</p> <p>“In cases such as this, ‘Censor’ takes the place of ‘Vandalise’,” he tweeted. “They have vandalised a piece of art.”</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Disney Censor 'The French Connection' (1971)</p> <p>In cases such as this, "Censor" takes the place of "Vandalise".</p> <p>They have vandalised a piece of art. This is corporate vandalism no matter how said corporation spins the language. <a href="https://t.co/yxl1o2RsMU">pic.twitter.com/yxl1o2RsMU</a></p> <p>— Joseph Wade (@JoeTFM) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeTFM/status/1666327940072722434?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2023</a></p></blockquote> <p>“At the risk of being like ‘nooo, my precious n-word,’ the uncensored FRENCH CONNECTION should be the only one in circulation, whether on TV or in theatres,” one user said. “I don't think it's a stretch to say that Friedkin knew exactly what having his detective protagonist use it said about him.”</p> <p>One user went on to share a clip of Hackman discussing the scene - and slur - in question, in which the actor claimed he “protested somewhat”, before sharing his belief that it was part of “who the guy is”. </p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Gene Hackman speaking in 2012 about the controversial line from French Connection. <a href="https://t.co/l45DBP9DvD">pic.twitter.com/l45DBP9DvD</a></p> <p>— oneilla (@oneilla828) <a href="https://twitter.com/oneilla828/status/1666439477403811840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 7, 2023</a></p></blockquote> <p>“The censorship of The French Connection is shameful if true,” another agreed.</p> <p>“Thank God,” a frustrated - and sarcastic - fan added, “now I can finally show my 6 year old child The French Connection without any worries”.</p> <p>One Twitter user wrote of how “it speaks badly for film preservation that even a Best Picture winner isn't immune from the clutches of Disney”, and how they’d prefer to watch the film “the way it was intended to be watched, thank you very much.”</p> <p><em>Images: Twentieth Century Fox</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

New censorship target for "sensitivity readers"

<p>Enid Blyton is known around the world, across all generations, as the author behind the children’s classics <em>The Magic Faraway Tree</em>, <em>The Adventures of the Wishing Tree</em>, <em>Noddy</em>, and <em>The Famous Five</em>. </p> <p>And now, the late Blyton is also known as the latest author to face edits and rewrites at the hands of her publisher, Hodder Children’s Books. They have confirmed that they will be carrying out the work to remove “offensive terms” as part of their “ongoing process”. </p> <p>Such changes have made the news already in 2023 - people had a lot to say about proposed edits to Roald Dahl’s books. Edits like those to Dahl’s work, dubbed by critics as “woke”, see publishers rewriting older texts after feedback from sensitivity readers, and removing certain terms that are deemed to be offensive to modern audiences. </p> <p>According to a report by <em>The Australian</em>, an audiobook version of one of <em>The Famous Five</em> books, a collection of short stories, has undergone edits to remove the words “idiot”, “a**”, and “shut up”.</p> <p>One story sees cousins Julian, Dick, George, Anne, and their canine companion Timmy, investigate lights on the island - Kirrin Island - by George’s home. In a bid to get their adventure started, George wakes her cousin Anne, and Anne tells her “oh George, don’t be an a**.”</p> <p>In the new edition, Anne simply says “oh George.” </p> <p>Meanwhile, in the original text, Anne’s big brother - and George’s cousin - Julian, at one point tells George to “shut up” and “be sensible”. Now, Julian only tells her “George, be sensible.” </p> <p>Additionally, two other instances of characters being told “don’t be an idiot” have been removed.</p> <p>Those particular phrases still feature in a Hodder Children’s Books e-book version of the text, though “a**” remains unseen, substituted in this case with “idiot”. </p> <p>The publishing house previously faced backlash in 2010 when they put out “contemporary” adaptations of Blyton’s books, replacing the likes of “headmistress” with “teacher”.</p> <p>These revisions were seemingly put to rest when Hodder Children’s Books declared that they weren’t working. </p> <p>“The feedback we have had six years on shows that the love for The Famous Five remains intact, and changing mother to mummy, pullover to jumper, was not required,” Anne McNeil, their publishing director, explained to The Guardian in 2016. “We want Enid Blyton’s legacy to go on. Millions of readers have learned to read with her.”</p> <p>However, as a 2023 statement reads, the publisher’s parent company - Hachette UK - consider the edit of Blyton’s books to be an “ongoing process”, as part of their “intention to keep Enid Blyton’s books and stories at the heart of every childhood, as they have been for generations.” </p> <p>“To do so, we work to ensure that there are no offensive terms in the books - changing words where the definition is unclear in context and therefore the usage is confusing, and where words have been used in an inappropriate or offensive sense - while retaining the original language as far as is possible,” a spokesperson for the company said. “This enables a very wide international audience of children to enjoy the books, while also understanding that they were written and set in the past.</p> <p>“In new editions, we do not change language for the sake of modernising it. We retain old-fashioned terms such as ‘bathing-suit’ and references to pre-decimal currency. The books’ period setting is part of their charm and is enjoyed by readers of all ages.</p> <p>“Any historic changes previously made to new editions, which come under the category of ‘modernisation’ in this context, have been or are being restored to the original text at the point of reprint.”</p> <p><em>Images: Getty</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Critics slam "botched surgery" of Roald Dahl rewrites

<p>Roald Dahl’s children’s books are a staple on bookshelves across the world, and their subject matter is often a topic of conversation for students. </p> <p>This time around, Dahl’s books have garnered attention over publisher Puffin’s move to bring in censorship readers, and the subsequent decision to remove certain terms and phrases from certain works in a bid to make them more appropriate for modern audiences. </p> <p>“Words matter,” reads the notice on the copyright page of Puffin’s latest editions of Roald Dahl’s books. “The wonderful words of Roald Dahl can transport you to different worlds and introduce you to the most marvellous characters. This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.”</p> <p>The changes made to <em>Charlie and the Chocolate Factory</em> reportedly reach the hundreds, but most notable are those made to the character Augustus Gloop. In the original text, published in 1974, Augustus is described as being “enormously fat”, but in Puffin’s edits, he is simply “enormous”. </p> <p>In <em>The Witches</em>, women are no longer limited to being a “cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a business man”, but instead can be a “top scientist or running a business”. Additionally, an explanation of the witches’ baldness now concludes with a line about how “there are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.”</p> <p>Of such edits, the Roald Dahl Story Company have said “it’s not unusual to review the language” during new print runs, and that any changes made to Dahl’s works were minimal, and that they had to be “carefully considered”. The changes were made in conjunction with Inclusive Minds, which is described as being “a collective for people who are passionate about inclusion and accessibility in children’s literature.”</p> <p>However, not everyone is on board with this move towards a more gentle and kind reading experience for children. </p> <p><em>Sky News</em> host James Morrow claimed the edits have made the books “boring”, and went as far as to describe one sensitivity reader as an “Orwellian political commissar”. </p> <p>“They were so much fun, and they made fun of people’s appearances,” James said of his passion for the original texts, “so many people loved them. Now apparently, you know, they have been transformed.”</p> <p>James then took to Twitter, where like minded critics voiced their outrage, with many blaming the “woke police” for what had occurred. </p> <p>One even posed the question “I wonder how many 10 year olds will be able to think for themselves in 10 years time?” </p> <p>“These masterpieces should never be edited," wrote another. “Reading these as a kid was a gift and the woke police should not take that away.” </p> <p>Author Salman Rushdie took to his Twitter account to offer his take on the matter, telling both Puffin and the Dahl Estate that they should be ashamed of their actions. </p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Roald Dahl was no angel but this is absurd censorship. Puffin Books and the Dahl estate should be ashamed. <a href="https://t.co/sdjMfBr7WW">https://t.co/sdjMfBr7WW</a></p> <p>— Salman Rushdie (@SalmanRushdie) <a href="https://twitter.com/SalmanRushdie/status/1627075835525210113?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 18, 2023</a></p></blockquote> <p>Dahl passed away in 1990, and despite his enormous success with writing, he was - as Salman Rushdie put it - “no angel”, having made antisemitic comments throughout his life. </p> <p>In 2020, The Dahl family acknowledged the “lasting and understandable hurt caused by Roald Dahl’s antisemitic statements” and issued an apology. </p> <p><em>Sunday Times</em>’ deputy literary editor Laura Hackett also shared her thoughts, and while she recognised that Dahl was “a very nasty man - a racist, misogynistic, antisemitic bully”, she wouldn’t let that stop her from sharing the original texts with her children. </p> <p>“The editors at Puffin should be ashamed of the botched surgery they’ve carried out on some of the finest children’s literature in Britain,” she stated. “As for me, I’ll be carefully stowing away my old, original copies of Dahl’s stories, so that one day my children can enjoy them in their full, nasty, colourful glory.”</p> <p><em>Images: Getty </em></p>

Books

Placeholder Content Image

China quietly changes the ending to famous movie

<p dir="ltr">More than two decades after its release, the 1999 hit film <em>Fight Club</em> has had its ending revamped for Chinese audiences. </p><p dir="ltr">Fans of the movie in China were enraged when they noticed a different version was available to watch on the popular Chinese streaming service Tencent Video, which removed the film’s iconic ending. </p><p dir="ltr">In the final scene of the movie, the narrator, played by Edward Norton, stands with his girlfriend, played by Helena Bonham Carter, as they watch explosives blow up a cluster of skyscrapers. </p><p dir="ltr">The buildings are all part of a larger plot in the movie to destroy the notion of consumerism by erasing bank and debt records.  </p><p dir="ltr">The film’s amount of unbridled anarchy, along with the government’s inability to stop it, has not sat well with China’s censorship rules. </p><p dir="ltr">In the edited version for the region, the entire scene featuring the explosions has been cut out. </p><p dir="ltr">According to CNN Business, the ending has been replaced with a caption explaining to audiences that the authorities arrived just in time to stop the destruction. </p><p dir="ltr">“Through the clue provided by Tyler, the police rapidly figured out the whole plan and arrested all criminals, successfully preventing the bomb from exploding,” the caption reads.</p><p dir="ltr">“After the trial, Tyler was sent to [a] lunatic asylum receiving psychological treatment. He was discharged from the hospital in 2012.”</p><p dir="ltr">The new ending has infuriated some viewers, with one film fan writing on the streaming service that the change was “a pillar of shame in cinematic history”.</p><p dir="ltr">“No one wants to pay money to watch a classic that has been so ruined to such an extent,” another person wrote on a movie review site.</p><p dir="ltr"><em>Fight Club</em> is just the latest victim of Chinese censorship laws, with countless films undergoing a strict editing process to appease regulators before being released to general audiences. </p><p dir="ltr"><em>Image credits: Fight Club - Fox 2000 Pictures</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

What is happening? Facebook blocks Australians from viewing news

<p>Facebook's latest decision has rocked Australia after the social media giant restricted publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing local and international news content.</p> <p><strong>Why is this happening?</strong></p> <p>Facebook's decision is in response to Australia's proposed new Media Bargaining law, which requires tech companies to pay for news content.</p> <p>“The proposed law fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content,” Facebook said in a statement shared on Thursday morning.</p> <p>“It has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with a law that ignores the realities of this relationship, or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia. With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter.”</p> <p>Facebook said they tried to work with the Federal Government over three years to try and come to an agreement that would be beneficial for both digital platforms and news organisations.</p> <p>“Unfortunately this legislation does not do that. Instead it seeks to penalise Facebook for content it didn’t take or ask for.”</p> <p>You can read Facebook’s full statement<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-viewing-news-on-facebook-in-australia/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p> <p><strong>What does this mean?</strong></p> <p>From Thursday, Aussies will have woken up to a drastically different news feed.</p> <p>Australians have been banned from viewing news stories, both local and international, and major broadcasters and news outlets have been restricted from posting on the platform as well.</p> <p><strong>What happens now?</strong></p> <p>To continue reading stories from Over60, you can visit our website directly or subscribe to our<span> </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/information/join" target="_blank">newsletters</a>.</p> <p><em><a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.facebook.com/help/2579891418969617" target="_blank" class="c-link" data-stringify-link="https://www.facebook.com/help/2579891418969617" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Read more</a> about how people can appeal by clicking directly on the notification on their Page which will bring them to the Facebook Help Centre &amp; appeal form.</em></p>

News

Placeholder Content Image

Shock casualties of the widespread Facebook news block

<p>Facebook's news ban has impacted news sites as well as non-news pages, including the Bureau of Meteorology and other Australian government pages.</p> <p><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/shock-casualties-of-facebooks-news-block-bom-betoota-advocate-wa-fire-australian-government-pages-wiped/news-story/de46c2fb6fa9a4c03aec35a49c7d2e07" target="_blank"><em>News.com.au</em></a><span> </span>has confirmed that Facebook is using technology to enforce the ban, but is unable to explain why other pages have been caught in the ban.</p> <p>Australians who are looking for reliable information about the weather from the Bureau of Meteorology won't be able to do so as all of its posts have been scrubbed from Facebook.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">So Facebook has even removed the <a href="https://twitter.com/BOM_au?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BOM_au</a> verified blue tick page's content as well. <br /><br />The Australian Bureau of Meteorology. <br /><br />The Australian Government Bureau that looks at the weather. <br /><br />WTF <a href="https://t.co/K7nKyLkgpW">pic.twitter.com/K7nKyLkgpW</a></p> — Trish (@Tr1shM) <a href="https://twitter.com/Tr1shM/status/1362161063848906753?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2021</a></blockquote> <p>The Queensland Health Facebook page has also been wiped clean, so Queenslanders looking for information from their local health authorities will be impacted.</p> <p>Other government Facebook pages hit by the ban include the ACT Government Facebook page, the South Australian Health Facebook page and Harvey Norman, the electronics retailer.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr">I get all my Australian news from Harvey Norman.... 😳 <a href="https://t.co/qSUEZ473mf">pic.twitter.com/qSUEZ473mf</a></p> — Trudy McIntosh (@TrudyMcIntosh) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrudyMcIntosh/status/1362175848455970818?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2021</a></blockquote> <p>The move has shocked many, but Communications Minister Paul Fletcher is unphased.</p> <p>“Facebook needs to think very carefully about what this means for its reputation and standing,” Mr Fletcher told the ABC.</p> <p>“They’re effectively saying, on our platform, there will not be any information from organisations which employ paid journalists, which have fact-checking processes, editorial policies. They’re effectively saying any information that is available on our site does not come from these reliable sources.”</p> <p>Currently, there is nothing stopping Australians from reading information from their favourite news sites directly, but they will be unable to see the posts on their Facebook feed.</p> <div class="c-message_kit__blocks c-message_kit__blocks--rich_text"> <div class="c-message__message_blocks c-message__message_blocks--rich_text"> <div class="p-block_kit_renderer" data-qa="block-kit-renderer"> <div class="p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper p-block_kit_renderer__block_wrapper--first"> <div class="p-rich_text_block"> <div class="p-rich_text_section"><a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.facebook.com/help/2579891418969617" target="_blank" class="c-link" data-stringify-link="https://www.facebook.com/help/2579891418969617" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Read more</a> about how people can appeal by clicking directly on the notification on their Page which will bring them to the Facebook Help Centre &amp; appeal form.</div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div>

News

Placeholder Content Image

6 classic books that were banned

<p>Like with all forms of art, some classic literary works were not well-received at the time of their release – in fact, many were downright controversial. While we can perhaps understand the reasons behind banning a book for violence or hate speech, some of the we’re about to look at seem tame compared to what we see today.</p> <p><strong>1. <em>Diary of a Young Girl</em> by Anne Frank</strong></p> <p>One of the most historically significant texts of the past century, Anne Frank’s diary gave us such an honest glimpse into the life of the Jewish people during WWII it’s hard to believe anyone could find an argument against it. In Lebanon, however, the book is banned, because it shows Jews in a positive light. <em>Schindler’s Ark</em> and <em>Sophie’s Choice</em> are also banned there, for the same reason.</p> <p><strong>2. <em>Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland</em> by Lewis Carroll</strong></p> <p>Carroll’s 1865 children’s book is one of the most beloved of all time, but did you know it was banned in China in the 1930s? Governor Ho Chien of the Hunan province banned <em>Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland</em> in 1931 because it showed “animals and human beings on the same level”, something Ho Chien saw as “disastrous”.</p> <p><strong>3. <em>The Grapes of Wrath</em> by John Steinbeck</strong></p> <p>The classic 1939 novel was banned in many part of the US when it was published, but particularly in the state of California, where its residents complained that they were unfairly portrayed. It was burned extensively through the country for its depiction of the poor, as well.</p> <p><strong>4. <em>Lady Chatterly’s Lover</em> by D. H. Lawrence</strong></p> <p>Considered “obscene” by many, Lawrence’s 1928 book was banned in the US, UK and Australia and remained prohibited until the late 50s and early 60s. The Chinese Central Bureau also denied publication of the translated novel.</p> <p><strong>5. <em>The Wonderful Wizard of Oz</em> by L. Frank Baum</strong></p> <p>We can’t understand how this much-loved tale could be controversial in any way, but librarians and schoolmasters in the US banned the book in the ‘30s and again in the ‘50s. Why? They considered it “unwholesome” because of its portrayal of a strong, independent woman and “ungodly” beings like witches and flying monkeys.</p> <p><strong>6. <em>1984</em> by George Orwell</strong></p> <p>Today we look back on Orwell’s popular dystopian novel as an eerily accurate representation of the future, but <em>1984</em> was banned in the USSR. In 1950, Stalin believed it was a satire of his leadership, despite the book being labelled pro-Communist. It also has a place on the American Library Association’s list of most-challenged books.</p> <p>What are your thoughts about censorship in art? Tell us your opinion in the comment section below.</p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><a href="/entertainment/books/2016/05/10-unique-things-to-do-with-old-books/"><strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">10 unique things to do with old books</span></em></strong></a></p> <p><a href="/entertainment/books/2016/05/6-inspiring-female-writers/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>6 inspiring female writers</strong></em></span></a></p> <p><a href="/entertainment/books/2016/05/top-10-book-series-ever/"><strong><em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Top 10 book series ever</span></em></strong></a></p>

Books