5 ms·

"libraries and educators to forgo specific books" is neither "banning" nor "censoring" In the name of literacy, we need to use words properly.

tokai 2mo ago
No, you need to understand that your specific narrow definition has not handed down by God, and is not more valid than others. US book banning has been a subject for so long now that you are tilling at windmills if you think you can deside what 10000s of people mean when they say banned. Is a specific institution or library are banned by their decision makers to have a book - that book is banned in that context. If you don't buy this that fair, but don't come at me with your pedantry when I just answered your question.
- caseysoftware 2mo ago
  > Is a specific institution or library are banned by their decision makers to have a book - that book is banned in that context. By that reasoning, all PG-13 and R rated movies are "banned" just because your elementary school library doesn't carry them. Absurd, huh? "10000s of people" can create new definitions of words as they choose, just don't be surprised when educated people think they're fools.
embedding-shape 2mo ago
What would happen if a child brought those not-banned or not-censored books to a library/school where they have "forgo those specific books"? What would the reaction be? I feel like if they'd still let the person read the book by themselves, and freely share it with others, then indeed it's merely a curation choice. But, if I'd expect, they try to prevent this person from reading their own brought book or sharing it with others, then I think it's fair to say that book been banned and/or censored, at least in that particular location.
- SV_BubbleTime 2mo ago
  What if someone brought a porno to blockbuster?
  - embedding-shape 2mo ago
    How is that at all related or relevant to anything I wrote?
Guthwine 2mo ago
I believe when most libraries and stores use the term 'ban', they rely on PEN America's definition: "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished." [1] [1] https://pen.org/book-bans/book-bans-frequently-asked-questions/ https://pen.org/book-bans/book-bans-frequently-asked-questio...
- caseysoftware 2mo ago
  Thanks, this is useful. > "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished." Though this is a fascinating definition.. anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book outside of purely budgetary or physical space limits, it is now a "ban". The more fascinating question would be discovering the boundary of what PEN, et al consider a "good ban" because I bet we could come up with a few.
  - InsideOutSanta 2mo ago
    > anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book That's not what the definition you just quoted says. In fact, the definition you quoted is very close to the common definition of "ban": a refusal to allow something, usually by an official entity. It matters a lot who does it.
jnovek 2mo ago
It is censorship if those books are not included for a specific reason. “We aren’t including this book in the library because we don’t have space for every book.” <—— not censorship “We aren’t including this book because we don’t think it’s appropriate for kids to learn about trans people.” <—- censorship
- buellerbueller 2mo ago
  Since there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship?
  - 7bit 2mo ago
    That's a childish argument.
    - buellerbueller 2mo ago
      My point was to highlight the ridiculousness of the comment to which I was responding; glad it worked!
      - 7bit 2mo ago
        It didn't work. The comment wasn't ridiculous. Your reply was. But yes, if you want to flip thing around so you feel validated, be my guest.
        buellerbueller 2mo ago
        Of course it worked. Any authoritarian intent on banning a book just could give the spurious reason that "the library does not have enough room" and then there is no censorship ever, according to the original post. See how childish that reasoning is?
        7bit 2mo ago
        You're right
buellerbueller 2mo ago
Yes, this is colloquially referred to as "banning." Sorry, you don't get to decide how others use language.
- account42 2mo ago
  Used by those wanting to sell and profit from outrage about "banned" books to be precise.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - buellerbueller 2mo ago
    See also: normal people who aren't afraid of books and think that banning them is silly.
    - account42 2mo ago
      Banning books on a country level may be silly but curating what is allowed in a school library is not. Which is exactly why people with an agenda want to conflate these two.
      - buellerbueller 2mo ago
        The librarians should curate, not the parents. The parents are welcome to decide for their own children what is permissible and not, but should have no authority to prevent others' children from accessing materials they do not find objectionable. Why is it about "parental rights" when it comes to anti-vaccination, but authoritarian control mechanisms when it comes to someone else's kid reading a fucking book?
        account42 2mo ago
        If your goal is what to have parents decide what their kids can read then the only way to do that is to have the shared (e.g. school) library carry the commonly agreed upon subset and individual parents who want their kids to have access to more to provide those more controversial book at home. The only reason to call to have books other parents don't want their kids to be exposed to in the school library is if you want to override their choice and make those books available to kids other than yours as well.

tokai 2mo ago

No, you need to understand that your specific narrow definition has not handed down by God, and is not more valid than others. US book banning has been a subject for so long now that you are tilling at windmills if you think you can deside what 10000s of people mean when they say banned. Is a specific institution or library are banned by their decision makers to have a book - that book is banned in that context. If you don't buy this that fair, but don't come at me with your pedantry when I just answered your question.

caseysoftware 2mo ago
> Is a specific institution or library are banned by their decision makers to have a book - that book is banned in that context. By that reasoning, all PG-13 and R rated movies are "banned" just because your elementary school library doesn't carry them. Absurd, huh? "10000s of people" can create new definitions of words as they choose, just don't be surprised when educated people think they're fools.

embedding-shape 2mo ago

What would happen if a child brought those not-banned or not-censored books to a library/school where they have "forgo those specific books"? What would the reaction be? I feel like if they'd still let the person read the book by themselves, and freely share it with others, then indeed it's merely a curation choice. But, if I'd expect, they try to prevent this person from reading their own brought book or sharing it with others, then I think it's fair to say that book been banned and/or censored, at least in that particular location.

SV_BubbleTime 2mo ago
What if someone brought a porno to blockbuster?
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  How is that at all related or relevant to anything I wrote?

Guthwine 2mo ago

I believe when most libraries and stores use the term 'ban', they rely on PEN America's definition: "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished." [1] [1] https://pen.org/book-bans/book-bans-frequently-asked-questions/ https://pen.org/book-bans/book-bans-frequently-asked-questio...

caseysoftware 2mo ago
Thanks, this is useful. > "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished." Though this is a fascinating definition.. anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book outside of purely budgetary or physical space limits, it is now a "ban". The more fascinating question would be discovering the boundary of what PEN, et al consider a "good ban" because I bet we could come up with a few.
- InsideOutSanta 2mo ago
  > anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book That's not what the definition you just quoted says. In fact, the definition you quoted is very close to the common definition of "ban": a refusal to allow something, usually by an official entity. It matters a lot who does it.

jnovek 2mo ago

It is censorship if those books are not included for a specific reason. “We aren’t including this book in the library because we don’t have space for every book.” <—— not censorship “We aren’t including this book because we don’t think it’s appropriate for kids to learn about trans people.” <—- censorship

buellerbueller 2mo ago
Since there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship?
- 7bit 2mo ago
  That's a childish argument.
  - buellerbueller 2mo ago
    My point was to highlight the ridiculousness of the comment to which I was responding; glad it worked!
    - 7bit 2mo ago
      It didn't work. The comment wasn't ridiculous. Your reply was. But yes, if you want to flip thing around so you feel validated, be my guest.
      - buellerbueller 2mo ago
        Of course it worked. Any authoritarian intent on banning a book just could give the spurious reason that "the library does not have enough room" and then there is no censorship ever, according to the original post. See how childish that reasoning is?
        7bit 2mo ago
        You're right

buellerbueller 2mo ago

Yes, this is colloquially referred to as "banning." Sorry, you don't get to decide how others use language.

account42 2mo ago
Used by those wanting to sell and profit from outrage about "banned" books to be precise.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- buellerbueller 2mo ago
  See also: normal people who aren't afraid of books and think that banning them is silly.
  - account42 2mo ago
    Banning books on a country level may be silly but curating what is allowed in a school library is not. Which is exactly why people with an agenda want to conflate these two.
    - buellerbueller 2mo ago
      The librarians should curate, not the parents. The parents are welcome to decide for their own children what is permissible and not, but should have no authority to prevent others' children from accessing materials they do not find objectionable. Why is it about "parental rights" when it comes to anti-vaccination, but authoritarian control mechanisms when it comes to someone else's kid reading a fucking book?
      - account42 2mo ago
        If your goal is what to have parents decide what their kids can read then the only way to do that is to have the shared (e.g. school) library carry the commonly agreed upon subset and individual parents who want their kids to have access to more to provide those more controversial book at home. The only reason to call to have books other parents don't want their kids to be exposed to in the school library is if you want to override their choice and make those books available to kids other than yours as well.