5 ms·

You mean extremes like literally burning books [1], or banning a broad category of books from the largest bookstore in the world for ideological reasons [2], or

You mean extremes like literally burning books [1], or banning a broad category of books from the largest bookstore in the world for ideological reasons [2], or using copyright to censor the most popular American children's author [3]? I'm against censorship, and I think banning books from school libraries is ridiculous [4]. But a single school district in Texas banning a book is not really comparable with the scale and significance of the corporate/woke censorship. [1]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario-francophone-schools-as-gesture-of-reconciliation-denounced https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario... [2]: WSJ: "Amazon Won’t Sell Books Framing LGBTQ+ Identities as Mental Illnesses" https://archive.fo/v5rWn https://archive.fo/v5rWn [3]: Guardian: "It's a moral decision': Dr Seuss books are being 'recalled' not cancelled, expert says" https://archive.fo/SPBMh https://archive.fo/SPBMh [4]: A school library has limited space, and obviously can't hold all the books in the world, so the librarian have to make a choice. But selection should be based on things like what the students would like to read, exposure to a broad diversity of views, etc. instead of ideology.

space_fountain 5y ago
Two things worth bringing up. I’m unconvinced book banning is as big a deal on the left. The one example you bring up was apparently attacked across the board in Canada and the other two are non government institutions, the last one literally being the family of the author. Maybe more importantly though I’m unconvinced that book restrictions are actually universally illegitimate, but certainly some motivations are. If as the article claims it is mostly multicultural books being attacked despite similar books in terms of sex being left alone, then that is worse than books being restricted because people feel they’re racist because racism is bad. I would for example completely support restricting middle schoolers access to books supporting “race science” at least without the proper context being provided
- finite_jest 5y ago
  I think you are correct in implying that the current wave of censorship is mostly non-governmental, but that doesn't make it look any better in my eyes. This is a discussion about culture, not who has the legal right to do what. Banning "inappropriate" books from school is most likely legal in the US [1], but that doesn't automatically make puritanism and prudishness good. I disagree, I think book restrictions are Orwellian, but that's another discussion. [1]: https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-books-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-boo...
edmundsauto 5y ago
It's disingenuous to use the Dr. Seuss example, since it was his delegated agents who made the decision. The way it's worded in your post - "using copyright to censor" doesn't reflect the fact that his estate chose to do this, on their own, using their uncontested property rights. What could represent freedom more than that?
- finite_jest 5y ago
  I am not sure that I follow. I think "using copyright" does imply that it is done by the copyright holders. I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue. There are other examples of using copyright for censorship. The infamous book by the mustache man was prevented from being reprinted in Germany until 2016 by the copyright holder (Bavaria's state government) [1]. Use of DMCA notices by corporations to suppress disparaging news about security vulnerabilities is another example. Do you believe these are not instances of censorship? [1]: https://archive.is/6EMYF#selection-3131.0-3143.129 https://archive.is/6EMYF#selection-3131.0-3143.129
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    What’s the difference between something like the Dr. Seuss issue, and an estate not releasing something written in the first place? Neither seem remotely close to censorship to me, but I’m curious if you think the key difference is revoking access to something once released.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue. Not the GP, but I assume they meant that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue in terms of censorship: Censorship is something that's done to copyright holders. What they themselves do is something else. [EDIT:] So, yes, I would say at least your Knausgaard -- oops, no, the other guy with a similarly-named book -- example is not censorship. Something similar, but not quite the same thing. [/EDIT]
    - 5y ago
slg 5y ago
The outrage regarding the Dr Seuss issue baffles me. The decision was made by the rightholders of the work since the author is dead. There was no public pressure that forced their hand. There was no sizable conversation about this issue until the decision was already made by the rightsholders. How is the right-wing viewpoint seemingly that the author shouldn't have the right to be able to stop the publishing of their own work? Is it censorship because I can't buy JD Salinger's The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls because he didn't want it published until 50 years after his death?
- finite_jest 5y ago
  They certainly have the legal right, but I think it is still censorship. See my other comment for other examples of censorship by copyright: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729059 I do not know much about the case of Salinger's book, but it seems a bit different as apparently he withdrew the story before publication, it was done by the author himself, and the intention does not seem to be ideological. [1][2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_Full_of_Bowling_Balls&oldid=1000626543 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_Full_of... [2]: I think the ideological intention does kinda matter, e.g. curation of the books in the school libraries is inevitable (unless we abolish copyright and make them all a portal to libgen :-)) and is not censorship. But it _is_ censorship when it is driven by ideology.
  - slg 5y ago
    You are making a distinction here between the author of the work and the rightsholder. Are you suggesting part of the reason for the backlash is that the author should be granted extra rights over their work which can't be transferred to a third party? Because that isn't a particularly right-wing view either.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > They certainly have the legal right, but I think it is still censorship. Because you have been fooled. Seuss’s estate decided to cease printing some of his lowest selling books, cited some problematic elements as a justification, and conservative media decided to manufacture a wedge issue out of it. Could they updated those elements? Sure. Seuss himself did at least once. But why bother? They were among his lowest selling books. Books fall out of print all the time.
WoahNoun 5y ago
[1] - Those books shouldn't have been destroyed and this was widely decried. Quote at the bottom of your article from one of the authors of a destroyed book was interesting though. >André Noël, a Quebec journalist, noted on Twitter that his book, Trafic chez les Hurons, published in 2000, was among those removed from shelves. In a Twitter thread, Noël wrote in French that the removal of his book “surprises me and seems excessive.” “But I fear that this controversy will distract us from the real scandal, which we have not yet fully measured: the destruction of Indigenous lands and the oppression of Indigenous peoples by Europeans and their descendants, including in Canada and in Quebec,” he wrote. [2] - Private company can sell what they want. [3] - Private company can create whatever products they want. [4] - The argument in the article is that there are marginalized students who want to read these books.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  On (1), that quote is quite irrelevant to the current discussion, and I don't want to get into that. I'm glad that we all agree that burning books should be condemned. On (2) and (3), neither of these are true in reality, and most don't think they should be true either. Even if you are an extremely principled libertarian, I am sure that you don't think that every single thing a "private" entity does is inherently good. We, the "private" citizens, certainly can (and should) criticize their actions. On (4), as I said in my comment, I very much disagree with the prudish/ideological banning of the book from school libraries, so I guess we agree on that?
  - WoahNoun 5y ago
    Are you advocating that private companies have to sell and produce items they don't want to? Amazon doesn't want to sell those items and the copyright holder of Dr. Seuss doesn't want to create them. Are you saying the government should force them to sell and produce those products?
    - finite_jest 5y ago
      I simply think Amazon should not censor books, and people who are against censorship should try pressuring them into not doing that. As for government intervention, at least for the case of Amazon banning books, it seems practically infeasible to me. Large and vociferous factions of the ruling class do want censorship, and Amazon et al are doing it in part to appease them. For social media censorship, there might be a better chance of effective regulation, as probably more people care about it than banned books.

space_fountain 5y ago

Two things worth bringing up. I’m unconvinced book banning is as big a deal on the left. The one example you bring up was apparently attacked across the board in Canada and the other two are non government institutions, the last one literally being the family of the author. Maybe more importantly though I’m unconvinced that book restrictions are actually universally illegitimate, but certainly some motivations are. If as the article claims it is mostly multicultural books being attacked despite similar books in terms of sex being left alone, then that is worse than books being restricted because people feel they’re racist because racism is bad. I would for example completely support restricting middle schoolers access to books supporting “race science” at least without the proper context being provided

finite_jest 5y ago
I think you are correct in implying that the current wave of censorship is mostly non-governmental, but that doesn't make it look any better in my eyes. This is a discussion about culture, not who has the legal right to do what. Banning "inappropriate" books from school is most likely legal in the US [1], but that doesn't automatically make puritanism and prudishness good. I disagree, I think book restrictions are Orwellian, but that's another discussion. [1]: https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-books-and-the-law.html https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-boo...

edmundsauto 5y ago

It's disingenuous to use the Dr. Seuss example, since it was his delegated agents who made the decision. The way it's worded in your post - "using copyright to censor" doesn't reflect the fact that his estate chose to do this, on their own, using their uncontested property rights. What could represent freedom more than that?

finite_jest 5y ago
I am not sure that I follow. I think "using copyright" does imply that it is done by the copyright holders. I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue. There are other examples of using copyright for censorship. The infamous book by the mustache man was prevented from being reprinted in Germany until 2016 by the copyright holder (Bavaria's state government) [1]. Use of DMCA notices by corporations to suppress disparaging news about security vulnerabilities is another example. Do you believe these are not instances of censorship? [1]: https://archive.is/6EMYF#selection-3131.0-3143.129 https://archive.is/6EMYF#selection-3131.0-3143.129
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  What’s the difference between something like the Dr. Seuss issue, and an estate not releasing something written in the first place? Neither seem remotely close to censorship to me, but I’m curious if you think the key difference is revoking access to something once released.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > I disagree that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue. Not the GP, but I assume they meant that it being done by the copyright holders makes it a non-issue in terms of censorship: Censorship is something that's done to copyright holders. What they themselves do is something else. [EDIT:] So, yes, I would say at least your Knausgaard -- oops, no, the other guy with a similarly-named book -- example is not censorship. Something similar, but not quite the same thing. [/EDIT]
  - 5y ago

slg 5y ago

The outrage regarding the Dr Seuss issue baffles me. The decision was made by the rightholders of the work since the author is dead. There was no public pressure that forced their hand. There was no sizable conversation about this issue until the decision was already made by the rightsholders. How is the right-wing viewpoint seemingly that the author shouldn't have the right to be able to stop the publishing of their own work? Is it censorship because I can't buy JD Salinger's The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls because he didn't want it published until 50 years after his death?

finite_jest 5y ago
They certainly have the legal right, but I think it is still censorship. See my other comment for other examples of censorship by copyright: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729059 I do not know much about the case of Salinger's book, but it seems a bit different as apparently he withdrew the story before publication, it was done by the author himself, and the intention does not seem to be ideological. [1][2] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_Full_of_Bowling_Balls&oldid=1000626543 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ocean_Full_of... [2]: I think the ideological intention does kinda matter, e.g. curation of the books in the school libraries is inevitable (unless we abolish copyright and make them all a portal to libgen :-)) and is not censorship. But it _is_ censorship when it is driven by ideology.
- slg 5y ago
  You are making a distinction here between the author of the work and the rightsholder. Are you suggesting part of the reason for the backlash is that the author should be granted extra rights over their work which can't be transferred to a third party? Because that isn't a particularly right-wing view either.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > They certainly have the legal right, but I think it is still censorship. Because you have been fooled. Seuss’s estate decided to cease printing some of his lowest selling books, cited some problematic elements as a justification, and conservative media decided to manufacture a wedge issue out of it. Could they updated those elements? Sure. Seuss himself did at least once. But why bother? They were among his lowest selling books. Books fall out of print all the time.

WoahNoun 5y ago

[1] - Those books shouldn't have been destroyed and this was widely decried. Quote at the bottom of your article from one of the authors of a destroyed book was interesting though. >André Noël, a Quebec journalist, noted on Twitter that his book, Trafic chez les Hurons, published in 2000, was among those removed from shelves. In a Twitter thread, Noël wrote in French that the removal of his book “surprises me and seems excessive.” “But I fear that this controversy will distract us from the real scandal, which we have not yet fully measured: the destruction of Indigenous lands and the oppression of Indigenous peoples by Europeans and their descendants, including in Canada and in Quebec,” he wrote. [2] - Private company can sell what they want. [3] - Private company can create whatever products they want. [4] - The argument in the article is that there are marginalized students who want to read these books.

finite_jest 5y ago
On (1), that quote is quite irrelevant to the current discussion, and I don't want to get into that. I'm glad that we all agree that burning books should be condemned. On (2) and (3), neither of these are true in reality, and most don't think they should be true either. Even if you are an extremely principled libertarian, I am sure that you don't think that every single thing a "private" entity does is inherently good. We, the "private" citizens, certainly can (and should) criticize their actions. On (4), as I said in my comment, I very much disagree with the prudish/ideological banning of the book from school libraries, so I guess we agree on that?
- WoahNoun 5y ago
  Are you advocating that private companies have to sell and produce items they don't want to? Amazon doesn't want to sell those items and the copyright holder of Dr. Seuss doesn't want to create them. Are you saying the government should force them to sell and produce those products?
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    I simply think Amazon should not censor books, and people who are against censorship should try pressuring them into not doing that. As for government intervention, at least for the case of Amazon banning books, it seems practically infeasible to me. Large and vociferous factions of the ruling class do want censorship, and Amazon et al are doing it in part to appease them. For social media censorship, there might be a better chance of effective regulation, as probably more people care about it than banned books.