3 ms·
Where banned=not paid for with public funds. Words have meanings. The books are still available, just not in schools.
by dontcare007 4y ago
Where banned=not paid for with public funds. Words have meanings. The books are still available, just not in schools.
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoWould it be correct to say they were banned from public libraries in those areas? And thus they were banned?
- dontcare007 4y agoMore like"after review, not carried"
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoI guess what I am asking, is that in some states I am under the impression that the state legislature got involved. If library staff maintain autonomy and can carry whatever they want, I wouldn't say it is banned. If the state government got involved and provided a list of books to remove from public libraries, then to me that is banned. I know in some states such lists were produced by legislature, but I don't know if those initiatives passed.
- dontcare007 4y agoGood question, not sure.
- slg 4y agoI think this is being disingenuous because a library deciding not to buy a book is different than the executive or legislature saying that the library cannot buy a book. You are implying what is happening across the country in conservative states is the former when it is more often the latter. Choice is being removed from the people who run the libraries. They are the people who best know what books their communities want and need, not the politicians.
- temp8964 4y agoPublic school library != public library
- slg 4y agoCan you clarify what you are trying to say with this comment? This distinction has no bearing on what I said. The same concept applies to both equally regardless of the current political battle being specifically about school libraries.
- temp8964 4y agoThey are the same just because you say so?
- slg 4y agoI didn't say they were the same. I said the same concept applied to both.
- SllX 4y agoI'll chime in here: it's a worthy distinction because one is available to the students and staff of a school and thus is not a "public library", even though it is funded by the public. The other is a library available to the public (generally with a residency requirement as a gatekeeping measure although not necessarily) and funded by the public. The controversy is about the former, because that is the type being targeted with legislation, and arguably as a controversy it is overblown because it does not overlap with the latter which is also available to children and almost always has a superior selection covering a wider breadth of subject matter and genres with greater depth. There is something to be said about letting librarians at either type just make their own decisions without legislating them, but public schools are right at the intersection of all kinds of messed up policies around the staff and students and curriculum due to the nature of these institutions so this honestly doesn't rate very high. You can't fix that, because fixing that would mean fixing people in general, so the alternative is to sidestep it by sending children to private schools, but then it will just be a different group of people making policy decisions about the staff, students, curriculum and materials accessible to them. So here's a good litmus test: if you can legally procure and read a book, it is not banned. We don't actually ban books in America, although at points in our history portions of the country or what would become the country did. How accessible, rare, attainable or what condition it is in, well, nothing is guaranteed.
- themitigating 4y agoSo Twitter, a private company, has to fund speech it doesn't like but a public library can be forbidden from using public money for books people don't like
- dontcare007 4y agoTwitter supposedly answers to its board of directors, the public library answers to its local community.