6 ms·

Am I the only one that finds the censorship angle weird? Let's say, Alice wants to communicate a piece of information to Bob. Both are interested in it. Mike d

Am I the only one that finds the censorship angle weird? Let's say, Alice wants to communicate a piece of information to Bob. Both are interested in it. Mike decides that it's against his interest and blocks the communication. This is textbook censorship. In this example, Alice decides that certain information needs to be pushed into Bob's attention span at Bob's expense, and Bob refuses to fund it. I don't think it is the same. Denial of attention? Yes. Censorship? Not really.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Seems like a tortured analogy; "Bob" is not a single person but rather a town of a few thousand. And "pushed into Bob's attention span" means a book sitting on the shelf where any of the 'Bobs' can pick it up if they want to, or ignore it otherwise.
- matrix_overload 4y ago
  I don't think sitting on the shelf is ever a problem. What many people don't like is the reading events where the books presenting a complex problem from a very specific and questionable viewpoint are forced into kids' attention span without their parents explicitly asking for it.
  - pseudalopex 4y ago
    Books sitting on shelves are challenged all the time. The article had photos of materials distributed by opponents. They mentioned books added to the adult section. They didn't mention reading events. A Pride Month display in the young adult section was the closest thing. And where are children forced to attend public library readings?
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Whatever happened to parental supervision? My mother hated grim horror stuff, no Goosebumps for me. If the reading hour had books of that sort, my mother would pull me out of it. Those books were on the shelves, but she didn't allow me to read them. It's not like we're talking about public schooling where children are a captive audience of the state (at least for any family that can't afford private schooling.) Library reading hours for kids are entirely at the discretion of parents.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  In this particular case, I believe the issue was that the librarian was introducing lgbt the book to schoolchildren. They weren't just "on the shelf". That's why she resigned
Defletter 4y ago
Censorship is not merely the desire to not see information. Censorship requires power and moderation authority. Merely blocking someone or a subject from your social media feed does not constitute censorship. When a public authority defunds a library to the extent of facing shutdown because it's carrying unpopular content, that's censorship, plain and simple. There's no getting around that. Censorship doesn't need to be spelt out to be censorship.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  I think we need to clarify what's really at play here. The institution in question is a public library, funded by public money (taxes). Because the library operates at the cost of the taxpayers, the library has an implicit obligation to act in a manner satisfactory to the majority of the taxpayers. Ergo, the library operates at the pleasure of the public. Now, you might ask why the taxpayers have such powers over the library? That is because the taxpayers have a right to demand and have their tax dollars be spent in a way that is satisfactory to them. How do the taxpayers exercise their will, you might ask? By voting, as any upstanding citizen would do in a democracy, on measures that would allocate tax dollars to the library. And vote they did: 62% nays to 37% yays. In summary, this is not censorship; not the least because the audience for the library in question are the voters who voted against its continued funding. This is simply the public exercising their right to decide how their taxes that they paid are used.
  - danaris 4y ago
    No, the library has an obligation to act in the interest of the public. Not for the pleasure of the public. Your logic clearly invites the tyranny of the majority.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      No, the library cannot demand how other people spend their money. If it's funded by public money, it operates at the pleasure of the public.
  - mcphage 4y ago

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Seems like a tortured analogy; "Bob" is not a single person but rather a town of a few thousand. And "pushed into Bob's attention span" means a book sitting on the shelf where any of the 'Bobs' can pick it up if they want to, or ignore it otherwise.

matrix_overload 4y ago
I don't think sitting on the shelf is ever a problem. What many people don't like is the reading events where the books presenting a complex problem from a very specific and questionable viewpoint are forced into kids' attention span without their parents explicitly asking for it.
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  Books sitting on shelves are challenged all the time. The article had photos of materials distributed by opponents. They mentioned books added to the adult section. They didn't mention reading events. A Pride Month display in the young adult section was the closest thing. And where are children forced to attend public library readings?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Whatever happened to parental supervision? My mother hated grim horror stuff, no Goosebumps for me. If the reading hour had books of that sort, my mother would pull me out of it. Those books were on the shelves, but she didn't allow me to read them. It's not like we're talking about public schooling where children are a captive audience of the state (at least for any family that can't afford private schooling.) Library reading hours for kids are entirely at the discretion of parents.
koheripbal 4y ago
In this particular case, I believe the issue was that the librarian was introducing lgbt the book to schoolchildren. They weren't just "on the shelf". That's why she resigned

Defletter 4y ago

Censorship is not merely the desire to not see information. Censorship requires power and moderation authority. Merely blocking someone or a subject from your social media feed does not constitute censorship. When a public authority defunds a library to the extent of facing shutdown because it's carrying unpopular content, that's censorship, plain and simple. There's no getting around that. Censorship doesn't need to be spelt out to be censorship.

Dalewyn 4y ago
I think we need to clarify what's really at play here. The institution in question is a public library, funded by public money (taxes). Because the library operates at the cost of the taxpayers, the library has an implicit obligation to act in a manner satisfactory to the majority of the taxpayers. Ergo, the library operates at the pleasure of the public. Now, you might ask why the taxpayers have such powers over the library? That is because the taxpayers have a right to demand and have their tax dollars be spent in a way that is satisfactory to them. How do the taxpayers exercise their will, you might ask? By voting, as any upstanding citizen would do in a democracy, on measures that would allocate tax dollars to the library. And vote they did: 62% nays to 37% yays. In summary, this is not censorship; not the least because the audience for the library in question are the voters who voted against its continued funding. This is simply the public exercising their right to decide how their taxes that they paid are used.
- danaris 4y ago
  No, the library has an obligation to act in the interest of the public. Not for the pleasure of the public. Your logic clearly invites the tyranny of the majority.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    No, the library cannot demand how other people spend their money. If it's funded by public money, it operates at the pleasure of the public.
- mcphage 4y ago