4 ms·

It's not censoring books; rather a state choosing which books to publicly fund in school libraries. No one is banning parents from buying those books on their o

It's not censoring books; rather a state choosing which books to publicly fund in school libraries. No one is banning parents from buying those books on their own dime. Schools are publicly funded by taxes; those taxes are apportioned by elected representatives. The legislature has the right to dictate what the money can and can't be used for. That's not censorship.

kimbernator 4y ago
Not everyone can afford to just buy whatever books they want, but they still pay taxes. It's a huge cop-out to say "oh it's not banning the books completely, just removing the only method by which tons of people are able to access that literature." It's a huge violation of the spirit of libraries. It is effectively censorship. I guaranteed that the bible, despite portraying just about every subject they are trying to hide, is present in every single school library in the state. Saying that kids only get free access to the books the state legislators agree with is absolutely censorship.
DSMan195276 4y ago
So then it would be fine if a parent bought such a book and donated it to a school library?
remarkEon 4y ago
What's been really jarring about this issue is that everyone is calling it a "book ban", when it demonstrably is not. It's removing certain (in some cases pornographic) material from school curricula and libraries. Maybe you can steelman an argument that goes something like "if they remove this from school curricula and libraries, they'll try to remove it from the [everywhere else] too". This is of course silly. Plus, you can just go actually read the text of these laws.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Avshalom 4y ago
  >(in some cases pornographic) so what was going on in all those other cases? >they'll try to remove it from the [everywhere else] too" https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/05/gop-lawmaker-petitions-court-ban-barnes-noble-selling-queer-book/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/05/gop-lawmaker-petitions-c... hey look they've already started escalating. Now, that one got dismissed but yeah, your "steelman" is not in fact "silly"
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    The other cases are borderline. Not truly “porn”, but definitely something a parent might object to. I don’t get the backlash here at all. Parents can inform what goes into curricula and that’s what’s happened here. Also, a nakedly unconstitutional attempt to control the inventory of a private company is not exactly the greatest example of an escalating.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  > calling it a "book ban", when it demonstrably is not. It's removing certain (in some cases pornographic) material from school curricula and libraries. Removing certain books from all the libraries is what we call "banning" those books. That's literally what the term means. > you can just go actually read the text of these laws Here, kid, no Judy Bloom for you, but you can read the law that prohibits her book? That's just sick.
tzs 4y ago
It's a state trying to pull all state funding for public libraries (not just school libraries--all public libraries) because a couple library associations are suing over the constitutionality of an earlier law. And the law they are now trying to pass to defund the libraries is possibly not constitutional under the state constitution since that requires the state to fund public libraries. That's worse than censorship.
yamtaddle 4y ago
Sure—and, traditionally, local school boards have dealt with all that just fine. Which, given the fraction of funding that comes from local property taxes in most districts, seems appropriate to me. This is big government stepping in to override decisions of local governments that they disagree with.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  You may not like it, but this is how democracy works.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Is there a point somewhere in this comment?
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      My point is that it's perfectly normal in a democracy for a higher level authority to decide to intervene in lower level activities. People seem to get mad when they read a report about a town or city or state far away from where they live that has chosen to do things they disagree with.
tablespoon 4y ago
> It's not censoring books; rather a state choosing which books to publicly fund in school libraries. No one is banning parents from buying those books on their own dime. It's censorship and an infringement on the basic constitutional rights of public employees to independently make purchasing decisions for the government.
drewcoo 4y ago
By the same argument, shutting down all the public schools isn't depriving children of education. Because any parents could pay for private school on their own dime.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
It's discrimination. It's the same as choosing to include one bible and pointedly not another. I object to my taxes you mentioned being used in that manner. I pay for education not indoctrination and ignorance. A large, perhaps the largest function of education is to expose the mind to the variety of the world. Selectively masking off parts of it is literally creating ignorance not education.

kimbernator 4y ago

Not everyone can afford to just buy whatever books they want, but they still pay taxes. It's a huge cop-out to say "oh it's not banning the books completely, just removing the only method by which tons of people are able to access that literature." It's a huge violation of the spirit of libraries. It is effectively censorship. I guaranteed that the bible, despite portraying just about every subject they are trying to hide, is present in every single school library in the state. Saying that kids only get free access to the books the state legislators agree with is absolutely censorship.

DSMan195276 4y ago

So then it would be fine if a parent bought such a book and donated it to a school library?

remarkEon 4y ago

What's been really jarring about this issue is that everyone is calling it a "book ban", when it demonstrably is not. It's removing certain (in some cases pornographic) material from school curricula and libraries. Maybe you can steelman an argument that goes something like "if they remove this from school curricula and libraries, they'll try to remove it from the [everywhere else] too". This is of course silly. Plus, you can just go actually read the text of these laws.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Avshalom 4y ago
>(in some cases pornographic) so what was going on in all those other cases? >they'll try to remove it from the [everywhere else] too" https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/05/gop-lawmaker-petitions-court-ban-barnes-noble-selling-queer-book/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/05/gop-lawmaker-petitions-c... hey look they've already started escalating. Now, that one got dismissed but yeah, your "steelman" is not in fact "silly"
- remarkEon 4y ago
  The other cases are borderline. Not truly “porn”, but definitely something a parent might object to. I don’t get the backlash here at all. Parents can inform what goes into curricula and that’s what’s happened here. Also, a nakedly unconstitutional attempt to control the inventory of a private company is not exactly the greatest example of an escalating.
drewcoo 4y ago
> calling it a "book ban", when it demonstrably is not. It's removing certain (in some cases pornographic) material from school curricula and libraries. Removing certain books from all the libraries is what we call "banning" those books. That's literally what the term means. > you can just go actually read the text of these laws Here, kid, no Judy Bloom for you, but you can read the law that prohibits her book? That's just sick.

tzs 4y ago

It's a state trying to pull all state funding for public libraries (not just school libraries--all public libraries) because a couple library associations are suing over the constitutionality of an earlier law. And the law they are now trying to pass to defund the libraries is possibly not constitutional under the state constitution since that requires the state to fund public libraries. That's worse than censorship.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Sure—and, traditionally, local school boards have dealt with all that just fine. Which, given the fraction of funding that comes from local property taxes in most districts, seems appropriate to me. This is big government stepping in to override decisions of local governments that they disagree with.

remarkEon 4y ago
You may not like it, but this is how democracy works.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Is there a point somewhere in this comment?
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    My point is that it's perfectly normal in a democracy for a higher level authority to decide to intervene in lower level activities. People seem to get mad when they read a report about a town or city or state far away from where they live that has chosen to do things they disagree with.

tablespoon 4y ago

> It's not censoring books; rather a state choosing which books to publicly fund in school libraries. No one is banning parents from buying those books on their own dime. It's censorship and an infringement on the basic constitutional rights of public employees to independently make purchasing decisions for the government.

drewcoo 4y ago

By the same argument, shutting down all the public schools isn't depriving children of education. Because any parents could pay for private school on their own dime.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

It's discrimination. It's the same as choosing to include one bible and pointedly not another. I object to my taxes you mentioned being used in that manner. I pay for education not indoctrination and ignorance. A large, perhaps the largest function of education is to expose the mind to the variety of the world. Selectively masking off parts of it is literally creating ignorance not education.