9 ms·

Yeah but “banning books” isn’t much of a thing. Even the ALA talks about “challenged books.” And most of the controversy involves school libraries - although t

Yeah but “banning books” isn’t much of a thing. Even the ALA talks about “challenged books.” And most of the controversy involves school libraries - although there are some exceptions. This bill just doesn’t do much. I’m not opposed to it. I guess it might do a little good. But it’s posturing by politicians.

readthenotes1 3y ago
I really doubt they'll let excerpts from those books be read in city council meetings or on the radio ....
woodruffw 3y ago
> And most of the controversy involves school libraries - although there are some exceptions. This is splitting hairs: removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books. Neither the article nor law implies that "book ban" in this context means anything other than "school book ban."
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  According to [1] There are about 130M published books in the world. So by your definition, does a school library with 13k books ban 99,99% of all books? [1]
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    You missed a link. No. Not stocking a book because it's physically impossible to stock all books in the world is not the same as banning it. The ALA's statement[1] is clear, and IMO common-sense: proscribing or removing content for doctrinal reasons is the problem. [1]: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      Sorry about the link. Not great for my credibility. The concrete "book bans" I've heard about have been that Maus is no longer required reading in 8th grade, or that explicit sex pictures are banned from middle school libraries. Neither seem terrible to me. What are the most egregious bans I might actually be upset by?
      - woodruffw 3y ago
        Please don't take this as a slight: why does your personal emotional reaction matter here? The idea that public libraries should be open sources of information shouldn't require hot-blooded sentiment from you or me. It's an extension of principles that you and I (notionally) agree on. That being said: I, for one, think that 8th graders should have Maus accessible to them; it's a difficult book substantively and in terms of presentation, but I don't think reading it is going to "damage" any 8th grader. "Required" is besides the point.
        BurningFrog 3y ago
        I own Maus myself and am a big fan. I agree about public libraries. Less convinced about school libraries for minors. My point was that when Maus stopped being part of required reading in one school district, that was reported as a "book ban", which is very misleading. So now I'm suspicious of other reported "book bans" until I've heard the details.
  - warent 3y ago
    If you bring a banned book into a library, they will reject it and turn it away on the basis of state extortion for risk of being defunded or other legal issues. That's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about curation, and it is bizarre mental gymnastics to propose they are remotely similar. EDIT. BTW even curation-excluded books are accepted by libraries. Libraries operate in networks, and they exchange / send overflow books to each other all the time.
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  I don't understand how you would think the two are the same. A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs. And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    > A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs. Every American that I know (including myself) understands the phrase "book ban" to refer widely, if not exclusively, to school libraries in the context of American politics. It's been nearly 70 years since we've had otherwise politically notable book bans[1]. > And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word? Yes. [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/banned-books-week-obscene-odes https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/banned-books-wee...
    - cassac 3y ago
      I would argue then that every American you know (including you) is a tiny bit wrong? I (and everyone I know) consider a book ban to be something like when 19th century Russia stated that no book could be written in Lithuanian. That’s a proper book ban. It was illegal to even own a book written in that language, and books that did exist were destroyed. Russia did book bans right! To say what’s going on now is a “book ban” that requires legislation is gas lighting at best and a false flag at worst.
      - woodruffw 3y ago
        I will be sure, going forwards, to ensure that my terms can simultaneously describe the struggles of 19th century Lithuanians. Seriously: what's the point of this comment? There will always be a worse example; what matters is that there's a shared meaning in this context.
        3y ago
- mutant_glofish 3y ago
  > de facto ban on those book Are you implying these books are so unpopular that a good chunk of their influence and profitability is very much dependent on left-wing public school librarians subsidizing them by making sure they are included in the catalogues? We should remember that a school library has limited space, so a decision is being made about what to include no matter what. If you think ideology/doctrine doesn't already play a role in these decisions, I invite you to check if the library of your local high school has a physical copy of say "When Harry Became Sally", "The Bell Curve", or even "The Blank Slate". In principle, my libertarian side would have agreed with you that imposing these choices in a centralized way is not a good idea. But those principles are only meaningful in a classical liberal context. Not when scourges of affirmative action, indoctrination, ideological subsidies [1] and pseudo-liberal bureaucratic processes are used to impose ludicrous ideas upon us. [1]: For examples of that, see https://dc.claremont.org/federal-progressive-subsidy-database/ https://dc.claremont.org/federal-progressive-subsidy-databas...
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    > Are you implying these books are so unpopular that a good chunk of their influence and profitability is very much dependent on left-wing public school librarians subsidizing them by making sure they are included in the catalogues? No; please don't editorialize. It's obvious that the goal of these bans is to ensure that children and young adults who otherwise wouldn't have access to these books continue to not have access. > I invite you to check if the library of your local high school has a physical copy of say "When Harry Became Sally", "The Bell Curve", or even "The Blank Slate" It has two of the three[1][2]. You need to reevaluate your assumptions here. (And note: I grew up in a district where students simultaneously have access to one of the largest public library systems in the world, by default. I'm positive I could find all three additionally in that system.) [1]: https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/search/all?q=The%20Bell%20Curve&ists=0&activeMenu=HOME https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/sear... [2]: https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/search/all?q=The%20Blank%20Slate&ists=0&activeMenu=HOME https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/sear...
    - 3y ago
- pyuser583 3y ago
  ~This bill doesn’t apply to school libraries.~
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    TFA says that it does in the very first sentence.
- imgabe 3y ago
  > removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books. No, it isn't. There are millions of books that aren't in school libraries. Are they all de facto banned? Confidently declaring something doesn't make it true. A library deciding not to carry a book is not a book ban.
  - rtpg 3y ago
    What about when libraries have books but then the state govt demands these books get taken out? How much context are we allowed to include in a judgement of an action? Never having a book, having it but having it be removed for non-content-related reasons, having it removed for content-related reasons, having the content removal decision come from librarians, or parents, or politicians, the public record of comments about why something is removed, all of these things are obviously important. Flattening it to "yeah lots of books aren't in libraries" is a _bit_ reductive! Good things are good, bad things are bad. Sometimes it's hard to write laws that work around this, but at the very least moral judgements can be made, with space for nuance.
    - mattmaroon 3y ago
      It’s still not a banning. Banning would be if you’re no longer allowed to bring a copy to school at all. In my high school (and boy am I dating myself here) The Anarchist’s Cookbook was actually banned. There’s a big difference between saying “we don’t think Tropic of Cancer is appropriate for high school kids so we’re going to remove it” and “Tropic of Cancer is banned in our schools”. The “book bans” happening are mostly the former and while I do think they’re mostly stupid, they’re nowhere near what you’d think is happening from headlines. Very little actual banning is occurring.
      - rtpg 3y ago
        Right, that is a distinction. I do think it's important to think about the fact that school libraries are where kids tend to access a lot of books (there are of course city libraries, but those places are also being targeted). At least my experience was around that. And many libraries will have a request system, so if a kid is like "I want to read this", then libraries are able to often put in a purchase order, and then make that available for other students. At least based on my own school experiences, I do think that teachers of a certain ... authoritarian bent would be more than happy to make up a stink of books brought in that would be "banned" from the library if a copy circulating were brought to their attention. Power structures in schools are like that. But that's just conjecture. I think the general point of the "book ban" terminology is that librarians and schools generally had leeway to bring in more or less anything to the library, and that autonomy is being stripped away for very dark reasons. This is the age of the internet, but from my own childhood, if my school and city library suddenly decided to not provide certain kinds of book, I would just not have access to that at all. All that to say that you're right on the word in some sense, but it feels fitting to me.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > This is splitting hairs: removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books. No, it isn't. You're trivialising actual book bans by referring to public education literature selection as a "ban". Lots of books aren't in the school library; doesn't mean that they're banned - you can still buy them and read them to your kids, take them out of public libraries, read them on the internet ... all without any legal or unofficial consequences.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I'm not trivializing anything; they're different things, with contextual phrases. Removing these books from school libraries is done with the understanding that the students won't otherwise be able to access them, i.e. they can't get to a bookstore or public library without their parent and their parent will also refuse to keep it at home. That is a de facto ban. Now: you might happen to think that it's good that these books can't be accessed, which is something that can (and is) being discussed. But I don't think it's worth mincing words over what's happening, especially given that it's a standard (and non-partisan) use of the phrase "book ban" in the US.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
pessimizer 3y ago
Pritzker and Giannoulias, so extremely ambitious and well-resourced politicians.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

readthenotes1 3y ago

I really doubt they'll let excerpts from those books be read in city council meetings or on the radio ....

woodruffw 3y ago

> And most of the controversy involves school libraries - although there are some exceptions. This is splitting hairs: removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books. Neither the article nor law implies that "book ban" in this context means anything other than "school book ban."

BurningFrog 3y ago
According to [1] There are about 130M published books in the world. So by your definition, does a school library with 13k books ban 99,99% of all books? [1]
- woodruffw 3y ago
  You missed a link. No. Not stocking a book because it's physically impossible to stock all books in the world is not the same as banning it. The ALA's statement[1] is clear, and IMO common-sense: proscribing or removing content for doctrinal reasons is the problem. [1]: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    Sorry about the link. Not great for my credibility. The concrete "book bans" I've heard about have been that Maus is no longer required reading in 8th grade, or that explicit sex pictures are banned from middle school libraries. Neither seem terrible to me. What are the most egregious bans I might actually be upset by?
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      Please don't take this as a slight: why does your personal emotional reaction matter here? The idea that public libraries should be open sources of information shouldn't require hot-blooded sentiment from you or me. It's an extension of principles that you and I (notionally) agree on. That being said: I, for one, think that 8th graders should have Maus accessible to them; it's a difficult book substantively and in terms of presentation, but I don't think reading it is going to "damage" any 8th grader. "Required" is besides the point.
      - BurningFrog 3y ago
        I own Maus myself and am a big fan. I agree about public libraries. Less convinced about school libraries for minors. My point was that when Maus stopped being part of required reading in one school district, that was reported as a "book ban", which is very misleading. So now I'm suspicious of other reported "book bans" until I've heard the details.
- warent 3y ago
  If you bring a banned book into a library, they will reject it and turn it away on the basis of state extortion for risk of being defunded or other legal issues. That's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about curation, and it is bizarre mental gymnastics to propose they are remotely similar. EDIT. BTW even curation-excluded books are accepted by libraries. Libraries operate in networks, and they exchange / send overflow books to each other all the time.
georgeplusplus 3y ago
I don't understand how you would think the two are the same. A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs. And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?
- woodruffw 3y ago
  > A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs. Every American that I know (including myself) understands the phrase "book ban" to refer widely, if not exclusively, to school libraries in the context of American politics. It's been nearly 70 years since we've had otherwise politically notable book bans[1]. > And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word? Yes. [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/banned-books-week-obscene-odes https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/banned-books-wee...
  - cassac 3y ago
    I would argue then that every American you know (including you) is a tiny bit wrong? I (and everyone I know) consider a book ban to be something like when 19th century Russia stated that no book could be written in Lithuanian. That’s a proper book ban. It was illegal to even own a book written in that language, and books that did exist were destroyed. Russia did book bans right! To say what’s going on now is a “book ban” that requires legislation is gas lighting at best and a false flag at worst.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      I will be sure, going forwards, to ensure that my terms can simultaneously describe the struggles of 19th century Lithuanians. Seriously: what's the point of this comment? There will always be a worse example; what matters is that there's a shared meaning in this context.
      - 3y ago
mutant_glofish 3y ago
> de facto ban on those book Are you implying these books are so unpopular that a good chunk of their influence and profitability is very much dependent on left-wing public school librarians subsidizing them by making sure they are included in the catalogues? We should remember that a school library has limited space, so a decision is being made about what to include no matter what. If you think ideology/doctrine doesn't already play a role in these decisions, I invite you to check if the library of your local high school has a physical copy of say "When Harry Became Sally", "The Bell Curve", or even "The Blank Slate". In principle, my libertarian side would have agreed with you that imposing these choices in a centralized way is not a good idea. But those principles are only meaningful in a classical liberal context. Not when scourges of affirmative action, indoctrination, ideological subsidies [1] and pseudo-liberal bureaucratic processes are used to impose ludicrous ideas upon us. [1]: For examples of that, see https://dc.claremont.org/federal-progressive-subsidy-database/ https://dc.claremont.org/federal-progressive-subsidy-databas...
- woodruffw 3y ago
  > Are you implying these books are so unpopular that a good chunk of their influence and profitability is very much dependent on left-wing public school librarians subsidizing them by making sure they are included in the catalogues? No; please don't editorialize. It's obvious that the goal of these bans is to ensure that children and young adults who otherwise wouldn't have access to these books continue to not have access. > I invite you to check if the library of your local high school has a physical copy of say "When Harry Became Sally", "The Bell Curve", or even "The Blank Slate" It has two of the three[1][2]. You need to reevaluate your assumptions here. (And note: I grew up in a district where students simultaneously have access to one of the largest public library systems in the world, by default. I'm positive I could find all three additionally in that system.) [1]: https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/search/all?q=The%20Bell%20Curve&ists=0&activeMenu=HOME https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/sear... [2]: https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/search/all?q=The%20Blank%20Slate&ists=0&activeMenu=HOME https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/sear...
  - 3y ago
pyuser583 3y ago
~This bill doesn’t apply to school libraries.~
- woodruffw 3y ago
  TFA says that it does in the very first sentence.
imgabe 3y ago
> removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books. No, it isn't. There are millions of books that aren't in school libraries. Are they all de facto banned? Confidently declaring something doesn't make it true. A library deciding not to carry a book is not a book ban.
- rtpg 3y ago
  What about when libraries have books but then the state govt demands these books get taken out? How much context are we allowed to include in a judgement of an action? Never having a book, having it but having it be removed for non-content-related reasons, having it removed for content-related reasons, having the content removal decision come from librarians, or parents, or politicians, the public record of comments about why something is removed, all of these things are obviously important. Flattening it to "yeah lots of books aren't in libraries" is a _bit_ reductive! Good things are good, bad things are bad. Sometimes it's hard to write laws that work around this, but at the very least moral judgements can be made, with space for nuance.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    It’s still not a banning. Banning would be if you’re no longer allowed to bring a copy to school at all. In my high school (and boy am I dating myself here) The Anarchist’s Cookbook was actually banned. There’s a big difference between saying “we don’t think Tropic of Cancer is appropriate for high school kids so we’re going to remove it” and “Tropic of Cancer is banned in our schools”. The “book bans” happening are mostly the former and while I do think they’re mostly stupid, they’re nowhere near what you’d think is happening from headlines. Very little actual banning is occurring.
    - rtpg 3y ago
      Right, that is a distinction. I do think it's important to think about the fact that school libraries are where kids tend to access a lot of books (there are of course city libraries, but those places are also being targeted). At least my experience was around that. And many libraries will have a request system, so if a kid is like "I want to read this", then libraries are able to often put in a purchase order, and then make that available for other students. At least based on my own school experiences, I do think that teachers of a certain ... authoritarian bent would be more than happy to make up a stink of books brought in that would be "banned" from the library if a copy circulating were brought to their attention. Power structures in schools are like that. But that's just conjecture. I think the general point of the "book ban" terminology is that librarians and schools generally had leeway to bring in more or less anything to the library, and that autonomy is being stripped away for very dark reasons. This is the age of the internet, but from my own childhood, if my school and city library suddenly decided to not provide certain kinds of book, I would just not have access to that at all. All that to say that you're right on the word in some sense, but it feels fitting to me.
lelanthran 3y ago
> This is splitting hairs: removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books. No, it isn't. You're trivialising actual book bans by referring to public education literature selection as a "ban". Lots of books aren't in the school library; doesn't mean that they're banned - you can still buy them and read them to your kids, take them out of public libraries, read them on the internet ... all without any legal or unofficial consequences.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I'm not trivializing anything; they're different things, with contextual phrases. Removing these books from school libraries is done with the understanding that the students won't otherwise be able to access them, i.e. they can't get to a bookstore or public library without their parent and their parent will also refuse to keep it at home. That is a de facto ban. Now: you might happen to think that it's good that these books can't be accessed, which is something that can (and is) being discussed. But I don't think it's worth mincing words over what's happening, especially given that it's a standard (and non-partisan) use of the phrase "book ban" in the US.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

pessimizer 3y ago

Pritzker and Giannoulias, so extremely ambitious and well-resourced politicians.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]