3 ms·

I can understand the principle here. Just to confirm, though, you'd then have no problems with controversial books being donated by private groups to public lib

I can understand the principle here. Just to confirm, though, you'd then have no problems with controversial books being donated by private groups to public libraries, is that right? Or are there other considerations in your calculus.

rayiner 3y ago
No, because taxpayers are still paying for the shelf space. It’s their building and they get to decide what’s in it. Now, if private groups want to rent space and make certain books available there, they’re welcome to do that.
- theRealMe 3y ago
  Lmao you’re literally arguing about the cost of the shelf space for a book in a library now? What if the people that donated the books also donated money for shelf space? It’s literally free to tax payers then. You must realize at this point that you don’t actually care about the cost, you care about having your majority opinion be the only available opinion.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    The cost itself is obviously incidental--the point is that public ownership of the shelves means public control of what's on the shelves. It's not "censorship" for the public to control what content is given a platform in taxpayer funded libraries, any more than it's "censorship" for Apple to decide what products are given shelf space in its stores.
    - gameman144 3y ago
      > It's not "censorship" for the public to control what content is given a platform in taxpayer funded libraries, any more than it's "censorship" for Apple to decide what products are given shelf space in its stores. Wait, but both of those are censorship of a form; Apple is just allowed to censor whatever it wants. Taken to the extreme, should a library be allowed to stock only books that promote the political party of whoever won the latest election? Obviously decisions for shelf space have to be made. If those decisions for shelf space are made solely by the government's dislike of the material, though, that feels pretty obviously like government censorship to me.

rayiner 3y ago

No, because taxpayers are still paying for the shelf space. It’s their building and they get to decide what’s in it. Now, if private groups want to rent space and make certain books available there, they’re welcome to do that.

theRealMe 3y ago
Lmao you’re literally arguing about the cost of the shelf space for a book in a library now? What if the people that donated the books also donated money for shelf space? It’s literally free to tax payers then. You must realize at this point that you don’t actually care about the cost, you care about having your majority opinion be the only available opinion.
- rayiner 3y ago
  The cost itself is obviously incidental--the point is that public ownership of the shelves means public control of what's on the shelves. It's not "censorship" for the public to control what content is given a platform in taxpayer funded libraries, any more than it's "censorship" for Apple to decide what products are given shelf space in its stores.
  - gameman144 3y ago
    > It's not "censorship" for the public to control what content is given a platform in taxpayer funded libraries, any more than it's "censorship" for Apple to decide what products are given shelf space in its stores. Wait, but both of those are censorship of a form; Apple is just allowed to censor whatever it wants. Taken to the extreme, should a library be allowed to stock only books that promote the political party of whoever won the latest election? Obviously decisions for shelf space have to be made. If those decisions for shelf space are made solely by the government's dislike of the material, though, that feels pretty obviously like government censorship to me.