3 ms·

No library system is under any particular obligation to stock what you give them, much less accept donations to begin with. It's unclear why they would be, much

No library system is under any particular obligation to stock what you give them, much less accept donations to begin with. It's unclear why they would be, much less why this would be a "gotcha" in this context.

refurb 3y ago
So what you're saying is any library can ban a book?
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I don’t understand. Did you think that you could just spam libraries with books before this law? Libraries refusing to stock whatever mystery material is thrown at them is a logistical concern, not a matter of “banning.” Confusing the two borders on legal crank reasoning.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > Did you think that you could just spam libraries with books before this law? Semantic games - especially false equivalences - are part and parcel of the culture wars. "Book bans are fine because librarians have been 'banning' books. Checkmate"
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Curation =/= banning. Telling curators (librarians) "You can't have any book on this list even if you want them, or you'll go to jail" is banning books.
  - tomp 3y ago
    What’s the practical difference though? Someone still decides the book is not gonna be there, mostly for ideological reasons. I guess if you agree with those reasons, it’s “curation”, if you don’t, it’s “banning”.
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > What’s the practical difference though? The practical difference is that, in one case, the taxpayers collectively decide what's appropriate for their children and what is not. In the other case, a single (or a few) individuals decide what is appropriate for all the taxpayers children. I don't understand why some people think it's better to ignore the wishes of the voters.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > I guess if you agree with those reasons, it’s “curation”, if you don’t, it’s “banning”. Curation is part of the job for librarians, and it's a specialized skill. I don't have to agree with an ideology to accept what they do is curation - a Librarian in a Taliban library still curates their collection regardless of my endorsement of Sharia. If they are instructed by Kabul to remove specific texts, then it's a ban. Someone decides what music gets played on radio and what the TV lineup looks like and calling that selection "banning" is reaching IMO . When the legislature is coming up with a blacklist, then it's blatantly "banning" to me
aidenn0 3y ago
If they are under no obligation to stock any particular book, then what is the point of this law?
- woodruffw 3y ago
  Because they are under an obligation to not stock or not stock for doctrinal, partisan, etc. reasons. In other words: there are plenty of reasons to not stock a book that are not partisan or doctrinal. We don't expect public schools to pay for expensive medieval manuscripts, for example, or to stock books in languages that aren't represented in their district.
  - aidenn0 3y ago
    Ah, I found the doctrinal/partisan language after following some links. I don't see how pornographic bans wouldn't qualify as "doctrinal" though they are not particularly partisan.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      > I don't see how pornographic bans wouldn't qualify as "doctrinal" though they are not particularly partisan. You're leading with the assumption that you and I (or anyone else, really) agrees on what "pornography" is, much less that we agree in a non-partisan context. The context here is that there's been a significant effort in the last ~18 months to reclassify LGBTQ fiction and non-fiction as pornographic and have it removed from school libraries on that ground. Justifications for that vary, from the more staid pearl-clutching ones, to rehashes of old and dangerous stereotypes about gays predating on children. That is absolutely a doctrinal concern, even if the nominal topic ("don't show children porn") is one that appears reasonable and uncontroversial on face value.
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      "Doctrinal" isn't defined in the bill so far as I can see, which means it has its ordinary definition, something along the lines of relating to the message of the text. Pornography bans are justified by obscenity, which has a specific test given by SCOTUS, of which the third prong is that it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," which is effectively tantamount to saying that it has no message that can be disagreed with. So if you're attempting to ban it because it's obscene, that's okay. But if you're trying to call it pornographic because the lead characters are in a romantic relationship and happen to be of the same sex... well, that's not obscene, and your attempt to call it pornographic is doctrinal disapproval.
localplume 3y ago
[dead]

refurb 3y ago

So what you're saying is any library can ban a book?

woodruffw 3y ago
I don’t understand. Did you think that you could just spam libraries with books before this law? Libraries refusing to stock whatever mystery material is thrown at them is a logistical concern, not a matter of “banning.” Confusing the two borders on legal crank reasoning.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > Did you think that you could just spam libraries with books before this law? Semantic games - especially false equivalences - are part and parcel of the culture wars. "Book bans are fine because librarians have been 'banning' books. Checkmate"
sangnoir 3y ago
Curation =/= banning. Telling curators (librarians) "You can't have any book on this list even if you want them, or you'll go to jail" is banning books.
- tomp 3y ago
  What’s the practical difference though? Someone still decides the book is not gonna be there, mostly for ideological reasons. I guess if you agree with those reasons, it’s “curation”, if you don’t, it’s “banning”.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > What’s the practical difference though? The practical difference is that, in one case, the taxpayers collectively decide what's appropriate for their children and what is not. In the other case, a single (or a few) individuals decide what is appropriate for all the taxpayers children. I don't understand why some people think it's better to ignore the wishes of the voters.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    > I guess if you agree with those reasons, it’s “curation”, if you don’t, it’s “banning”. Curation is part of the job for librarians, and it's a specialized skill. I don't have to agree with an ideology to accept what they do is curation - a Librarian in a Taliban library still curates their collection regardless of my endorsement of Sharia. If they are instructed by Kabul to remove specific texts, then it's a ban. Someone decides what music gets played on radio and what the TV lineup looks like and calling that selection "banning" is reaching IMO . When the legislature is coming up with a blacklist, then it's blatantly "banning" to me

aidenn0 3y ago

If they are under no obligation to stock any particular book, then what is the point of this law?

woodruffw 3y ago
Because they are under an obligation to not stock or not stock for doctrinal, partisan, etc. reasons. In other words: there are plenty of reasons to not stock a book that are not partisan or doctrinal. We don't expect public schools to pay for expensive medieval manuscripts, for example, or to stock books in languages that aren't represented in their district.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Ah, I found the doctrinal/partisan language after following some links. I don't see how pornographic bans wouldn't qualify as "doctrinal" though they are not particularly partisan.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    > I don't see how pornographic bans wouldn't qualify as "doctrinal" though they are not particularly partisan. You're leading with the assumption that you and I (or anyone else, really) agrees on what "pornography" is, much less that we agree in a non-partisan context. The context here is that there's been a significant effort in the last ~18 months to reclassify LGBTQ fiction and non-fiction as pornographic and have it removed from school libraries on that ground. Justifications for that vary, from the more staid pearl-clutching ones, to rehashes of old and dangerous stereotypes about gays predating on children. That is absolutely a doctrinal concern, even if the nominal topic ("don't show children porn") is one that appears reasonable and uncontroversial on face value.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    "Doctrinal" isn't defined in the bill so far as I can see, which means it has its ordinary definition, something along the lines of relating to the message of the text. Pornography bans are justified by obscenity, which has a specific test given by SCOTUS, of which the third prong is that it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," which is effectively tantamount to saying that it has no message that can be disagreed with. So if you're attempting to ban it because it's obscene, that's okay. But if you're trying to call it pornographic because the lead characters are in a romantic relationship and happen to be of the same sex... well, that's not obscene, and your attempt to call it pornographic is doctrinal disapproval.

localplume 3y ago

[dead]