3 ms·

I’m confused by your framing, how is banning book bans outsourcing the job of socializing children? What role do potential book bans have on children’s social d

I’m confused by your framing, how is banning book bans outsourcing the job of socializing children? What role do potential book bans have on children’s social development? I’m also a bit curious why a child’s right to access certain literature can’t be specified in a “Bill of Rights”.

rayiner 3y ago
You’re begging the question. The taxpayers are just deciding what materials to provide through a taxpayer-funded service, no different than the taxpayers choosing what public transit routes to provide. Since public libraries are an important vehicle for socializing children, the public is entitled to curate the material available in libraries towards those ends. Again, it’s no different than choosing public transit routes that service the voting public’s particular priorities. And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. The government can’t dictate to parents what materials they allow their children to access. But the public doesn’t have to pay and make that material available in public libraries.
- runarberg 3y ago
  > And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. I might have a difference idea of democracy from you, but this feels a deep undemocratic way to go. Democracy dies in the darkness, free access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. All democracies have some sort of a public archive which distributes knowledge to the general public, most of the time for free. In the absence of such system you will at best have aristocracy. So yes, if we want to live in a democracy—or at least how I understand democracy—everybody should have the “right” to have the government provide them with free access to any particular information. Particularly in the school system as a part of public and universal education (another important aspect of democracy). Regarding the public transit analogy. Ideally in a democratic society where transportation equity is provided, the public should be entitled to provide input into the transportation system, but everybody living inside a reasonable density should be provided with some transit option (I live in a pretty rural place near Seattle but still I have two bus lines near my home which go to two ferry terminals, where there are four ferry lines, I consider my transportation needs “provided for” in the system). However in this ideal democracy, the input only goes to policy makers, who ultimately decide (or curate) frequency, routes, etc. based on both these inputs, but also experts in the field. If everybody is covered, and riders have some input, I would call that system democratic. What wouldn’t be democratic is if non-riding taxpayers would decide that people in certain area (say Vashon Island) shouldn’t get any buses. Or that buses should be banned in some areas (say between Woodenville and Bothell).
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > I might have a difference idea of democracy from you, but this feels a deep undemocratic way to go. Democracy dies in the darkness, free access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. All democracies have some sort of a public archive which distributes knowledge to the general public, most of the time for free. In the absence of such system you will at best have aristocracy. That’s not democracy, it’s liberalism. Real democracy includes the right of the majority to decide which ideas will be promoted at the public expense and which ideas will not receive a public platform.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  > And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. The government can’t dictate to parents what materials they allow their children to access. But the public doesn’t have to pay and make that material available in public libraries. Don't we though? Presuming that we have decided that the government will provide public libraries (a service we'll assume is intended to promote the general welfare, or somesuch), it wouldn't be legal, as I understand it, to pass a law refusing to let libraries purchase the Bible, nor could the law prevent libraries from storing books on black history, by black authors. Either ban would run into equal protection and 1a issues. You're making this an argument about purchasing books, but in almost all cases, the actual things happening here are removal (and destruction) of books already on library shelves. And while there are costs to sustain and store stock at libraries, those costs are extremely low comparatively, and removal of existing books is almost certainly 1a relevant. (To be clear, this is legitimately a question. You know more about constitutional jurisprudence than I do, but my understanding is that libraries banning books isn't usually acceptable from a power of the purse situation, much as like apparently title VI complaints about discriminatory transit practices can also succeed)

rayiner 3y ago

You’re begging the question. The taxpayers are just deciding what materials to provide through a taxpayer-funded service, no different than the taxpayers choosing what public transit routes to provide. Since public libraries are an important vehicle for socializing children, the public is entitled to curate the material available in libraries towards those ends. Again, it’s no different than choosing public transit routes that service the voting public’s particular priorities. And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. The government can’t dictate to parents what materials they allow their children to access. But the public doesn’t have to pay and make that material available in public libraries.

runarberg 3y ago
> And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. I might have a difference idea of democracy from you, but this feels a deep undemocratic way to go. Democracy dies in the darkness, free access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. All democracies have some sort of a public archive which distributes knowledge to the general public, most of the time for free. In the absence of such system you will at best have aristocracy. So yes, if we want to live in a democracy—or at least how I understand democracy—everybody should have the “right” to have the government provide them with free access to any particular information. Particularly in the school system as a part of public and universal education (another important aspect of democracy). Regarding the public transit analogy. Ideally in a democratic society where transportation equity is provided, the public should be entitled to provide input into the transportation system, but everybody living inside a reasonable density should be provided with some transit option (I live in a pretty rural place near Seattle but still I have two bus lines near my home which go to two ferry terminals, where there are four ferry lines, I consider my transportation needs “provided for” in the system). However in this ideal democracy, the input only goes to policy makers, who ultimately decide (or curate) frequency, routes, etc. based on both these inputs, but also experts in the field. If everybody is covered, and riders have some input, I would call that system democratic. What wouldn’t be democratic is if non-riding taxpayers would decide that people in certain area (say Vashon Island) shouldn’t get any buses. Or that buses should be banned in some areas (say between Woodenville and Bothell).
- rayiner 3y ago
  > I might have a difference idea of democracy from you, but this feels a deep undemocratic way to go. Democracy dies in the darkness, free access to information is one of the cornerstones of democracy. All democracies have some sort of a public archive which distributes knowledge to the general public, most of the time for free. In the absence of such system you will at best have aristocracy. That’s not democracy, it’s liberalism. Real democracy includes the right of the majority to decide which ideas will be promoted at the public expense and which ideas will not receive a public platform.
joshuamorton 3y ago
> And nobody has a “right” to have the government provide them free access to any particular information in public libraries. The government can’t dictate to parents what materials they allow their children to access. But the public doesn’t have to pay and make that material available in public libraries. Don't we though? Presuming that we have decided that the government will provide public libraries (a service we'll assume is intended to promote the general welfare, or somesuch), it wouldn't be legal, as I understand it, to pass a law refusing to let libraries purchase the Bible, nor could the law prevent libraries from storing books on black history, by black authors. Either ban would run into equal protection and 1a issues. You're making this an argument about purchasing books, but in almost all cases, the actual things happening here are removal (and destruction) of books already on library shelves. And while there are costs to sustain and store stock at libraries, those costs are extremely low comparatively, and removal of existing books is almost certainly 1a relevant. (To be clear, this is legitimately a question. You know more about constitutional jurisprudence than I do, but my understanding is that libraries banning books isn't usually acceptable from a power of the purse situation, much as like apparently title VI complaints about discriminatory transit practices can also succeed)