2 ms·

Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument? I already stated a book that shouldn't be in school libraries, one that is debatable, and one that should proba

Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument? I already stated a book that shouldn't be in school libraries, one that is debatable, and one that should probably be included in libraries. My point about book banning or excluding, was that in the UK, as far as I am aware, we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library. It is left to the judgement of the librarian and not central or local government.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
> "Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument?" An Appeal to Extremes is not always inaccurate, nor always a fallacy. > "My point about book banning or excluding, was that in the UK, as far as I am aware, we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library. It is left to the judgement of the librarian and not central or local government." And you assume the government doesn't, or would not, put heavy pressure on any school or librarian that would dare have a book by David Duke on the shelves? Whether it be the UK or California? I actually like Florida because they make it clear and explicit instead of unclear and implicit, even if the results are identical but censoring different views. A written law, versus an unwritten rule.
- MarcScott 3y ago
  First off, thank you for the debate. It's what I come to HN for. Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people? I find it interesting that parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory. Should the Quran be available in libraries in Wyoming? Should the Bible be available in libraries in Pakistan?
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people? I don't know about each individual book listed; but I would like to sidestep that and address the fact idea that "parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory." This has always been true, and I believe, always will be true. Even the liberal free world has its limits beyond which you will experience outrage if you speak a certain thought. If Alex Jones wrote a book about Frog Biology, even the most astute "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately shout that has no place in the school. If David Duke wrote a book about understanding the Jewish race, once again, even the most "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately scream that should be purged from the shelves. I think many of the same individuals would be extremely opposed to a hypothetical book written by Trump entitled "Being a Good President and Fulfilling Your Civic Duties." Heck, what about "Andrew Tate's Guide to Being a Cool Dude?" What about "James Damore's guide to Diversity in Action at Google?" There is no disagreement, truly, that some books or ideas are beyond the pale. I think you would admit yourself that you would not want an Alex Jones Biology book to be where a child could find it even if it had no sexually explicit or otherwise harmful content other than the ideas inside of it. If you are opposed to any of my above hypotheticals (David Duke's Guide to Jews), you are admitting that sharing some ideas is harmful and should be stopped, like it or not. The only question is what content and what ideas is considered harmful. And of course, what standards determine what content should not be permitted. Florida has picked their standards - it's traditional religious opposition to LGBTQ+ content. Note that it's not even Christian opposition - There was an incident just last week with Islamic people in Canada burning the Rainbow flag (because there is only one religion on earth that still actively stones gays). They've chosen general religious values, as they generally apply across many religions' teachings. Like it? Don't like it? Don't pretend like either side doesn't have things they don't want to censor. It's what to censor, not whether we censor.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > It's what to censor, not whether we censor. Are you not going to try and draw any line at all to protect free speech rights in this scenario? I mean, if we're going to one extreme and talking about David Duke, we should also talk about the other extreme as well. If a school board decided that any book by a black author would not be allowed in the library, would you view that as an unreasonable exercise of government power? If a school board decided that any books that criticized a specific political party (either Republican or Democrat, pick whichever you'd like) should be banned, would that be an abuse of government power? What if they banned any text that referred positively to a religion, are we allowed to call that government overreach? Is there even such a thing as an unreasonable exercise of government power over school library content? Or should we just throw up our hands and say everything is fine and anybody can censor anything they want for school kids? Remember that the 1st Amendment does still apply to minors. We typically allow more government intervention into their lives than we do into the lives of adults, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that children have constitutional rights. So the question is not whether or not it's always wrong to censor material from a school library. Like you've said, there are types of content that pretty much everyone agrees should be censored from a school library. But that's not what we're asking; we're asking if it's crossing a line for the government to censor this content. Is it acceptable for a government to censor material based on (what you yourself describe as) explicitly religious criteria? That doesn't ring any 1st Amendment-related alarms for you? It's very common for people to attempt to sidestep questions about government censorship by (correctly) pointing out that all governments censor. But falling back on the commonly cited Popehat article (https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...): > The observation "not all speech is protected" adds nothing to a discussion because it offers no mechanism for determining whether the speech at issue falls into a traditional exception or not.
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        > Are you not going to try and draw any line at all to protect free speech rights in this scenario? [...] Remember that the 1st Amendment does still apply to minors. We typically allow more government intervention into their lives than we do into the lives of adults, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that children have constitutional rights. Yes, children have constitutional rights. Also, ironically, the US Government has ruled that these rights can be reasonably curtailed at public schools even though they are US Government funded. An example just a day ago, a judge ruled that a student could be disciplined for wearing a "There are two genders" T-Shirt. I'm not saying that's right or wrong - but that statement was just ruled to be not free expression on school grounds. First Amendment need not apply on school grounds, that's already established. > What if they banned any text that referred positively to a religion, are we allowed to call that government overreach? Do we arguably not do that now? I am sure that any books endorsing Osama Bin Laden's extremist interpretation of Islam is not welcome on shelves. > So the question is not whether or not it's always wrong to censor material from a school library. Like you've said, there are types of content that pretty much everyone agrees should be censored from a school library. But that's not what we're asking; we're asking if its crossing a line for the government to censor this content. There is, I believe, a major distinction you are forgetting. The First Amendment protects the student's right to speak - but does it actually protect the school's right to say whatever they wish to the students? Where do you assume that it works vice-versa? Schools can, and do, implement restrictions on vice-versa speech all the time. If a teacher starts, or attempts to start, a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old female student, he will almost certainly be fired and often legally investigated even if it was technically legal. If a teacher makes sexist jokes in class, the First Amendment won't protect him even if he was employed by the government, literally working on publicly-owned ground. > Is it acceptable for a government to censor material based on (what you yourself describe as) explicitly religious criteria? That doesn't ring any 1st Amendment-related alarms for you? To be fair, the First Amendment has always legally had an exception for obscenity from a judicial perspective. There was also the "Miller Test," which is still technically legally binding, declaring obscenity to not be legally protected. Nowadays, what is considered obscenity is very narrow - but it used to be far more broad and our earlier presidents and Founding Fathers saw no problem with that. Free Speech was intended by them to promote progress and intelligent discussion, not to promote what they would have viewed as debauchery, so they saw no conflict. This is also why laws making it a misdemeanor (at a minimum) to knowingly distribute pornography to a minor are still legal and binding right now.
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
The problem is your wording was poor at best. You said “ I'm a UK resident, and might not be understanding things correctly. *We don't do book banning or excluding over here.*”. This makes it sound as though NO book is EVER banned or excluded. Which is blatantly false.[0] If you had meant “we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library”, then you should have said that. Not make a false general statement. Though I’d be pleasantly surprised to hear that there are laws in place to prevent local/central government bans, considering the UK’s history of such things. Wikipedia doesn’t list such a law, although it does list that the last banned book was unbanned by your government in 1992, and that none have been added since. [0] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/20/third-of-uk-librarians-asked-to-censor-or-remove-books-research-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/20/third-of-uk-li...
- MarcScott 3y ago
  I did actually make that point in this comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36528598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36528598 and I apologise for my poor choice of wording.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    I suggest editing your initial comment with that clarification as to nip confusion in the bud. You made a good point, but it’s easy to miss/ignore your argument when your final sentence comes off as ”holier-than-thou” and dismissive.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument? Not banning anything is an extreme position. It literally cannot be anymore extreme in its permissiveness so any example is valid.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

> "Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument?" An Appeal to Extremes is not always inaccurate, nor always a fallacy. > "My point about book banning or excluding, was that in the UK, as far as I am aware, we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library. It is left to the judgement of the librarian and not central or local government." And you assume the government doesn't, or would not, put heavy pressure on any school or librarian that would dare have a book by David Duke on the shelves? Whether it be the UK or California? I actually like Florida because they make it clear and explicit instead of unclear and implicit, even if the results are identical but censoring different views. A written law, versus an unwritten rule.

MarcScott 3y ago
First off, thank you for the debate. It's what I come to HN for. Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people? I find it interesting that parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory. Should the Quran be available in libraries in Wyoming? Should the Bible be available in libraries in Pakistan?
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people? I don't know about each individual book listed; but I would like to sidestep that and address the fact idea that "parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory." This has always been true, and I believe, always will be true. Even the liberal free world has its limits beyond which you will experience outrage if you speak a certain thought. If Alex Jones wrote a book about Frog Biology, even the most astute "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately shout that has no place in the school. If David Duke wrote a book about understanding the Jewish race, once again, even the most "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately scream that should be purged from the shelves. I think many of the same individuals would be extremely opposed to a hypothetical book written by Trump entitled "Being a Good President and Fulfilling Your Civic Duties." Heck, what about "Andrew Tate's Guide to Being a Cool Dude?" What about "James Damore's guide to Diversity in Action at Google?" There is no disagreement, truly, that some books or ideas are beyond the pale. I think you would admit yourself that you would not want an Alex Jones Biology book to be where a child could find it even if it had no sexually explicit or otherwise harmful content other than the ideas inside of it. If you are opposed to any of my above hypotheticals (David Duke's Guide to Jews), you are admitting that sharing some ideas is harmful and should be stopped, like it or not. The only question is what content and what ideas is considered harmful. And of course, what standards determine what content should not be permitted. Florida has picked their standards - it's traditional religious opposition to LGBTQ+ content. Note that it's not even Christian opposition - There was an incident just last week with Islamic people in Canada burning the Rainbow flag (because there is only one religion on earth that still actively stones gays). They've chosen general religious values, as they generally apply across many religions' teachings. Like it? Don't like it? Don't pretend like either side doesn't have things they don't want to censor. It's what to censor, not whether we censor.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > It's what to censor, not whether we censor. Are you not going to try and draw any line at all to protect free speech rights in this scenario? I mean, if we're going to one extreme and talking about David Duke, we should also talk about the other extreme as well. If a school board decided that any book by a black author would not be allowed in the library, would you view that as an unreasonable exercise of government power? If a school board decided that any books that criticized a specific political party (either Republican or Democrat, pick whichever you'd like) should be banned, would that be an abuse of government power? What if they banned any text that referred positively to a religion, are we allowed to call that government overreach? Is there even such a thing as an unreasonable exercise of government power over school library content? Or should we just throw up our hands and say everything is fine and anybody can censor anything they want for school kids? Remember that the 1st Amendment does still apply to minors. We typically allow more government intervention into their lives than we do into the lives of adults, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that children have constitutional rights. So the question is not whether or not it's always wrong to censor material from a school library. Like you've said, there are types of content that pretty much everyone agrees should be censored from a school library. But that's not what we're asking; we're asking if it's crossing a line for the government to censor this content. Is it acceptable for a government to censor material based on (what you yourself describe as) explicitly religious criteria? That doesn't ring any 1st Amendment-related alarms for you? It's very common for people to attempt to sidestep questions about government censorship by (correctly) pointing out that all governments censor. But falling back on the commonly cited Popehat article (https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...): > The observation "not all speech is protected" adds nothing to a discussion because it offers no mechanism for determining whether the speech at issue falls into a traditional exception or not.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      > Are you not going to try and draw any line at all to protect free speech rights in this scenario? [...] Remember that the 1st Amendment does still apply to minors. We typically allow more government intervention into their lives than we do into the lives of adults, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that children have constitutional rights. Yes, children have constitutional rights. Also, ironically, the US Government has ruled that these rights can be reasonably curtailed at public schools even though they are US Government funded. An example just a day ago, a judge ruled that a student could be disciplined for wearing a "There are two genders" T-Shirt. I'm not saying that's right or wrong - but that statement was just ruled to be not free expression on school grounds. First Amendment need not apply on school grounds, that's already established. > What if they banned any text that referred positively to a religion, are we allowed to call that government overreach? Do we arguably not do that now? I am sure that any books endorsing Osama Bin Laden's extremist interpretation of Islam is not welcome on shelves. > So the question is not whether or not it's always wrong to censor material from a school library. Like you've said, there are types of content that pretty much everyone agrees should be censored from a school library. But that's not what we're asking; we're asking if its crossing a line for the government to censor this content. There is, I believe, a major distinction you are forgetting. The First Amendment protects the student's right to speak - but does it actually protect the school's right to say whatever they wish to the students? Where do you assume that it works vice-versa? Schools can, and do, implement restrictions on vice-versa speech all the time. If a teacher starts, or attempts to start, a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old female student, he will almost certainly be fired and often legally investigated even if it was technically legal. If a teacher makes sexist jokes in class, the First Amendment won't protect him even if he was employed by the government, literally working on publicly-owned ground. > Is it acceptable for a government to censor material based on (what you yourself describe as) explicitly religious criteria? That doesn't ring any 1st Amendment-related alarms for you? To be fair, the First Amendment has always legally had an exception for obscenity from a judicial perspective. There was also the "Miller Test," which is still technically legally binding, declaring obscenity to not be legally protected. Nowadays, what is considered obscenity is very narrow - but it used to be far more broad and our earlier presidents and Founding Fathers saw no problem with that. Free Speech was intended by them to promote progress and intelligent discussion, not to promote what they would have viewed as debauchery, so they saw no conflict. This is also why laws making it a misdemeanor (at a minimum) to knowingly distribute pornography to a minor are still legal and binding right now.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

The problem is your wording was poor at best. You said “ I'm a UK resident, and might not be understanding things correctly. *We don't do book banning or excluding over here.*”. This makes it sound as though NO book is EVER banned or excluded. Which is blatantly false.[0] If you had meant “we don't have any centralised list of books that can't be in a public or school library”, then you should have said that. Not make a false general statement. Though I’d be pleasantly surprised to hear that there are laws in place to prevent local/central government bans, considering the UK’s history of such things. Wikipedia doesn’t list such a law, although it does list that the last banned book was unbanned by your government in 1992, and that none have been added since. [0] - https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/20/third-of-uk-librarians-asked-to-censor-or-remove-books-research-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/20/third-of-uk-li...

MarcScott 3y ago
I did actually make that point in this comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36528598 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36528598 and I apologise for my poor choice of wording.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  I suggest editing your initial comment with that clarification as to nip confusion in the bud. You made a good point, but it’s easy to miss/ignore your argument when your final sentence comes off as ”holier-than-thou” and dismissive.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Isn't this just an Appeal to Extremes argument? Not banning anything is an extreme position. It literally cannot be anymore extreme in its permissiveness so any example is valid.