4 ms·

> I saw graphic sexual acts in schoolbooks and children books at the age of ten 50 years ago. In Europe, not US. How would you feel if American values were imp

> I saw graphic sexual acts in schoolbooks and children books at the age of ten 50 years ago. In Europe, not US. How would you feel if American values were imposed on your European community? And how do you think Americans would feel if your European values were imposed on their community? These libraries and schools are funded at a local level, so it is locals who get a say in how that funding is used or the conditions under which it may be withdrawn. Incidentally, a public library is not necessarily publicly funded (a public library is a library that is open to the public, not necessarily funded by the public); they are free to seek private sources of funding and thereby free themselves from local democratic influence. You could organize Europeans and likeminded Americans to pool your money and fund these libraries against the wishes of the local community, but would that really be a good idea?

Kim_Bruning 3y ago
I'd argue that freedom of speech and freedom of access to that speech is -in fact- a role that is essential to democracy. This is true on both sides of the Atlantic. If the opposing party(ies) have the power tell librarians to only show people materials in favor of their political position(s), then they can use that power to distort the truth and corrupt the vote, as happens in totalitarian countries. This is one reason why it's important for libraries to be able to give a person access to all the materials they want access to, and not to distort or censor that access.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I think the meaning and implications of the ostensibly shared principle to which you appeal are not quite as universal as you suggest, but leaving that aside for the moment (unless you choose to press this point), as codified in US law it does not entitle libraries to receive funding from local governments. I agree that libraries should have the right by law to lend any book they please, and in fact they do have that right. But they aren't entitled to public funding; on the contrary, such an entitlement would strip the community of their right to democratically determine where their tax dollars are allocated. The simple fact of the matter is that nobody's legal rights are actually being violated when a local government votes to discontinue their funding of a local library because they don't like books. They aren't banning the possession, sale or distribution of these books, they're only taking away public funding for it, doing so with normal legal democratic means. If this is something you feel strongly about, you and others can organize to provide private funding for these libraries, and then there would be nothing locals could legally do to stop it. They could try passing laws banning the possession, distribution, etc of these books, but such a law would not stand up to legal scrutiny. The principle to which you appeal guarantees you the right to lend any book you like, but it doesn't entitle you to receive public money for it, against the wishes of the community from which that money is to come.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    Hmmm, I'm not sure where you're headed. Perhaps an example might help? Say someone requests (an inter-library loan for) Mein Kampf [1] or -say- Das Kapital [2]. Would you advocate a) defunding the library for lending them that book, we should not give them public funding if they loan out reprehensible books b) funding the library, we should give libraries public funding so that they can fulfill the function of letting anyone read any work for any reason. or c) should funding for libraries be divorced from whether or not they would loan a person that book? or d) other. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > Mein Kampf Let's get this straight upfront: I'm not talking about anti-Nazi laws. In Germany it is illegal to sell to lend games which glorify war or violence to kids. Germany banned this game and there isn't a nazi or swastika in sight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmPjsBDN9Xw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmPjsBDN9Xw Nor am I criticizing Germany for it. Germans are entitled to their values. But the point illustrated is that America isn't unique in deciding what is or isn't appropriate media for children to have access too. Germany's violent video game bans go further than any of these American book bans, actually banning the sale of these games to kids. None of the book bans in America ban the sale of these books to kids. Even libraries are not banned from lending these books, provided they can find other sources of funding. As to your question, my personal belief is your answer b). Within practical reason (expense, availability) libraries should get and lend whichever books are in demand no matter how many other people those books offend. Since money and shelf space are scarce, prioritize the books with the greatest demand, regardless of how many other people hate that book. People who want books banned from public libraries to "protect kids" are stupid; parents need merely go to the library with their children and personally supervise what their kids read. That's how I would cast my vote, but I'm not a dictator and if the rest of the community votes to defund the library instead, that is what it is. The first amendment does not guarantee funding for public libraries, funding is provided to libraries voluntarily. If libraries want funding they need to convince a sufficient majority of the population to vote for that funding. And if people don't like how a library is being run, they're well within their rights to vote against funding that library. I wouldn't have it any other way, this is a democratic society and people voting the way they feel is the entire point. My personal preference is not the law, I only get one vote just like everybody else. If you want to prevent this kind of defunding attack, I think there are several options: State or federal legislation to guarantee more funding to public libraries is one possibility; this would make libraries resistant to local defunding efforts, but of course passing such grander funding laws would perhaps be an even greater challenge. I think this is worth attempting nevertheless. Alternatively, public libraries can be funded by private donations. The 'public' in public library means that it's open to the public, necessarily that it's funded by the public. Many public libraries across America were founded and have been substantially funded by private donations.

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

I'd argue that freedom of speech and freedom of access to that speech is -in fact- a role that is essential to democracy. This is true on both sides of the Atlantic. If the opposing party(ies) have the power tell librarians to only show people materials in favor of their political position(s), then they can use that power to distort the truth and corrupt the vote, as happens in totalitarian countries. This is one reason why it's important for libraries to be able to give a person access to all the materials they want access to, and not to distort or censor that access.

mcpackieh 3y ago
I think the meaning and implications of the ostensibly shared principle to which you appeal are not quite as universal as you suggest, but leaving that aside for the moment (unless you choose to press this point), as codified in US law it does not entitle libraries to receive funding from local governments. I agree that libraries should have the right by law to lend any book they please, and in fact they do have that right. But they aren't entitled to public funding; on the contrary, such an entitlement would strip the community of their right to democratically determine where their tax dollars are allocated. The simple fact of the matter is that nobody's legal rights are actually being violated when a local government votes to discontinue their funding of a local library because they don't like books. They aren't banning the possession, sale or distribution of these books, they're only taking away public funding for it, doing so with normal legal democratic means. If this is something you feel strongly about, you and others can organize to provide private funding for these libraries, and then there would be nothing locals could legally do to stop it. They could try passing laws banning the possession, distribution, etc of these books, but such a law would not stand up to legal scrutiny. The principle to which you appeal guarantees you the right to lend any book you like, but it doesn't entitle you to receive public money for it, against the wishes of the community from which that money is to come.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  Hmmm, I'm not sure where you're headed. Perhaps an example might help? Say someone requests (an inter-library loan for) Mein Kampf [1] or -say- Das Kapital [2]. Would you advocate a) defunding the library for lending them that book, we should not give them public funding if they loan out reprehensible books b) funding the library, we should give libraries public funding so that they can fulfill the function of letting anyone read any work for any reason. or c) should funding for libraries be divorced from whether or not they would loan a person that book? or d) other. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > Mein Kampf Let's get this straight upfront: I'm not talking about anti-Nazi laws. In Germany it is illegal to sell to lend games which glorify war or violence to kids. Germany banned this game and there isn't a nazi or swastika in sight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmPjsBDN9Xw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmPjsBDN9Xw Nor am I criticizing Germany for it. Germans are entitled to their values. But the point illustrated is that America isn't unique in deciding what is or isn't appropriate media for children to have access too. Germany's violent video game bans go further than any of these American book bans, actually banning the sale of these games to kids. None of the book bans in America ban the sale of these books to kids. Even libraries are not banned from lending these books, provided they can find other sources of funding. As to your question, my personal belief is your answer b). Within practical reason (expense, availability) libraries should get and lend whichever books are in demand no matter how many other people those books offend. Since money and shelf space are scarce, prioritize the books with the greatest demand, regardless of how many other people hate that book. People who want books banned from public libraries to "protect kids" are stupid; parents need merely go to the library with their children and personally supervise what their kids read. That's how I would cast my vote, but I'm not a dictator and if the rest of the community votes to defund the library instead, that is what it is. The first amendment does not guarantee funding for public libraries, funding is provided to libraries voluntarily. If libraries want funding they need to convince a sufficient majority of the population to vote for that funding. And if people don't like how a library is being run, they're well within their rights to vote against funding that library. I wouldn't have it any other way, this is a democratic society and people voting the way they feel is the entire point. My personal preference is not the law, I only get one vote just like everybody else. If you want to prevent this kind of defunding attack, I think there are several options: State or federal legislation to guarantee more funding to public libraries is one possibility; this would make libraries resistant to local defunding efforts, but of course passing such grander funding laws would perhaps be an even greater challenge. I think this is worth attempting nevertheless. Alternatively, public libraries can be funded by private donations. The 'public' in public library means that it's open to the public, necessarily that it's funded by the public. Many public libraries across America were founded and have been substantially funded by private donations.