3 ms·

Ok, try going to this florida school library and check out an encyclopedia or Anne Frank's diary. You can't because they were banned by a government law. You m

Ok, try going to this florida school library and check out an encyclopedia or Anne Frank's diary. You can't because they were banned by a government law. You may counter with, this isn't a book ban because you can still buy it on amazon and that the government is supposed to moderate content in schools. But when 'moderation' becomes this absurdly broad, its a ban. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/11/florida-schools-ron-desantis-ban-books-sexual-content https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/11/florida-scho...

AustinDev 3y ago
Looking at the press release it appears to me that this is a form of 'Malicious Compliance' it only makes sense in that context. If you are an administrator or librarian and disagree with the law, you would want to 'ban' the most absurd list of books. You do this for two reasons: 1. So they can print the headline in the article you linked 2. So that when the case challenging this law inevitably goes to trial the lawyers can cite the absurd examples on your 'banned book' list. It often times helps to think critically about who benefits from an action when you see something as blatantly ridiculous as a dictionary being 'banned'.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  Ironically I think this is the point. The government deliberately made the law very general so they could cast a broad net and remove all of the bad-think books through the magic of selected enforcement. The malicious compliance was used to highlight this and the difference between 'protecting the children' and the policing of thoughts and ideas (always the root of censorship).
  - AustinDev 3y ago
    Trust, I don't think limiting books available to people is a good thing. However, I understand the intent of the law even if it was written terribly. I don't think government should dictate sexuality to children. However, in this instance the law is terrible.
csande17 3y ago
I'm at the middle school library you mentioned, and it's even worse than you made it sound. They aren't letting me check out ANY books at all; something about "not being a student here"? They said I could try the public library, which is open to everyone and not controlled by the school district.

AustinDev 3y ago

Looking at the press release it appears to me that this is a form of 'Malicious Compliance' it only makes sense in that context. If you are an administrator or librarian and disagree with the law, you would want to 'ban' the most absurd list of books. You do this for two reasons: 1. So they can print the headline in the article you linked 2. So that when the case challenging this law inevitably goes to trial the lawyers can cite the absurd examples on your 'banned book' list. It often times helps to think critically about who benefits from an action when you see something as blatantly ridiculous as a dictionary being 'banned'.

Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
Ironically I think this is the point. The government deliberately made the law very general so they could cast a broad net and remove all of the bad-think books through the magic of selected enforcement. The malicious compliance was used to highlight this and the difference between 'protecting the children' and the policing of thoughts and ideas (always the root of censorship).
- AustinDev 3y ago
  Trust, I don't think limiting books available to people is a good thing. However, I understand the intent of the law even if it was written terribly. I don't think government should dictate sexuality to children. However, in this instance the law is terrible.

csande17 3y ago

I'm at the middle school library you mentioned, and it's even worse than you made it sound. They aren't letting me check out ANY books at all; something about "not being a student here"? They said I could try the public library, which is open to everyone and not controlled by the school district.