5 ms·

The library should serve the entire community, not a loud minority or even exclusively the majority. If 20% of the community wants LGBTQ books, 30% don't, and

The library should serve the entire community, not a loud minority or even exclusively the majority. If 20% of the community wants LGBTQ books, 30% don't, and 50% don't care, why should the 30% be able to decide that the other 20% shouldn't have access to these books? The majority should not be able to strip rights that the minority should have access to. Tyranny of the majority is a real thing. I find it hard to believe that even a plurality wants these books banned. Do we have proportions, or is it just a number of complaints?

anon7000 1y ago
And frankly, it’s a library. Every group should have access to books they’re interested in. But that doesn’t mean those groups should be able to ban books they don’t like, even if 75% of people want to ban them.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  My local library has stacks and stacks of steamy Christian romance and I’ve never once complained about them being a waste of money or space. But the same library orders one copy of Heartstopper and all hell breaks loose.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  I honestly cannot understand how having LGBTQ books in a library even affects people who don't like them. Just don't read the books. It's not like their eyeballs are being glued open and they're being forced to read them. Book banners are such weirdos.
  - eloisius 1y ago
    Evangelicals presumably don’t want their children to be influenced by the environment that having those materials present would foster. They’d much rather have their children influenced by real-life sexual predators present within their church, who upon being discovered (multiple times) choose to address the situation with prayer and allow the predator to remain within the church and around children without ever reporting them to law enforcement. But that’s just my experience.
    - apparent 1y ago
      You've met evangelicals who would much rather have their children influenced by sexual predators than books? Or you're trying to make a snarky comment, so you're tying together two unrelated things, both of which evangelicals would like to avoid?
      - eloisius 1y ago
        In fact I have. I grew up in the 1990s evangelical movement, deeply within the culture, home schooled, pro-life rallies, had 10+ kids, women wore denim dresses, etc. Those people. They were hot and ready to ban anything they could get their hands on. Cabbage Patch dolls were demonic, Pokemon were demonic. Gay-anything, it goes without saying, were forces of demons. They were exactly the people who would praise book banning or book burnings. Meanwhile within their church, on several occasions it was discovered that a man had sexually assaulted little boys. Did they kick him out of the church and go to the police? No, he was a sinner who could be saved by prayer. Until he did it again, and again. Some stupid parents even let him take their boy on a weekend trip years after the situation first came to light. You don't need me to tell you what happened on that trip. I think they finally did get the police involved, but that's after my family finally wised up and left the church. Unfortunately this wasn't the only incident. There was another family that had two teenage boys. Their teenage boys? Molesting little girls on multiple occasions. Call the police? No, instead have the boys admit their guilt in front of the entire congregation, laying-on hands, prayer, etc. Until they did it again. That family finally high-taled it out of the state. To this day I wonder why I got out unscathed, except second-hand knowing what was going on. So, yes I have met these evangelicals. Yes, I know their priorities and how they would rather turn a blind eye to sexual assault going on within their own church all the while trying to have Pride parades or whatever banned. Sure, they don't _want_ sexual assault happening, but did they do the slightest to prevent it? No. They tried to pray it away, but meanwhile were happy to expend countless man-hours protesting about obscene books to protect their children. No, I'm not making a purely-snarky comment. If you're moved by this more in-depth explanation, I'd appreciate if you unflagged my comment.
  - apparent 1y ago
    Were any of these books in the kids' section? That could be one reason. Also, we shouldn't dilute the meaning of the term "book banners" to refer to anyone who doesn't want a particular book in a particular place (even if that place is a public library). In the US, we are spoiled to have zero actually banned books. Anyone who wants to is free to purchase any book they want, as long as it's for sale somewhere. People who don't want books that have sexual content (which a disproportionate number of sexuality-focused books do) in the kids' section might be fine with those books existing in a different section, or in a private bookstore. True "book banners" would want to enforce a ban on them existing anywhere. This is a subset — and quite possibly a small one — of the former group.
    - 0x3444ac53 1y ago
      No. It seems like there was an age appropriate sexual health book for 9-12 year olds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Perfectly_Normal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Perfectly_Normal I have another comment on this thread where I linked a lot of related information about this.
      - apparent 1y ago
        That was the only book that patrons sought to have removed from the kids' section? Thanks for the wikipedia link. The criticism section is particularly enlightening: > In a 2023 Slate article, Aymann Ismail, who until then had considered most attempts to ban books hysterical, was taken aback by the book's explicitness.
        0x3444ac53 1y ago
        The important thing to note is that the book is being called "pornography" by the Clean Up Samuels group. It is explicit, but it is not pornographic. There are many many other books they want to ban completely simply because they features trans or gay characters. While digging for this there does seem to be a young adult novel about a young gay man that does feature sexually explicit content (although it doesn't appear pornographic at all). The library keeps it in the "New Adults section. Which requires that anyone under age get explicit permission from their guardian to access, and they even created a new kind of library card to help moderate said access.
  - SchemaLoad 1y ago
    It's obvious. They probably don't even go to the library, they just want control over other people. They don't want other people reading books which could help them out, they want those people to go to church where they can be told they will burn in hell instead.
0x3444ac53 1y ago
It's the loudness of the minority that wants them banned. That, and the fact that they are often people who have enough privilege (land owning, ability to take off work to go to council meetings, and (most importantly) own a business) to be able to throw around to get there way. Happens a lot at universities and non profits. A big donor will sometimes only agree to donate if certain conditions are met, and as a result can strong arm the other party into whatever they want. The public sector is the same; At the local level it's often business owners that have enough influence over the local economy.
- nine_k 1y ago
  There's a whole essay by N. Taleb analyzing this phenomenon: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
gblargg 1y ago
Was it really adults trying to prevent other adults from those materials, or trying to prevent minors from accessing adult materials? (I'll interpret downvotes without response as confirmation of the latter, and that people want minors accessing adult material.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- apparent 1y ago
  If it mirrors national trends, then some of both (but lots of the latter).
- pseudalopex 1y ago
  > Was it really adults trying to prevent other adults from those materials, or trying to prevent minors from accessing adult materials? This dichotomy is false. Many challenges were trying to prevent children and adolescents from accessing age appropriate materials. A number of challenges asserted the books were unsuitable for any age. Or called for the library to purge or destroy them.[1][2] > (I'll interpret downvotes without response as confirmation of the latter, and that people want minors accessing adult material.) Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.[3] Who did you think would be impressed by an announcement you would interpret down votes in bad faith? [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fMT8K3YQVbCUFj9_67euHnQW_mUu5mBLSgakDDNbkyc/edit?tab=t.0 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fMT8K3YQVbCUFj9_67euHnQW... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517341 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
seneca 1y ago
I'm curious how you would feel about your local library carrying The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or The Camp of the Saints? What percentage of the local population would have to want those books for you to believe the library should serve them? Are there any books that a public community library should not be willing to carry?
- 0x3444ac53 1y ago
  I think that access to disinformation within a context such as a library is actually quite a good thing. You can read it, and then research it, and think critically about it. In an open ecosystem of information, with a little critical thought and media literacy, most people are able to spot bullshit when they need to. Most University Libraries carry those text. I'm not sure if it would be particularly useful in the context of a public library (as the goal is to serve a local community with a wide range of needs). However, if there was interest then it would likely be put into circulation. I would speculate that there was likely a time when each of those were on shelves, but they were likely weeded out due to lack of interest.
- deathanatos 1y ago
  Do libraries carry Mein Kampf? Would the books you suggest be categorized and contextualized appropriately? (… like all other books, and a job that I believe librarians already perform.) "Categorized and contextualized appropriately" might also mean "not on the shelf / by request, but available for research"; a good many books that are considerably less objectionable and of greater literary value already are in libraries, as there is only so much shelf. Again, deciding what merits shelf space is a function of the librarian. But you see no qualitative difference between {a book written by a white supremacist, neo-Nazi organization; a fabricated text (i.e., propaganda); and a book the SPLC describes as "'widely revered by American white supremacists' and 'a sort of anti-immigration analog to The Turner Diaries', and attributed its popularity to the plot's parallels with the white genocide conspiracy theory."} and "The book Pride Colors by Robin Stevenson, which explains the meaning of the rainbow colors in the Pride flag"[1]? What is the literary value of white supremacist drivel or a fabricated text to a community library? (I'd wager approximately none.) Versus the books being complained about (anything and everything LGBTQ+). (Definite value from helping people exploring LGBTQ+ topics for themselves, simply trying to learn about LGBTQ people, to helping non-homophobic parents raise inclusive, tolerant children who don't want to spread hate & intolerance, and which need only be checked out by those who actually desire to read them.) There is demand for books of the nature being banned here; I cannot see there being anywhere near the same demand for books filled with bile. And again, the empirical position (and for some subsets, outright stated position) of the right is to remove any and all traces of LGBTQ media from libraries. (And more broadly, from society, as well.) In this particular instance[1], we can see this in one of the complaints: > “Our library should not be carrying ANY material about LGBT,” one person wrote. and, > “Family has 2 moms — unacceptable,” the person wrote of another book. They also complained, “This book makes LGBTQ+ look ‘harmless’ and acceptable.” Someone else points out exactly your quip; what about equal representation? > She continued, “You said taxation without representation. What about my representation in the library? What about what I want my children to read? What about the 4 percent [of] LGBTQ members in your community that you represent that only get 1 percent of the books? Are they not being represented fairly with their tax dollars?” In the broader national debate, we've seen this pattern endlessly; "protect the children" is a wedge to open a fissure towards a wholesale and complete ban. E.g., see the FL Don't Say Gay Act, which started as objections that education on such topics needed to be "age appropriate" but was then subsequently expanded until is was a wholesale ban on education of numerous topics. [1]: https://www.advocate.com/news/front-royal-samuels-library-controversy https://www.advocate.com/news/front-royal-samuels-library-co...
deknos 1y ago
This all would be so much easier, if libraries could give out electronic books
- deathanatos 1y ago
  … libraries can, and do, give out eBooks.

anon7000 1y ago

And frankly, it’s a library. Every group should have access to books they’re interested in. But that doesn’t mean those groups should be able to ban books they don’t like, even if 75% of people want to ban them.

TimorousBestie 1y ago
My local library has stacks and stacks of steamy Christian romance and I’ve never once complained about them being a waste of money or space. But the same library orders one copy of Heartstopper and all hell breaks loose.
ryandrake 1y ago
I honestly cannot understand how having LGBTQ books in a library even affects people who don't like them. Just don't read the books. It's not like their eyeballs are being glued open and they're being forced to read them. Book banners are such weirdos.
- eloisius 1y ago
  Evangelicals presumably don’t want their children to be influenced by the environment that having those materials present would foster. They’d much rather have their children influenced by real-life sexual predators present within their church, who upon being discovered (multiple times) choose to address the situation with prayer and allow the predator to remain within the church and around children without ever reporting them to law enforcement. But that’s just my experience.
  - apparent 1y ago
    You've met evangelicals who would much rather have their children influenced by sexual predators than books? Or you're trying to make a snarky comment, so you're tying together two unrelated things, both of which evangelicals would like to avoid?
    - eloisius 1y ago
      In fact I have. I grew up in the 1990s evangelical movement, deeply within the culture, home schooled, pro-life rallies, had 10+ kids, women wore denim dresses, etc. Those people. They were hot and ready to ban anything they could get their hands on. Cabbage Patch dolls were demonic, Pokemon were demonic. Gay-anything, it goes without saying, were forces of demons. They were exactly the people who would praise book banning or book burnings. Meanwhile within their church, on several occasions it was discovered that a man had sexually assaulted little boys. Did they kick him out of the church and go to the police? No, he was a sinner who could be saved by prayer. Until he did it again, and again. Some stupid parents even let him take their boy on a weekend trip years after the situation first came to light. You don't need me to tell you what happened on that trip. I think they finally did get the police involved, but that's after my family finally wised up and left the church. Unfortunately this wasn't the only incident. There was another family that had two teenage boys. Their teenage boys? Molesting little girls on multiple occasions. Call the police? No, instead have the boys admit their guilt in front of the entire congregation, laying-on hands, prayer, etc. Until they did it again. That family finally high-taled it out of the state. To this day I wonder why I got out unscathed, except second-hand knowing what was going on. So, yes I have met these evangelicals. Yes, I know their priorities and how they would rather turn a blind eye to sexual assault going on within their own church all the while trying to have Pride parades or whatever banned. Sure, they don't _want_ sexual assault happening, but did they do the slightest to prevent it? No. They tried to pray it away, but meanwhile were happy to expend countless man-hours protesting about obscene books to protect their children. No, I'm not making a purely-snarky comment. If you're moved by this more in-depth explanation, I'd appreciate if you unflagged my comment.
- apparent 1y ago
  Were any of these books in the kids' section? That could be one reason. Also, we shouldn't dilute the meaning of the term "book banners" to refer to anyone who doesn't want a particular book in a particular place (even if that place is a public library). In the US, we are spoiled to have zero actually banned books. Anyone who wants to is free to purchase any book they want, as long as it's for sale somewhere. People who don't want books that have sexual content (which a disproportionate number of sexuality-focused books do) in the kids' section might be fine with those books existing in a different section, or in a private bookstore. True "book banners" would want to enforce a ban on them existing anywhere. This is a subset — and quite possibly a small one — of the former group.
  - 0x3444ac53 1y ago
    No. It seems like there was an age appropriate sexual health book for 9-12 year olds https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Perfectly_Normal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Perfectly_Normal I have another comment on this thread where I linked a lot of related information about this.
    - apparent 1y ago
      That was the only book that patrons sought to have removed from the kids' section? Thanks for the wikipedia link. The criticism section is particularly enlightening: > In a 2023 Slate article, Aymann Ismail, who until then had considered most attempts to ban books hysterical, was taken aback by the book's explicitness.
      - 0x3444ac53 1y ago
        The important thing to note is that the book is being called "pornography" by the Clean Up Samuels group. It is explicit, but it is not pornographic. There are many many other books they want to ban completely simply because they features trans or gay characters. While digging for this there does seem to be a young adult novel about a young gay man that does feature sexually explicit content (although it doesn't appear pornographic at all). The library keeps it in the "New Adults section. Which requires that anyone under age get explicit permission from their guardian to access, and they even created a new kind of library card to help moderate said access.
- SchemaLoad 1y ago
  It's obvious. They probably don't even go to the library, they just want control over other people. They don't want other people reading books which could help them out, they want those people to go to church where they can be told they will burn in hell instead.

0x3444ac53 1y ago

It's the loudness of the minority that wants them banned. That, and the fact that they are often people who have enough privilege (land owning, ability to take off work to go to council meetings, and (most importantly) own a business) to be able to throw around to get there way. Happens a lot at universities and non profits. A big donor will sometimes only agree to donate if certain conditions are met, and as a result can strong arm the other party into whatever they want. The public sector is the same; At the local level it's often business owners that have enough influence over the local economy.

nine_k 1y ago
There's a whole essay by N. Taleb analyzing this phenomenon: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

gblargg 1y ago

Was it really adults trying to prevent other adults from those materials, or trying to prevent minors from accessing adult materials? (I'll interpret downvotes without response as confirmation of the latter, and that people want minors accessing adult material.)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
apparent 1y ago
If it mirrors national trends, then some of both (but lots of the latter).
pseudalopex 1y ago
> Was it really adults trying to prevent other adults from those materials, or trying to prevent minors from accessing adult materials? This dichotomy is false. Many challenges were trying to prevent children and adolescents from accessing age appropriate materials. A number of challenges asserted the books were unsuitable for any age. Or called for the library to purge or destroy them.[1][2] > (I'll interpret downvotes without response as confirmation of the latter, and that people want minors accessing adult material.) Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.[3] Who did you think would be impressed by an announcement you would interpret down votes in bad faith? [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fMT8K3YQVbCUFj9_67euHnQW_mUu5mBLSgakDDNbkyc/edit?tab=t.0 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fMT8K3YQVbCUFj9_67euHnQW... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517341 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

seneca 1y ago

I'm curious how you would feel about your local library carrying The Turner Diaries, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or The Camp of the Saints? What percentage of the local population would have to want those books for you to believe the library should serve them? Are there any books that a public community library should not be willing to carry?

0x3444ac53 1y ago
I think that access to disinformation within a context such as a library is actually quite a good thing. You can read it, and then research it, and think critically about it. In an open ecosystem of information, with a little critical thought and media literacy, most people are able to spot bullshit when they need to. Most University Libraries carry those text. I'm not sure if it would be particularly useful in the context of a public library (as the goal is to serve a local community with a wide range of needs). However, if there was interest then it would likely be put into circulation. I would speculate that there was likely a time when each of those were on shelves, but they were likely weeded out due to lack of interest.
deathanatos 1y ago
Do libraries carry Mein Kampf? Would the books you suggest be categorized and contextualized appropriately? (… like all other books, and a job that I believe librarians already perform.) "Categorized and contextualized appropriately" might also mean "not on the shelf / by request, but available for research"; a good many books that are considerably less objectionable and of greater literary value already are in libraries, as there is only so much shelf. Again, deciding what merits shelf space is a function of the librarian. But you see no qualitative difference between {a book written by a white supremacist, neo-Nazi organization; a fabricated text (i.e., propaganda); and a book the SPLC describes as "'widely revered by American white supremacists' and 'a sort of anti-immigration analog to The Turner Diaries', and attributed its popularity to the plot's parallels with the white genocide conspiracy theory."} and "The book Pride Colors by Robin Stevenson, which explains the meaning of the rainbow colors in the Pride flag"[1]? What is the literary value of white supremacist drivel or a fabricated text to a community library? (I'd wager approximately none.) Versus the books being complained about (anything and everything LGBTQ+). (Definite value from helping people exploring LGBTQ+ topics for themselves, simply trying to learn about LGBTQ people, to helping non-homophobic parents raise inclusive, tolerant children who don't want to spread hate & intolerance, and which need only be checked out by those who actually desire to read them.) There is demand for books of the nature being banned here; I cannot see there being anywhere near the same demand for books filled with bile. And again, the empirical position (and for some subsets, outright stated position) of the right is to remove any and all traces of LGBTQ media from libraries. (And more broadly, from society, as well.) In this particular instance[1], we can see this in one of the complaints: > “Our library should not be carrying ANY material about LGBT,” one person wrote. and, > “Family has 2 moms — unacceptable,” the person wrote of another book. They also complained, “This book makes LGBTQ+ look ‘harmless’ and acceptable.” Someone else points out exactly your quip; what about equal representation? > She continued, “You said taxation without representation. What about my representation in the library? What about what I want my children to read? What about the 4 percent [of] LGBTQ members in your community that you represent that only get 1 percent of the books? Are they not being represented fairly with their tax dollars?” In the broader national debate, we've seen this pattern endlessly; "protect the children" is a wedge to open a fissure towards a wholesale and complete ban. E.g., see the FL Don't Say Gay Act, which started as objections that education on such topics needed to be "age appropriate" but was then subsequently expanded until is was a wholesale ban on education of numerous topics. [1]: https://www.advocate.com/news/front-royal-samuels-library-controversy https://www.advocate.com/news/front-royal-samuels-library-co...

deknos 1y ago

This all would be so much easier, if libraries could give out electronic books

deathanatos 1y ago
… libraries can, and do, give out eBooks.