6 ms·

Cool project, except these aren't really "banned" books. thats a misleading term. In most of these cases, the book isn’t actually banned. Nobody is being arres

Cool project, except these aren't really "banned" books. thats a misleading term. In most of these cases, the book isn’t actually banned. Nobody is being arrested for owning it, Amazon isn’t forbidden from selling it, and adults can still read it whenever they want. What’s really being debated is whether a particular school library, children’s section, or curriculum should include a book. That’s not the same thing as government censorship. Schools and libraries make age-appropriate selection decisions all the time. They don’t carry every book ever published, and not every objectionable book belongs in front of kids just because someone wants to call its removal a “ban.” A single school library deciding not to carry a book because they think it's inappropriate, but that same book being available at the local public library, every book store in town, the internet, etc is not the same as the soviet union literally banning the ownership of books.

john_strinlai 4mo ago
>What’s really being debated is whether a particular school library, children’s section, or curriculum should include a book. That’s not the same thing as government censorship. except for the cases where the government, not the librarian, is saying "you cannot have that book on your shelf, even if you think it is appropriate and want it". >Nobody is being arrested for owning it, Amazon isn’t forbidden from selling it, and adults can still read it whenever they want. when tomhow/dang "ban" someone from HN, that user doesn't get arrested if they make a new account. they can still visit the site. is it misleading for them to use the word "ban"?
- woodrowbarlow 4mo ago
  i agree, with a bit more nuance. it's one thing for a government agency staffed by educational professionals (like a public school district) to issue guidance (or even rules) on how libraries should be stocked -- but what's become widespread is legislative bodies bypassing those existing structures and issuing laws without input from educational professionals.
- imgabe 4mo ago
  Words exist in a context. "User was banned from a site" and "Book is banned" have different connotations. You have to be purposely obtuse to conflate these.
  - john_strinlai 4mo ago
    just like how you can figure out when tom/dan say "we've banned this account" doesn't mean "banned this account from the internet", you can use similar context clues to figure out "banned book" doesn't mean "banned across the world and is now illegal".
    - imgabe 4mo ago
      I mean, when you're like "I have to make a hidden wifi server in a light bulb to distribute these books" that does kind of imply some dystopian totalitarian state that will put you to death for reading those books or something and not the reality that they are given their own highlighted section in literally every single bookstore in existence.
      - blanched 4mo ago
        Did you read the article? The author doesn’t say anything like that. It’s pretty clear this was mostly a fun idea with a bit of “could be useful in this scenario” motivation, which they mention came from reading a short story.
      - therealpygon 4mo ago
        What led you to make up that this was said? Also, you realize there are other countries in the world where books are banned…right?
nerdjon 4mo ago
The problem is that there isn’t really a better term, and using “banned” gives the correct impression for most people to see the problem. In many cases these books are not simply being removed at the school level but are being driven by the government and it is politically motivated. Ignoring the problem won’t lead to them being banned in the sense that having them would be illegal, but it could make it more difficult to get. It would not be hard to imagine states like Florida going further and attacking public libraries or possibly even making it so you have to show an ID to buy these books. Some public libraries are already being attacked. “Banned” may not be technically correct but it also properly communicates the seriousness of this and the goals of the people pushing this.
- olalonde 4mo ago
  I find the trend of redefining or twisting terms to serve a specific cause really counterproductive. It eventually devalues the words themselves and makes nuanced discussion nearly impossible. If a problem is really that serious, it shouldn't require misleading language.
  - john_strinlai 4mo ago
    >I find the trend of redefining or twisting terms to serve a specific cause really counterproductive. which term is being redefined?
    - lotsofpulp 4mo ago
      In the context of supplying banned books in the software of a lightbulb, I expect banned to mean a China style ban where possession can get you punished. Not the (current) US version where certain taxpayer funded entities cannot provide the book. But there might not be a better word for the latter scenario. Surely, few oppose libraries from “banning” pornographic books, so some level of discretion must be used by administrators.
      - Guthwine 4mo ago
miltonlost 4mo ago
Cool, dude, keep defending books with gay characters being banned in some libraries... I mean, not "curated". A "Ban" doesn't have to be universal for it to still be banned in one spot. A book banned in a Christian high school but available at a public library is still a "Banned book" because it has been banned somewhere. If you're that bad with semantics, I'd recommend the next book you check out is the dictionary.
1970-01-01 4mo ago
How is this different from banning alcohol or pets or weapons or any other thing? Whether or not you can buy and have at a different location doesn't mean the word is misleading.
- Vaslo 4mo ago
  Maybe something like "not library available" or "lending restricted"? I understand the point you are trying to make and you have good evidence backing your statement ("alcohol is banned the stadium", etc) but when it comes to books, when people hear ban, they think Fahrenheit 451 or The Khmer Rouge burning books. So I also understand the OPs point. Unless you're an alcoholic, banning alcohol in schools or stadiums isn't quite the hardship of arresting people for owning To Kill A Mockingbird. Its connotation has changed in the same way that people calling others "Nazis" and "Fascists" has changed with the constant misuse of them.
  - 1970-01-01 4mo ago
    Possessing a banned book has very serious weight in many circumstances: https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1315/id/2767725 https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1315/id/2767725 > (4) The Attorney General may investigate compliance with this section. The contracting party must report to the Attorney General a provider's failure to comply with subsection (2) of this section no later than thirty (30) days after the contracting party learns of the provider's noncompliance. Such a report shall constitute a public record under the Mississippi Public Records Act.
- zymhan 4mo ago
  Restricting knowledge is fundamentally different.
sfink 4mo ago
You may be overthinking this. "Banned" in this case means that the usual person or people who choose what books to include are being overridden by a party with more clout. From the perspective of a school librarian, for example, book X has been banned. They no longer have the option of including it. (This is even true in the case where the librarian would not have included it anyway, for their own reasons.) They are prevented by the school board, an angry mob of parents, the state legislature, the FBI, or whoever. The fact that the public library down the road carries the book does not change whether that librarian has the option of including it in their school library's collection. They can't. They are banned from including it.
- steviedotboston 4mo ago
  The FBI is not telling school librarians to not stock copies of To Kill a Mockingbird. I really don't see the issue with local entities like a school board having some say in material that is available in a school. That can differ across the country, and thats fine. That's what our country is supposed to be like. But a library acting like they are doing some brave act of resistance by putting out a stack of books that are widely available, have always been widely available, and will always be, and saying they are "banned books, this is banned books week, look at all the books that have been banned!" when really they are books that a school board in wisconsin said shouldn't be in an elementary school library because the sex scenes are not appropriate for 7 year olds seems really silly to me.
  - sfink 4mo ago
    If it were the FBI, it wouldn't be "To Kill a Mockingbird", it would be "Amateur Forgery, volume XVII: Passports" or something. Well, or something similar that wasn't already illegal. > I really don't see the issue with local entities like a school board having some say in material that is available in a school. Then you prefer a low-trust environment. I prefer a high-trust environment. A librarian shouldn't be putting 50 Shades of Grey on a grade school shelf to begin with. If they are, then you should be replacing the librarian, not micromanaging them. Book selection is their job. Let them do their job or don't; don't allow them the authority to only do half their job. > But a library acting like they are doing some brave act of resistance by putting out a stack of books that are widely available...and saying they are "banned books, this is banned books week, look at all the books that have been banned!" when really they are books that a school board in wisconsin said shouldn't be in an elementary school library because the sex scenes are not appropriate for 7 year olds seems really silly to me. Again, that's a "replace or reprimand the librarian" problem. It's not meant to be a brave act of resistance, it's information to say "these books have been banned, look at them so you can better understand what books people want to ban and why". And obviously, it's more interesting than "these are books where the 3rd letter in the title is T" and so it garners more attention, but it's no more than that. If they're including one that was banned for dumb reasons as in your example, then that makes it a dumb display (and an inappropriate one if the display is also in a library for 7 year olds.) Obviously, the OP is not the librarian, and is aiming for an act of resistance, so my argument mostly doesn't apply there. Though the part about choices having the potential of being dumb still does. The set of books that have been banned somewhere or other is quite large, it's not like it would have any meaning to have a display of all or even a random selection of them. That's a strawman. You're going to curate based on some metric.
havblue 4mo ago
On my news feed today I saw a Newsweek story about how someone found a dvd of Birth of a Nation at Goodwill, not knowing what the plot was. As far as I can tell the standard for a book being "banned" is just that the librarian or the bookseller is sympathetic to the book's message and thinks it should be more widely read while politicians or parents might think it's inappropriate or they disagree with the message. If you put the shoe on the other foot and name a book that's out of print because publishers dislike the material or it's problematic in the eyes of librarians, I don't think it fits the standard. Birth of a Nation for example is not a "banned movie" and neither is Song of the South. So the standard is entirely set by teachers, librarians and booksellers.
- mothballed 4mo ago
  I think of stuff like Luty who was challenged in the UK under the terrorism act for sharing books on improvised firearms, Ashley Dugan who was charged with "distributing explosives training to terrorists" and some of his youtube videos pulled for sharing the well known public domain synthesis of RDX explosives. These are non-sexually-obscene informational speech yet the librarians and teachers don't actually want you looking at these banned media because they could actually be used to challenge the established order and system rather than just shuffling who is in power to possibly the guy the librarian likes.
  - graemep 4mo ago
    The UK bans a lot more than the US does in terms of actual government bans on books and speech, especially under terrorism law.
eudamoniac 4mo ago
If these were actually banned books people would be a lot less enthusiastic about the endeavor. Pretty much every book that is genuinely banned, in that no publisher or printing house will print it and no bookstore will sell it, is either a racist diatribe, how to make bombs, or similar. These books on the other hand are books that one librarian or school admin somewhere in this vast country decided would no longer be included in their small library. Not very interesting.
graemep 4mo ago
You are missing the point. This makes it possible to distribute something that is actually banned. The included books are just examples. It also makes it possible to provide free access to books that libraries decide against. A project hosted on a public git repo cannot break the law, however adding whatever books you think are required looks easy. The instructions say: > First, you'll want to put the ebook files in the /library/data/html/books directory.

john_strinlai 4mo ago

>What’s really being debated is whether a particular school library, children’s section, or curriculum should include a book. That’s not the same thing as government censorship. except for the cases where the government, not the librarian, is saying "you cannot have that book on your shelf, even if you think it is appropriate and want it". >Nobody is being arrested for owning it, Amazon isn’t forbidden from selling it, and adults can still read it whenever they want. when tomhow/dang "ban" someone from HN, that user doesn't get arrested if they make a new account. they can still visit the site. is it misleading for them to use the word "ban"?

woodrowbarlow 4mo ago
i agree, with a bit more nuance. it's one thing for a government agency staffed by educational professionals (like a public school district) to issue guidance (or even rules) on how libraries should be stocked -- but what's become widespread is legislative bodies bypassing those existing structures and issuing laws without input from educational professionals.
imgabe 4mo ago
Words exist in a context. "User was banned from a site" and "Book is banned" have different connotations. You have to be purposely obtuse to conflate these.
- john_strinlai 4mo ago
  just like how you can figure out when tom/dan say "we've banned this account" doesn't mean "banned this account from the internet", you can use similar context clues to figure out "banned book" doesn't mean "banned across the world and is now illegal".
  - imgabe 4mo ago
    I mean, when you're like "I have to make a hidden wifi server in a light bulb to distribute these books" that does kind of imply some dystopian totalitarian state that will put you to death for reading those books or something and not the reality that they are given their own highlighted section in literally every single bookstore in existence.
    - blanched 4mo ago
      Did you read the article? The author doesn’t say anything like that. It’s pretty clear this was mostly a fun idea with a bit of “could be useful in this scenario” motivation, which they mention came from reading a short story.
    - therealpygon 4mo ago
      What led you to make up that this was said? Also, you realize there are other countries in the world where books are banned…right?

nerdjon 4mo ago

The problem is that there isn’t really a better term, and using “banned” gives the correct impression for most people to see the problem. In many cases these books are not simply being removed at the school level but are being driven by the government and it is politically motivated. Ignoring the problem won’t lead to them being banned in the sense that having them would be illegal, but it could make it more difficult to get. It would not be hard to imagine states like Florida going further and attacking public libraries or possibly even making it so you have to show an ID to buy these books. Some public libraries are already being attacked. “Banned” may not be technically correct but it also properly communicates the seriousness of this and the goals of the people pushing this.

olalonde 4mo ago
I find the trend of redefining or twisting terms to serve a specific cause really counterproductive. It eventually devalues the words themselves and makes nuanced discussion nearly impossible. If a problem is really that serious, it shouldn't require misleading language.
- john_strinlai 4mo ago
  >I find the trend of redefining or twisting terms to serve a specific cause really counterproductive. which term is being redefined?
  - lotsofpulp 4mo ago
    In the context of supplying banned books in the software of a lightbulb, I expect banned to mean a China style ban where possession can get you punished. Not the (current) US version where certain taxpayer funded entities cannot provide the book. But there might not be a better word for the latter scenario. Surely, few oppose libraries from “banning” pornographic books, so some level of discretion must be used by administrators.
    - Guthwine 4mo ago

miltonlost 4mo ago

Cool, dude, keep defending books with gay characters being banned in some libraries... I mean, not "curated". A "Ban" doesn't have to be universal for it to still be banned in one spot. A book banned in a Christian high school but available at a public library is still a "Banned book" because it has been banned somewhere. If you're that bad with semantics, I'd recommend the next book you check out is the dictionary.

1970-01-01 4mo ago

How is this different from banning alcohol or pets or weapons or any other thing? Whether or not you can buy and have at a different location doesn't mean the word is misleading.

Vaslo 4mo ago
Maybe something like "not library available" or "lending restricted"? I understand the point you are trying to make and you have good evidence backing your statement ("alcohol is banned the stadium", etc) but when it comes to books, when people hear ban, they think Fahrenheit 451 or The Khmer Rouge burning books. So I also understand the OPs point. Unless you're an alcoholic, banning alcohol in schools or stadiums isn't quite the hardship of arresting people for owning To Kill A Mockingbird. Its connotation has changed in the same way that people calling others "Nazis" and "Fascists" has changed with the constant misuse of them.
- 1970-01-01 4mo ago
  Possessing a banned book has very serious weight in many circumstances: https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1315/id/2767725 https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1315/id/2767725 > (4) The Attorney General may investigate compliance with this section. The contracting party must report to the Attorney General a provider's failure to comply with subsection (2) of this section no later than thirty (30) days after the contracting party learns of the provider's noncompliance. Such a report shall constitute a public record under the Mississippi Public Records Act.
zymhan 4mo ago
Restricting knowledge is fundamentally different.

sfink 4mo ago

You may be overthinking this. "Banned" in this case means that the usual person or people who choose what books to include are being overridden by a party with more clout. From the perspective of a school librarian, for example, book X has been banned. They no longer have the option of including it. (This is even true in the case where the librarian would not have included it anyway, for their own reasons.) They are prevented by the school board, an angry mob of parents, the state legislature, the FBI, or whoever. The fact that the public library down the road carries the book does not change whether that librarian has the option of including it in their school library's collection. They can't. They are banned from including it.

steviedotboston 4mo ago
The FBI is not telling school librarians to not stock copies of To Kill a Mockingbird. I really don't see the issue with local entities like a school board having some say in material that is available in a school. That can differ across the country, and thats fine. That's what our country is supposed to be like. But a library acting like they are doing some brave act of resistance by putting out a stack of books that are widely available, have always been widely available, and will always be, and saying they are "banned books, this is banned books week, look at all the books that have been banned!" when really they are books that a school board in wisconsin said shouldn't be in an elementary school library because the sex scenes are not appropriate for 7 year olds seems really silly to me.
- sfink 4mo ago
  If it were the FBI, it wouldn't be "To Kill a Mockingbird", it would be "Amateur Forgery, volume XVII: Passports" or something. Well, or something similar that wasn't already illegal. > I really don't see the issue with local entities like a school board having some say in material that is available in a school. Then you prefer a low-trust environment. I prefer a high-trust environment. A librarian shouldn't be putting 50 Shades of Grey on a grade school shelf to begin with. If they are, then you should be replacing the librarian, not micromanaging them. Book selection is their job. Let them do their job or don't; don't allow them the authority to only do half their job. > But a library acting like they are doing some brave act of resistance by putting out a stack of books that are widely available...and saying they are "banned books, this is banned books week, look at all the books that have been banned!" when really they are books that a school board in wisconsin said shouldn't be in an elementary school library because the sex scenes are not appropriate for 7 year olds seems really silly to me. Again, that's a "replace or reprimand the librarian" problem. It's not meant to be a brave act of resistance, it's information to say "these books have been banned, look at them so you can better understand what books people want to ban and why". And obviously, it's more interesting than "these are books where the 3rd letter in the title is T" and so it garners more attention, but it's no more than that. If they're including one that was banned for dumb reasons as in your example, then that makes it a dumb display (and an inappropriate one if the display is also in a library for 7 year olds.) Obviously, the OP is not the librarian, and is aiming for an act of resistance, so my argument mostly doesn't apply there. Though the part about choices having the potential of being dumb still does. The set of books that have been banned somewhere or other is quite large, it's not like it would have any meaning to have a display of all or even a random selection of them. That's a strawman. You're going to curate based on some metric.

havblue 4mo ago

On my news feed today I saw a Newsweek story about how someone found a dvd of Birth of a Nation at Goodwill, not knowing what the plot was. As far as I can tell the standard for a book being "banned" is just that the librarian or the bookseller is sympathetic to the book's message and thinks it should be more widely read while politicians or parents might think it's inappropriate or they disagree with the message. If you put the shoe on the other foot and name a book that's out of print because publishers dislike the material or it's problematic in the eyes of librarians, I don't think it fits the standard. Birth of a Nation for example is not a "banned movie" and neither is Song of the South. So the standard is entirely set by teachers, librarians and booksellers.

mothballed 4mo ago
I think of stuff like Luty who was challenged in the UK under the terrorism act for sharing books on improvised firearms, Ashley Dugan who was charged with "distributing explosives training to terrorists" and some of his youtube videos pulled for sharing the well known public domain synthesis of RDX explosives. These are non-sexually-obscene informational speech yet the librarians and teachers don't actually want you looking at these banned media because they could actually be used to challenge the established order and system rather than just shuffling who is in power to possibly the guy the librarian likes.
- graemep 4mo ago
  The UK bans a lot more than the US does in terms of actual government bans on books and speech, especially under terrorism law.

eudamoniac 4mo ago

If these were actually banned books people would be a lot less enthusiastic about the endeavor. Pretty much every book that is genuinely banned, in that no publisher or printing house will print it and no bookstore will sell it, is either a racist diatribe, how to make bombs, or similar. These books on the other hand are books that one librarian or school admin somewhere in this vast country decided would no longer be included in their small library. Not very interesting.

graemep 4mo ago

You are missing the point. This makes it possible to distribute something that is actually banned. The included books are just examples. It also makes it possible to provide free access to books that libraries decide against. A project hosted on a public git repo cannot break the law, however adding whatever books you think are required looks easy. The instructions say: > First, you'll want to put the ebook files in the /library/data/html/books directory.