4 ms·
Are those just banned and censored in Portugal specifically or the EU as a whole? A quick check here in the States showed all of them available on Amazon for u
by caseysoftware 3mo ago
Are those just banned and censored in Portugal specifically or the EU as a whole?
A quick check here in the States showed all of them available on Amazon for under $25 each.
- tokai 3mo agoNo non of them are censored in the EU. They are all censored in the US, maybe with the exception of Salman Rushdie. US book banning is mainly schools and parent groups strong arming libraries and educators to forgo specific books.
- illliillll 3mo agoAre you serious about this? There’s not a single school in the EU where an employee takes books off the shelves because they find them offensive? Because that’s the standard you’re using for ”censored in the US”.
- caseysoftware 3mo ago"libraries and educators to forgo specific books" is neither "banning" nor "censoring" In the name of literacy, we need to use words properly.
- tokai 3mo agoNo, you need to understand that your specific narrow definition has not handed down by God, and is not more valid than others. US book banning has been a subject for so long now that you are tilling at windmills if you think you can deside what 10000s of people mean when they say banned. Is a specific institution or library are banned by their decision makers to have a book - that book is banned in that context. If you don't buy this that fair, but don't come at me with your pedantry when I just answered your question.
- caseysoftware 3mo ago> Is a specific institution or library are banned by their decision makers to have a book - that book is banned in that context. By that reasoning, all PG-13 and R rated movies are "banned" just because your elementary school library doesn't carry them. Absurd, huh? "10000s of people" can create new definitions of words as they choose, just don't be surprised when educated people think they're fools.
- embedding-shape 3mo agoWhat would happen if a child brought those not-banned or not-censored books to a library/school where they have "forgo those specific books"? What would the reaction be? I feel like if they'd still let the person read the book by themselves, and freely share it with others, then indeed it's merely a curation choice. But, if I'd expect, they try to prevent this person from reading their own brought book or sharing it with others, then I think it's fair to say that book been banned and/or censored, at least in that particular location.
- SV_BubbleTime 3mo agoWhat if someone brought a porno to blockbuster?
- embedding-shape 3mo agoHow is that at all related or relevant to anything I wrote?
- Guthwine 3mo agoI believe when most libraries and stores use the term 'ban', they rely on PEN America's definition: "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished." [1] [1] https://pen.org/book-bans/book-bans-frequently-asked-questions/ https://pen.org/book-bans/book-bans-frequently-asked-questio...
- caseysoftware 3mo agoThanks, this is useful. > "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished." Though this is a fascinating definition.. anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book outside of purely budgetary or physical space limits, it is now a "ban". The more fascinating question would be discovering the boundary of what PEN, et al consider a "good ban" because I bet we could come up with a few.
- InsideOutSanta 3mo ago> anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book That's not what the definition you just quoted says. In fact, the definition you quoted is very close to the common definition of "ban": a refusal to allow something, usually by an official entity. It matters a lot who does it.
- jnovek 3mo agoIt is censorship if those books are not included for a specific reason. “We aren’t including this book in the library because we don’t have space for every book.” <—— not censorship “We aren’t including this book because we don’t think it’s appropriate for kids to learn about trans people.” <—- censorship
- buellerbueller 3mo agoSince there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship?
- 7bit 3mo agoThat's a childish argument.
- buellerbueller 3mo agoMy point was to highlight the ridiculousness of the comment to which I was responding; glad it worked!
- 7bit 3mo agoIt didn't work. The comment wasn't ridiculous. Your reply was. But yes, if you want to flip thing around so you feel validated, be my guest.
- buellerbueller 3mo agoOf course it worked. Any authoritarian intent on banning a book just could give the spurious reason that "the library does not have enough room" and then there is no censorship ever, according to the original post. See how childish that reasoning is?
- 7bit 3mo agoYou're right
- buellerbueller 3mo agoYes, this is colloquially referred to as "banning." Sorry, you don't get to decide how others use language.
- account42 3mo agoUsed by those wanting to sell and profit from outrage about "banned" books to be precise.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- buellerbueller 3mo agoSee also: normal people who aren't afraid of books and think that banning them is silly.
- account42 3mo agoBanning books on a country level may be silly but curating what is allowed in a school library is not. Which is exactly why people with an agenda want to conflate these two.
- buellerbueller 3mo agoThe librarians should curate, not the parents. The parents are welcome to decide for their own children what is permissible and not, but should have no authority to prevent others' children from accessing materials they do not find objectionable. Why is it about "parental rights" when it comes to anti-vaccination, but authoritarian control mechanisms when it comes to someone else's kid reading a fucking book?
- account42 3mo agoIf your goal is what to have parents decide what their kids can read then the only way to do that is to have the shared (e.g. school) library carry the commonly agreed upon subset and individual parents who want their kids to have access to more to provide those more controversial book at home. The only reason to call to have books other parents don't want their kids to be exposed to in the school library is if you want to override their choice and make those books available to kids other than yours as well.
- Aurornis 3mo ago> A quick check here in the States showed all of them available on Amazon for under $25 each. The term “banned books” has become a pop culture meme. In this context it doesn’t literally mean banned, it means the book wasn’t allowed somewhere. In extreme cases a government in a controlling country may have forbidden the book. However in a lot of cases the “banned books” were just not allowed in some school’s library for kids somewhere. That’s why all of the books aren’t actually banned in the US and are readily available, unless maybe you’re a 3rd grader looking for them at some school library that probably wasn’t going to order the book for kids anyway before it became “banned”
- john_strinlai 3mo ago>In this context it doesn’t literally mean banned, it means the book wasn’t allowed somewhere. and what is a good word to use when something isn't allowed somewhere? perhaps... "banned"? i dont understand why people think something needs be unavailable globally to be considered "banned". there's a million examples of the word "banned" being used when X isn't allowed in Y context. people only get touchy about it when it comes to books for some reason. dang bans people from HN, no one gets upset about the use of the word "ban" there, despite it being a context-specific ban.
- Aurornis 3mo agoThe confusion is because some books were literally banned somewhere, while others were just deemed not to be age-appropriate for young children in a school environment. We don’t call R-rated movies “banned” because we’ve decided not to show it at schools to kids. That’s why it’s confusing when we switch to books and the word “banned” means somebody, somewhere, decided it wasn’t appropriate for kids in their school or something like that.
- john_strinlai 3mo agothe confusion is fake. books are the only time people get fussy about the word. (despite the same conversation occurring every month or two here) dang bans someone from HN? no confusion. alcohol banned in public? no confusion. weapons banned from schools? no confusion. books? oh my god, they aren't banned they just aren't allowed
- llm_nerd 3mo agoThe "in Portugal" is, I presume, a statement on where the library is. Further, when people talk about banned books, they usually mean at some sub-country level, even down to a school board. Like if you look at - https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/ https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/ - these books weren't banned from the United States, but they're controversial enough that individual school boards or library systems removed them.