| ▲ | caseysoftware 3 hours ago |
| "libraries and educators to forgo specific books" is neither "banning" nor "censoring" In the name of literacy, we need to use words properly. |
|
| ▲ | Guthwine 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I 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-questio... |
| |
| ▲ | caseysoftware 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks, 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What 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. |
| |
|
| ▲ | buellerbueller 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, this is colloquially referred to as "banning." Sorry, you don't get to decide how others use language. |
| |
| ▲ | account42 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Used by those wanting to sell and profit from outrage about "banned" books to be precise. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | tokai 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No, 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | jnovek 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It 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 |
| |
| ▲ | bluescrn 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > “We aren’t including this book because we don’t think it’s appropriate for kids to learn about trans people.” <—- censorship Removing books from public libraries (not just schools) because we find criticism of certain ideas around gender to be offensive <-- definitely censorship https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66441947 | |
| ▲ | logifail 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Playboy was never in school libraries either, basically because children aren't adults. Isn't this basic curation and child protection, not censorship? | |
| ▲ | buellerbueller 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Since there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship? | | |
| ▲ | mcphage 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Since there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship? When people ban books because they don't want others to learn about trans people, they're usually pretty vocal about their motivations. | |
| ▲ | 7bit 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a childish argument. | | |
| ▲ | buellerbueller 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | My point was to highlight the ridiculousness of the comment to which I was responding; glad it worked! | | |
| ▲ | 7bit 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It 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. |
|
|
|
|
