zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
Yeah but “banning books” isn’t much of a thing. Even the ALA talks about “challenged books.”

And most of the controversy involves school libraries - although there are some exceptions.

This bill just doesn’t do much. I’m not opposed to it. I guess it might do a little good.

But it’s posturing by politicians.

>>pyuser+ab
> And most of the controversy involves school libraries - although there are some exceptions.

This is splitting hairs: removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books. Neither the article nor law implies that "book ban" in this context means anything other than "school book ban."

>>woodru+Xc
I don't understand how you would think the two are the same.

A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs.

And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?

>>george+ye
>A ban implies to me the book cannot be sold at all which is hardly splitting hairs.

That's just not true. "Banned book" has meant "book banned from schools and libraries" for a very long time. This is the meaning used by the American Library Association.

https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbook...

It is, for the time being and for most practical purposes, impossible to ban a book from being published in the USA. Other countries have bigger problems but that is not what people discuss in American politics.

>And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?

This is a very feeble gotcha.