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.

Every American that I know (including myself) understands the phrase "book ban" to refer widely, if not exclusively, to school libraries in the context of American politics. It's been nearly 70 years since we've had otherwise politically notable book bans[1].

> 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?

Yes.

[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/banned-books-wee...

>>woodru+5f
I have never met an American, or anyone of any nationality that understands "book bans" refer exclusively to school libraries.

You are the first.

Book bans are bans on books, at a national or state/local government level.

Bans on books within a school have been a thing for a relatively long time where I am. Usually managed by the local school council for various different reasons.

>>Prickl+Wi
There are two operative phrases that you skipped over: "if not exclusively," and "in American politics."

I'm aware that there are ample other ways to (and entities that) ban books. Their severity is not meaningfully diminished by this conversation, and introducing them is a distraction.

>>woodru+jj
> refer widely, if not exclusively,

usually means

1. is usually exclusive 2. if not exclusive, then is the case in the majority of cases

The proposed case that "Book Bans" refer almost exclusively to school libraries is obviously false if you just take a look at a dictionary. It is evidently not "widely known to mean X" if common definitions do not explicitly state that.

All definitions state that it is an act of banning a book. But do not explicitly state that it is exclusive to some arbitrary bureaucratic level.

Either way, it is strange to just decide that a "Book Ban" must refer almost exclusively to a school.

And yes, this is semantics.