zlacker

[return to "Illinois to Become First State to Ban Book Bans"]
1. pyuser+ab[view] [source] 2023-05-29 00:38:52
>>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.

◧◩
2. woodru+Xc[view] [source] 2023-05-29 00:55:28
>>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."

◧◩◪
3. imgabe+4D[view] [source] 2023-05-29 05:39:36
>>woodru+Xc
> removing books from school libraries is a de facto ban on those books.

No, it isn't. There are millions of books that aren't in school libraries. Are they all de facto banned?

Confidently declaring something doesn't make it true. A library deciding not to carry a book is not a book ban.

◧◩◪◨
4. rtpg+uD[view] [source] 2023-05-29 05:43:57
>>imgabe+4D
What about when libraries have books but then the state govt demands these books get taken out? How much context are we allowed to include in a judgement of an action?

Never having a book, having it but having it be removed for non-content-related reasons, having it removed for content-related reasons, having the content removal decision come from librarians, or parents, or politicians, the public record of comments about why something is removed, all of these things are obviously important. Flattening it to "yeah lots of books aren't in libraries" is a _bit_ reductive!

Good things are good, bad things are bad. Sometimes it's hard to write laws that work around this, but at the very least moral judgements can be made, with space for nuance.

[go to top]