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
> 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.

>>imgabe+4D
This is the fifth or sixth time someone has started a thread with this “gotcha,” and the answer is still no: curation is a logistical concern, not a doctrinal one. Banning is a consequence of doctrine; curation is a consequence of books being expensive to categorize and store.

>>woodru+BE
I recently looked up one of these books that was on the "banned" list. Someone had scanned it in on archive.org. I just checked, and it was either the #1 banned book on most lists, or made the top 10. Gender Queer by Kobabe.

You can see it for yourself.

https://archive.org/details/gender-queer-a-memoir-by-maia-ko...

This is apparently what it would be censorship to keep out of gradeschool libraries. If you're ok with the book, then I guess there's not much more to talk about. If you're now not ok with the book, then I guess this is the first time you actually saw inside of it.

We're told that there is a difference between doctrine and curation, and maybe in some theoretical world this is true. But in the world we actually live in, doctrine's already being pushed... they're just pretending that they're "merely curating". And they're demanding that the other side not be allowed any oversight on that curation. When they curate, good, when anyone else does it, well... they're the "bad guys".

Personally, I could not care less. If you want this book in schools, it does not affect me. But you should know what book it is we're talking about. Take a look, click the link.

>>NoMore+kG
I would not bat an eye at this in a high school library, no. I checked out books that were substantially more adult in nature than this appears to be.

>>woodru+CH
> I would not bat an eye at this in a high school library, no. I checked out books that were substantially more adult in nature than this appears to be.

Maybe you wouldn't, but be honest with yourself - how many parents want their school to hold and keep pornographic material?

If you want to show your kids sexually graphic images, then sure, fine, have at it. You're complaining that you can't show these images to other people's kids, and you're complaining that those parents are a problem?

>>lelant+mI
Then you tell your librarian that your child may not check this book out specifically. I seriously don’t understand the problem here. Maybe another child will appreciate a depiction of healthy communication in sexual interactions, because highschool teens are definitely having sex, but if you don’t want your child learning boundaries and healthy communication that’s ok too!