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
Of course it's a doctrinal concern. The books are not chosen at random. Some will make it, some not. Somebody is going to make a choice, according to somebody's own (or external - like recommendations) judgement. The question is who has the power to control the choice, and who gets to say "my opinion is common sense, your opinion is dangerous ideological extremism".