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".

>>smsm42+oB1
Removing the 57th copy of The Atkins Diet because nobody has checked it out since 1999 is not a doctrinal concern.

>>woodru+mD1
Do you genuinely don't see the difference between 56 copies and zero copies, or just low effort trolling?

>>smsm42+3X2
The point was that curation is trivially not doctrinal. Doctrinal censorship might masquerade as curation, but curation itself is a normal part of running a useful library.

There are many reasons to have no copies of a book, with the simplest being that nobody has requested it yet. Framing that as “banning” is ridiculous, since it falsely implies a doctrinal intent where only ignorance or concern for stated demands exists.

>>woodru+k03
> The point was that curation is trivially not doctrinal.

What you said is not curation, it's just managing the stock. Having 57 copies or 56 copies does not substantially alter availavbility. If somebody removed all copies of Atkins books, because "nobody needs them anymore" - then yes, this would be a doctrinal decision. Admittedly, since diets (for some reason) aren't part of culture wars (yet?), not a very controversial or scandalous one, but if some Atkins die-hards occupied a political position, or, in the contrary, Atkins were declared racist for some reason, it could become one.

> There are many reasons to have no copies of a book, with the simplest being that nobody has requested it yet

But how I can "request" a book that isn't in the library? Most libraries I've used do not have this function, not at least any that I could locate as a regular patron. On the contrary, I am reasonably sure most of the books featured on my local library's home page, aren't there because some patron came to them and asked for this specific book, which previously wasn't part of the collection and wouldn't be unless specifically requested (in fact, again, I know no way of doing this). Looking at their published collection developing policy I see (among others):

Provide a diverse and inclusive collection that contains content by and about a wide array of people and cultures

Consider the appropriateness to scope of the collection as it is developed

Content created by and representative of marginalized and underrepresented groups

Attention of critics, reviewers, awards and public

Suitability for intended audience

Literary or stylistic quality

Tell me these are non-doctrinal criteria. Of course they are - one's high quality suitable inclusive book is another's offensive bigoted trash. Again, it's about who has the power to make such decisions. Of course, the librarians, seeing themselves as The Experts (TM) would claim exclusive right to make such decisions on behalf of people paying for their library. But are they entitled to that, absent any control and supervision?