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 would argue then that every American you know (including you) is a tiny bit wrong? I (and everyone I know) consider a book ban to be something like when 19th century Russia stated that no book could be written in Lithuanian. That’s a proper book ban. It was illegal to even own a book written in that language, and books that did exist were destroyed. Russia did book bans right! To say what’s going on now is a “book ban” that requires legislation is gas lighting at best and a false flag at worst.

>>cassac+Mh
"when 19th century Russia stated that no book could be written in Lithuanian"

That's a lie. Or shall I say "gas lighting at best and a false flag at worst"?

"The Lithuanian press ban (Lithuanian: spaudos draudimas) was a ban on all Lithuanian language publications printed in the Latin alphabet in force from 1865 to 1904 within the Russian Empire, which controlled Lithuania proper at the time. Lithuanian-language publications that used Cyrillic were allowed and even encouraged." [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_press_ban

>>gdy+3s
That’s an interesting take... Like, you can write any book you want using the English language, as long as you use Kanji to write it down? You wouldn’t consider that a problem?

But regardless you are only reinforcing the point that it was a real ban. The fact that they were banned and the books they didn’t want banned were encouraged really only continues to make my case.

>>cassac+lE2
"Like, you can write any book you want using the English language, as long as you use Kanji to write it down? You wouldn’t consider that a problem?"

Right now Kazakhstan is transitioning from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet. This year children will be taught only Latin letters and they won't be able to read the texts in Kazakh language written in Cyrillic in the last 80 years.

Do you consider this a problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_alphabets#Latin_script