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 a surprising way to frame what the Wikipedia page says. The ban was part of a russification attempt. One of the stated goals, on the page you linked, is "Replace Lithuanian parish schools with Russian grammar schools". Up to that point, Lithuanian had not been written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Polish language was widely used, and its use of Latin alphabet had a huge inspiration on Lithuanian orthography.

To make my point stronger: I would call it a book ban, if English language books were illegal to write in the Latin alphabet, and only allowed in the Cyrillic alphabet. This would be consistent with the situation of Lithuanian language book ban (except it would not replace kindergarten and lower grades with Russian grammar schools).

Calling it a lie seems at the very least ignorant of the actual situation, or worse, willful twisting of history. If the former, I invite you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_book_smugglers to find out on which day they are celebrated!

>>taneli+RF
I don't think it's me who is twisting history here

>>gdy+DL
Well, everyone can read the Wikipedia pages and their references, and make their own minds. Our views are so fundamentally different that I see no reason to continue discussion.

>>taneli+Z11
Ok, let me elaborate.

'Banning all books on Lithuanian language' and 'banning books in Lithuanian language written in Latin alphabet and encouraging transition to books in Lithuanian language written in Cyrillic alphabet' are different things.

Former would have had a goal of discontinuing written Lithuanian language and the latter had a goal of switching Lithuanian language from Latin to Cyrillic alphabet.

Misrepresenting the latter as the former is a lie.

>>gdy+j71
The only thing important part is “these books are banned” and “these books are encouraged.” That you don’t care about the specifics says more about you than the ban.

>>cassac+PE2
It looks like I do care about specifics and you care only about 'important part'.

>>gdy+WJ3
I.e they only care about their viewpoint and no one else's