The argument over what counts as a “banned” book distracts from a more troubling question: whose perspectives are libraries making available to readers?
Try finding Irreversible Damage by Shrier, Time to Think by Hannah Barnes, Trans, by Helen Joyce, and Cis, White, Gay by Ben Appel .
The two UK authored books are garnering lots of acclaim in the UK but there is a single copy of Trans and zero copies of Time to Think in my library system.
There are 4 copies of I am Jazz for kids, and 4 of Gender Queer.
Library Watchers of Greater Lowell keeps on keeping on by adding to that list of books. The most recently added book is Xi van Fleet's "Made in America". It was not listed anywhere in MA about a week ago, but now one library has it and it is on order at another. Of course, it became available for purchase by libraries 8 months ago...
Then, donate them because you just want the other people banned. We know it, it's like having creationism in schools, we know what you really are up to
Under the first definition any idea of age-inappropriate reading amounts to banning.
I am close to a free speech absolutist but years ago I complained about
"Clan of the Cave Bear" a popular novel about Neanderthal-human interactions in my child's
middle school library. It contains a truly disturbing very violent rape scene that in my view is not good reading for a middle schooler. Apparently I was trying to "ban" the book. Absurd!
I once asked a public library to reclassify a book as YA rather than chiildren's. It's a good book, but the depictions of crucifixion, both verbal and illustrated, are very vivid. I pointed out that it had probably been purchased before the YA concept existed, and that they had other books in the YA section or adult section by the same author and very similar.
They removed the book from their collection citing low circulation. I suspect the low circulation was because it was in the wrong section, i.e., the children's. Isn't that circular?
But the ALA would label me one of those evil "banners", no doubt.
The book in question is Peter Connolly's "The Holy Land" and the reason for the bit about crucifixion being so prominent is the brutality with which the rebellion in 70 AD or thereabouts was put down by Vespasian and Titus. Apparently it was not that hard to find the bones of crucified people kicking around in the vicinity of Jerusalem even in the days that Connolly wrote, since so many were crucified at that time.
Ohh, no, they have to learned about the horrible things of the world. The bible has worse.
Oh, no, the kids have to learn about the holocaust. Would you ban that too? There's a reason why you're called a banner. And that you're called awful, is because you are
That is because you were and you are trying to ban a book.
You were acting like a duck, you were quacking like a duck. Because you are one, you are not a free speech absolutist.
You are literally engaging in something bad because you thought it was in bad taste... your excuse is the same thing that bans books like MAUS.
You calling yourself close to a free speech absolutist is like calling the number five a divorced widow.
Meanwhile, fair for all has worked with the foundation for individual rights And expression. They defended the sally mann exhibit from people just like you. Jack thompson used to try and ban. Video games but we know that's wrong, and that's the same thing You're doing here.
The pushback you got was not only deserved. You deserve admonishment and derision. Your whole kind does.
YES!!!! Now try discussing this matter in any librarians' group. You will be shouted down, called nasty names, thrown out of the group, have your school admin/board contacted to inform them of your heresies, get nasty emails sent to your friends and families, etc.
Not only are we not free to read what we want, we're not free to discuss what we want either.
Libraries' failure to offer certain books isn't banning under either definition. It restricts availability more than (#1) but less than (#2). There are kinds and degrees of making unavailable.
Addendum: I didn't know about this one when I wrote the article, but "Virginia First: The 1607 Project" which is certainly an explicit counter narrative is completely unavailable in any format whatsoever in the state of Massachusetts. The closest location, via WorldCat, is some place in Indiana.
Libraries have been doing this for years, if not decades. Doesn't make it any less disturbing, but it's business as usual for them. I did enjoy the pearl clutching that went on a few years back about Twain's Huck Finn, though.
Still, the ALA should be considered a fascist organization. Disagree with them at your professional peril.
I love it. If it’s “banned,” why is it sitting right here in front of me? Lol!
Luckily I went to a bookstore in SLC, UT and was able to see books by Ben Carson, Trump, and other conservative figures in addition to the liberal ones.
Common ordinary words? So you want to play victim in your own comments... and you want to tighten the idea of the word band just so you can ban books. You don't like we know how this works. We know what you're doing.
The fire and the fair for the arts should not ever... i'd rather have the a l a standard. Then, you trying to apologize for book bans like a hypocrite.
Try finding Irreversible Damage by Shrier, Time to Think by Hannah Barnes, Trans, by Helen Joyce, and Cis, White, Gay by Ben Appel .
The two UK authored books are garnering lots of acclaim in the UK but there is a single copy of Trans and zero copies of Time to Think in my library system.
There are 4 copies of I am Jazz for kids, and 4 of Gender Queer.
Library Watchers of Greater Lowell keeps on keeping on by adding to that list of books. The most recently added book is Xi van Fleet's "Made in America". It was not listed anywhere in MA about a week ago, but now one library has it and it is on order at another. Of course, it became available for purchase by libraries 8 months ago...
Then, donate them because you just want the other people banned. We know it, it's like having creationism in schools, we know what you really are up to
Anyone who says they're for the kids are the ones trying to hide a censorship agenda behind a cloak and dagger and the cross that molested kids
Oh boohoo... then, donate them to the library. actually step up.
Under the first definition any idea of age-inappropriate reading amounts to banning.
I am close to a free speech absolutist but years ago I complained about
"Clan of the Cave Bear" a popular novel about Neanderthal-human interactions in my child's
middle school library. It contains a truly disturbing very violent rape scene that in my view is not good reading for a middle schooler. Apparently I was trying to "ban" the book. Absurd!
I once asked a public library to reclassify a book as YA rather than chiildren's. It's a good book, but the depictions of crucifixion, both verbal and illustrated, are very vivid. I pointed out that it had probably been purchased before the YA concept existed, and that they had other books in the YA section or adult section by the same author and very similar.
They removed the book from their collection citing low circulation. I suspect the low circulation was because it was in the wrong section, i.e., the children's. Isn't that circular?
But the ALA would label me one of those evil "banners", no doubt.
The book in question is Peter Connolly's "The Holy Land" and the reason for the bit about crucifixion being so prominent is the brutality with which the rebellion in 70 AD or thereabouts was put down by Vespasian and Titus. Apparently it was not that hard to find the bones of crucified people kicking around in the vicinity of Jerusalem even in the days that Connolly wrote, since so many were crucified at that time.
Enough of your victim complex
So would you contest the bible for the same and the worst content in it? If kids can handle a corpse on a cross every sunday, they can handle this
Ohh, no, they have to learned about the horrible things of the world. The bible has worse.
Oh, no, the kids have to learn about the holocaust. Would you ban that too? There's a reason why you're called a banner. And that you're called awful, is because you are
That is because you were and you are trying to ban a book.
You were acting like a duck, you were quacking like a duck. Because you are one, you are not a free speech absolutist.
You are literally engaging in something bad because you thought it was in bad taste... your excuse is the same thing that bans books like MAUS.
You calling yourself close to a free speech absolutist is like calling the number five a divorced widow.
Meanwhile, fair for all has worked with the foundation for individual rights And expression. They defended the sally mann exhibit from people just like you. Jack thompson used to try and ban. Video games but we know that's wrong, and that's the same thing You're doing here.
The pushback you got was not only deserved. You deserve admonishment and derision. Your whole kind does.
When calvin and hobbes is determined as pornography. Buy a tennessee too many then be worried
YES!!!! Now try discussing this matter in any librarians' group. You will be shouted down, called nasty names, thrown out of the group, have your school admin/board contacted to inform them of your heresies, get nasty emails sent to your friends and families, etc.
Not only are we not free to read what we want, we're not free to discuss what we want either.
Libraries' failure to offer certain books isn't banning under either definition. It restricts availability more than (#1) but less than (#2). There are kinds and degrees of making unavailable.
Correct!
And that's called a failure. You even call it a failure.
And it's restricting availability is part of what constitutes censorship and a ban.. just like you complained about shadow banning all those years ago
Addendum: I didn't know about this one when I wrote the article, but "Virginia First: The 1607 Project" which is certainly an explicit counter narrative is completely unavailable in any format whatsoever in the state of Massachusetts. The closest location, via WorldCat, is some place in Indiana.
Libraries have been doing this for years, if not decades. Doesn't make it any less disturbing, but it's business as usual for them. I did enjoy the pearl clutching that went on a few years back about Twain's Huck Finn, though.
Still, the ALA should be considered a fascist organization. Disagree with them at your professional peril.
I love it. If it’s “banned,” why is it sitting right here in front of me? Lol!
Luckily I went to a bookstore in SLC, UT and was able to see books by Ben Carson, Trump, and other conservative figures in addition to the liberal ones.
So the *real* ban is the counter-argument about the ban...
Projection. It’s always projection with the woke.
I think it's actually "going with the big lie", a phrase I heard somewhere that stuck.
The power hungry ones absolutely, there are many true believers as well however. It’s a dogma, so pretty much a religion.
Yes. I think you're right. Many truly believe it. But the smarter ones believe that the big lie serves their purposes best.
Common ordinary words? So you want to play victim in your own comments... and you want to tighten the idea of the word band just so you can ban books. You don't like we know how this works. We know what you're doing.
The fire and the fair for the arts should not ever... i'd rather have the a l a standard. Then, you trying to apologize for book bans like a hypocrite.
What are you even talking about? You're not making one iota of sense