Book Bannings

SamanthaAnastasia · Apr 7, 2022

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Is freedom to force others to do things they don't want to do? Is it freedom to seek to influence others in a certain direction via forcing them in institutions they have control of to provide what you want but what they don't want? Why does every community have to obey your standard? Why does every library have to provide the books you want?

You want to say I'm no better than ISIS, as if they're the only ones in history who have maintained strict control on their communities. Christianity, for most of it's existence prior to the United States and the enlightenment limited both access and the reception of information in society (this can be a shock to Americans). Not even just Christians, but Jewish communities in their own ghettos did this as well and there were harsh punishments for any who violated the rules. So if you want to condemn me, or anyone else who would seek to allow people to regulate themselves how they see fit, you ought judge the entire Christian tradition. No, rather judge everyone before modernity.

Complete individualism is the antithesis of Christianity and to any civilization as a whole. Christianity has never been a religion which put the rights of the individual ahead of the Church. But my position is this, let localities decide what books they want or do not want. You don't need an overarching authority to decide for them.

I don't screech about the first amendment. To me the constitution is not a sacred document which can't be doubted. As for freedom of speech in NZ, we're not allowed complete freedom of speech. There are certain books you aren't allowed to own or legally distribute in NZ either. You'll get arrested for having the Christchurch shooter's manifesto on your person.

Yeah you can have the Christchurch’s manifesto in the US without getting arrested.
God doesn’t violate free will. We should follow that lest we are totalitarians.
And I don’t judge you. I do however find it sad that you have this worldview.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Apr 7, 2022

SamanthaAnastasia said:
Yeah you can have the Christchurch’s manifesto in the US without getting arrested.
God doesn’t violate free will. We should follow that lest we are totalitarians.
And I don’t judge you. I do however find it sad that you have this worldview.

Well I can understand why you might think it sad. Five years ago, I might have thought someone with my current beliefs was a loon or in your words 'sad'. My perspective changed as I came to understand history, read some different thinkers who dissent from the current political orthodoxy found on the majority right or left in either Europe or America.

So before you right me off completely, just understand I haven't come to my positions lightly.

Archivist · Apr 7, 2022

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It's not that I believe it, as in it's an absolute belief like my belief in Christianity. I just recognize the necessity of it and that it is impossible to escape censorship completely. To do so is to cease to have standards and then you must allow any and all material to be present everywhere. That's a libertine view which I cannot endorse. Neither can you i suspect, but I won't pretend my view offers perfect liberty. It offers liberty to communities to regulate themselves and not from someone like you.

So you would place local demands ahead of the First Amendment? Sorry, in America the First Amendment trumps decisions by local boards and administrators as it should.

If you don't allow for communities to set the limits on their own conduct, the material they have or their way of life, then you view it as necessary to determine for them what they ought to do.

As I have pointed out, these decisions are usually demanded by a vocal minority. In the case of the Central York School District that I mentioned earlier, when the community found out that the school board was banning numerous books they opposed the decision and the school board reversed the ban. I suspect that in the next election those board members who favored the ban will be turned out of office.

So you would seek to compel others to abide by your will? What gives you that authority?

A little thing called the First Amendment gives me that authority. In the US the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You might find this to be of interest: Book Banning

You believe that the view of the local board should prevail? In the Central York School District matter the school board was, if not all white certainly a majority white. The banned books were all by authors of color. Banned books included such titles as I am Rosa Parks and I am Martin Luther King, Jr. This is why the Constitution trumps local decisions.

Archivist · Apr 7, 2022

SamanthaAnastasia said:
Remember, Archivist that he’s from New Zealand. Idk how libraries are run there…you might have more info than me.
But he prob isn’t familiar with the US library system.

Based on his earlier comments he certainly is not aware that librarians here are trained professionals who have advanced degrees in their field.

SamanthaAnastasia · Apr 7, 2022

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Well I can understand why you might think it sad. Five years ago, I might have thought someone with my current beliefs was a loon or in your words 'sad'. My perspective changed as I came to understand history, read some different thinkers who dissent from the current political orthodoxy found on the majority right or left in either Europe or America.

So before you right me off completely, just understand I haven't come to my positions lightly.

You know. I do read.
I will eventually read Mao’s little red book. Not because I agree with it, but as Sun Tzu says in The Art of War, “Know Thy Enemy”.
You turn the light out on these things, let them crawl back into the darkness from which they came and you cannot teach others that these things are not the way.
Let them come out into the light. Do not let them crawl back into darkness. The light will scorch them eventually if they seek no repentance. We know these things are wrong. Our job is to teach our children that.
Therefore, let the Bible sit next to Sissy: A Coming of Gender Story. People will make their choice. It is not for us to decide for them. We can only warn them.
Remember, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.

Margaret3110 · Apr 7, 2022

Well, having thought about it some more, and taking into account that people may not have access to a city library, I've revised my opinion somewhat. I still don't think books like The Bluest Eye should be required reading, but I can see the argument for having them available on high school shelves.

I know as a high school student, I appreciated that my school library had Marx and Emma Goldman's writings among their books. Not because I agreed with everything they wrote. I'm pretty sure the school library also had Mein Kampf, although I never read it (wonder if it's still there these days?).

SamanthaAnastasia · Apr 7, 2022

Margaret3110 said:
Well, having thought about it some more, and taking into account that people may not have access to a city library, I've revised my opinion somewhat. I still don't think books like The Bluest Eye should be required reading, but I can see the argument for having them available on high school shelves.

I know as a high school student, I appreciated that my school library had Marx and Emma Goldman's writings among their books. Not because I agreed with everything they wrote. I'm pretty sure the school library also had Mein Kampf, although I never read it (wonder if it's still there these days?).

Required reading vs being available on the shelves in the school are two totally different things.
being against the required reading aspect of it would not be censorship and be more the teachers not the library and the librarians.
Which to be fair, being against something as required reading is neither here nor there (for the most part).
So, being against something as required reading is totally cool a-okay even.
But being against something being on the shelf in general is a no-no. If that makes sense.

I mean…I’m just a library lady def NOT a teacher. So I can’t really speak to being for OR against something as required reading…though I think it depends on context.
For example Shakespeare, Beowulf and Canterbury Tales are quite graphic.
IF you have the vocabulary to understand that Shakespeare literally meant a pound of flesh and that some of the tales in Chaucer are just lewd. Just because it has old school flowery language doesn’t mean it isn’t straight filth.

Margaret3110 · Apr 7, 2022

SamanthaAnastasia said:
Required reading vs being available on the shelves in the school are two totally different things.
being against the required reading aspect of it would not be censorship and be more the teachers not the library and the librarians.
Which to be fair, being against something as required reading is neither here nor there (for the most part).
So, being against something as required reading is totally cool a-okay even.
But being against something being on the shelf in general is a no-no. If that makes sense.

I mean…I’m just a library lady def NOT a teacher. So I can’t really speak to being for OR against something as required reading…though I think it depends on context.

It does make sense. I can see how they are different.

I do think we can probably all agree that the placement of books in school libraries depends partly on age appropriateness. There will be books that are perfectly fine in a high school library, or YA section or adult section of the regular library, that you don't want in the younger section or elementary school - right? I mean, do we want an unsuspecting ten year old to pick up NK Jemisin's The Fifth Season? (Child murder, graphic sex, etc)

But that's different from challenged books like George by Alex Gino (which I read some years ago). I understand that some people have ideological objections to a book about a transgender girl, however, there is nothing actually age-inappropriate in it to my mind. I think we need to separate questions of ideology from questions of appropriateness (i.e. what a child of a given age can actually handle and process). But not everyone will agree with that or agree where the line is between ideology and appropriateness.

Archivist · Apr 7, 2022

Margaret3110 said:
It does make sense. I can see how they are different.

I do think we can probably all agree that the placement of books in school libraries depends partly on age appropriateness. There will be books that are perfectly fine in a high school library, or YA section or adult section of the regular library, that you don't want in the younger section or elementary school - right? I mean, do we want an unsuspecting ten year old to pick up NK Jemisin's The Fifth Season? (Child murder, graphic sex, etc)

But that's different from challenged books like George by Alex Gino (which I read some years ago). I understand that some people have ideological objections to a book about a transgender girl, however, there is nothing actually age-inappropriate in it to my mind. I think we need to separate questions of ideology from questions of appropriateness (i.e. what a child of a given age can actually handle and process). But not everyone will agree with that or agree where the line is between ideology and appropriateness.

Well said. That is why librarians study collection development—so that an elementary student doesn’t happen upon a book in the library that is beyond his or her age range.

Margaret3110 · Apr 7, 2022

Archivist said:
Well said. That is why librarians study collection development—so that an elementary student doesn’t happen upon a book in the library that is beyond his or her age range.

You know, for all the years I've been haunting libraries and talking to librarians, I'm embarrassed to admit I've never really thought much about how books were selected. I've learned a lot from this thread.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Apr 7, 2022

SamanthaAnastasia said:
You know. I do read.
I will eventually read Mao’s little red book. Not because I agree with it, but as Sun Tzu says in The Art of War, “Know Thy Enemy”.
You turn the light out on these things, let them crawl back into the darkness from which they came and you cannot teach others that these things are not the way.
Let them come out into the light. Do not let them crawl back into darkness. The light will scorch them eventually if they seek no repentance. We know these things are wrong. Our job is to teach our children that.
Therefore, let the Bible sit next to Sissy: A Coming of Gender Story. People will make their choice. It is not for us to decide for them. We can only warn them.
Remember, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.

I'm not obligated to give a voice to those I disagree with and those who would seek the destruction of my way of life. As much as they are not obligated and will never apply this standard you are suggesting. No one approaches life in this fashion, no one is neutral on the matter of content and learning. There will always be biases and groups will seek to protect their interests.

Maybe you should read some more books, learn a bit more about human nature and how the world works.

SamanthaAnastasia · Apr 7, 2022

Margaret3110 said:
It does make sense. I can see how they are different.

I do think we can probably all agree that the placement of books in school libraries depends partly on age appropriateness. There will be books that are perfectly fine in a high school library, or YA section or adult section of the regular library, that you don't want in the younger section or elementary school - right? I mean, do we want an unsuspecting ten year old to pick up NK Jemisin's The Fifth Season? (Child murder, graphic sex, etc)

But that's different from challenged books like George by Alex Gino (which I read some years ago). I understand that some people have ideological objections to a book about a transgender girl, however, there is nothing actually age-inappropriate in it to my mind. I think we need to separate questions of ideology from questions of appropriateness (i.e. what a child of a given age can actually handle and process). But not everyone will agree with that or agree where the line is between ideology and appropriateness.

I agree with the Archivist: well said indeed!
There is a suggested age and reading level on books (esp for Youth & YA books).
I believe people have a hard time separating ideological differences vs age appropriate material.
For example, I disagree ideologically with Abortion Issues however books describing them and the “procedure”, when the material is located in a HS Library or YA section and/or adult section of the Public Library would be inappropriate for me to remove it from the shelves.
If I do not wish for The Holy Bible to be removed, how can I even think to try to remove anything else? At least that’s my thinking.
That being said, age appropriateness it would be ridiculous to have a graphic medical book on the procedures of abortion in the Youth section.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Apr 7, 2022

Archivist said:
So you would place local demands ahead of the First Amendment? Sorry, in America the First Amendment trumps decisions by local boards and administrators as it should.

Well one could interpret the first amendment in two ways. Does it give localities the freedom to determine for themselves how they live, or does it give the federal government the authority to determine how they ought to live? Earlier in American history when states had character of their own understand the US to have been more local in it's freedom. If one didn't like Pennsylvania they could move to New York.

I'm no expert and I'm not an American, so the 1st Amendment to me isn't a sacred belief or an article of faith. Christianity is my article of faith.

Archivist said:
As I have pointed out, these decisions are usually demanded by a vocal minority. In the case of the Central York School District that I mentioned earlier, when the community found out that the school board was banning numerous books they opposed the decision and the school board reversed the ban. I suspect that in the next election those board members who favored the ban will be turned out of office.

The most vocal minority is always the one in control. It's not just on a local level but on a federal level, the minority with the loudest voice in politics will be the most likely to win.

But here's the thing in your example. Even if the school board accepted the books being banned/removed, you would still insist they need to be forced to include material you like.

Archivist said:
A little thing called the First Amendment gives me that authority. In the US the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You might find this to be of interest: Book Banning

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/986/book-banning

Again, the first amendment is not a sacred law and I don't have to abide by your American standards. And it's not all that clear to me your interpretation of the first amendment is even correct.

Archivist said:
You believe that the view of the local board should prevail? In the Central York School District matter the school board was, if not all white certainly a majority white. The banned books were all by authors of color. Banned books included such titles as I am Rosa Parks and I am Martin Luther King, Jr. This is why the Constitution trumps local decisions.

Sure, I'm for localism. Even if bad people win. Because freedom of the community seems better to me than forced compliance from above.

SamanthaAnastasia · Apr 7, 2022

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
I'm not obligated to give a voice to those I disagree with and those who would seek the destruction of my way of life. As much as they are not obligated and will never apply this standard you are suggesting. No one approaches life in this fashion, no one is neutral on the matter of content and learning. There will always be biases and groups will seek to protect their interests.

Maybe you should read some more books, learn a bit more about human nature and how the world works.

No one is seeking to destroy your way of life. At least not any where that has freedom of speech. There are places that will seek to destroy your way of life. But it is not there, it is not in Europe (I am currently in Germany but I move back to the US soon), and it is not in the US. It is in China. In places in the Middle East. In dearest Russia.
These people have always been here. They’ve just never spoken up. It doesn’t make it right.
Maybe you should have more compassion and understanding, learn that these people fundamentally think differently than we do (still doesn’t make it right) and no amount of forcing them will change that.
If anything, it will only create more hate.
Look at what the Hardline Evangelical Protestants are do. People vilify them for their actions. I understand that we will be hated. But truth without compassion is brutality.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Apr 7, 2022

SamanthaAnastasia said:
No one is seeking to destroy your way of life. At least not any where that has freedom of speech. There are places that will seek to destroy your way of life. But it is not there, it is not in Europe (I am currently in Germany but I move back to the US soon), and it is not in the US. It is in China. In places in the Middle East. In dearest Russia.
These people have always been here. They’ve just never spoken up. It doesn’t make it right.
Maybe you should have more compassion and understanding, learn that these people fundamentally think differently than we do (still doesn’t make it right) and no amount of forcing them will change that.
If anything, it will only create more hate.
Look at what the Hardline Evangelical Protestants are do. People vilify them for their actions. I understand that we will be hated. But truth without compassion is brutality.

If communities are unable to regulate themselves in the matter they deem fit and must submit themselves to your standards of freedom, then yes, you are seeking to affect the way of life they live by coming at them with an overarching authority from above. Regardless of how they might feel, regardless of what they do, you are determining for them what is right and what is wrong. The conservative community must have pro-LGBT books in it's library, it's schools and any other institution which conservatives have control of. We must force this on them, for their sake, for freedom.

Doesn't sound all that free to me. There is an alternative system, one envisioned by men like Herman Hoppe which lets communities decide for themselves how they act and what they will do. Which maintains true plurality. As far as I can see, your dearest and sacred US is no different from China or Russia in how it determines from the federal level how everyone must live.

Maybe you should understand that there are people who think differently to you, who understand how the world actually works and seek to minimize conflict by just leaving people alone. Not seeking to force others to do what you want. It's your view which causes more hatred and resentment by forcing people to live by your standards.

SamanthaAnastasia · Apr 7, 2022

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Well one could interpret the first amendment in two ways. Does it give localities the freedom to determine for themselves how they live, or does it give the federal government the authority to determine how they ought to live? Earlier in American history when states had character of their own understand the US to have been more local in it's freedom. If one didn't like Pennsylvania they could move to New York.

I'm no expert and I'm not an American, so the 1st Amendment to me isn't a sacred belief or an article of faith. Christianity is my article of faith.

The most vocal minority is always the one in control. It's not just on a local level but on a federal level, the minority with the loudest voice in politics will be the most likely to win.

But here's the thing in your example. Even if the school board accepted the books being banned/removed, you would still insist they need to be forced to include material you like.

Again, the first amendment is not a sacred law and I don't have to abide by your American standards. And it's not all that clear to me your interpretation of the first amendment is even correct.

Sure, I'm for localism. Even if bad people win. Because freedom of the community seems better to me than forced compliance from above.

Okay. Please stop saying that we worship the Constitution.
First of all no.
There are people like that in the US. I can tell you that I am definitely not one of them.
Public libraries and Public Schools fall under the government.
Therefore, they literally are governed by the First Amendment.
It is ironic that you are trying to explain the First Amendment when you’re not even from the US all the while claiming that the two people who have studied in Library and Information Science are US citizens. The only people who would understand more about the first amendment would be lawyers.
Please, you’re making yourself look foolish.
And again, I do NOT worship the constitution.
And please stop. The US States have more character than you know. I’ve lived all over the US. It’s still like that. If people don’t like one state because of the laws, they move somewhere more rural like Wyoming or West Virginia.

SamanthaAnastasia · Apr 7, 2022

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If communities are unable to regulate themselves in the matter they deem fit and must submit themselves to your standards of freedom, then yes, you are seeking to affect the way of life they live by coming at them with an overarching authority from above. Regardless of how they might feel, regardless of what they do, you are determining for them what is right and what is wrong. The conservative community must have pro-LGBT books in it's library, it's schools and any other institution which conservatives have control of. We must force this on them, for their sake, for freedom.

Doesn't sound all that free to me. There is an alternative system, one envisioned by men like Herman Hoppe which lets communities decide for themselves how they act and what they will do. Which maintains true plurality. As far as I can see, your dearest and sacred US is no different from China or Russia in how it determines from the federal level how everyone must live.

Maybe you should understand that there are people who think differently to you, who understand how the world actually works and seek to minimize conflict by just leaving people alone. Not seeking to force others to do what you want. It's your view which causes more hatred and resentment by forcing people to live by your standards.

Lol no. We order books when it’s requested.
If no one requests Why Johnny Has Two Daddys, guess what? It doesn’t get ordered.
That’s why conservative communities don’t have that many LGBT books on the shelves…because no one requests them.
Learn about how the library works dude.

I don’t worship the US. The US isn’t sacred. We are not citizens of this world but of Heaven.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Apr 7, 2022

SamanthaAnastasia said:
Okay. Please stop saying that we worship the Constitution.
First of all no.
There are people like that in the US. I can tell you that I am definitely not one of them.
Public libraries and Public Schools fall under the government.
Therefore, they literally are governed by the First Amendment.
It is ironic that you are trying to explain the First Amendment when you’re not even from the US all the while claiming that the two people who have studied in Library and Information Science are US citizens. The only people who would understand more about the first amendment would be lawyers.
Please, you’re making yourself look foolish.
And again, I do NOT worship the constitution.
And please stop. The US States have more character than you know. I’ve lived all over the US. It’s still like that. If people don’t like one state because of the laws, they move somewhere more rural like Wyoming or West Virginia.

Whenever Americans talk about the constitution it is almost with a sacred reverence. I'll stop saying it, when you talk seriously to me, not calling me sad or insisting that my beliefs are from other base motive. How about that?

But I admitted myself to not be an expert and I'm sure there are Americans with different interpretations of the first amendment. Plus there is the question of whether it truly encourages freedom to determine from above what localities can do. If you disagree with what I said regarding US history then demonstrate how I am wrong. As I see in American history your country has been on the path to greater federal bureaucratic control and has constantly undermined what local states and authorities could and used to do. One can have two views of freedom before them and ask which one was truly free.

Now if you're willing to have a discussion, please do. If not, don't waste my time.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Apr 7, 2022

SamanthaAnastasia said:
Lol no. We order books when it’s requested.
If no one requests Why Johnny Has Two Daddys, guess what? It doesn’t get ordered.
That’s why conservative communities don’t have that many LGBT books on the shelves…because no one requests them.
Learn about how the library works dude.

I don’t worship the US. The US isn’t sacred. We are not citizens of this world but of Heaven.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

For my argument it doesn't matter whether or not it is requested. My only point since the beginning has been if a library or other institution wants to ban a certain book, it should be able to. I've seen no compelling reason offered why they should be forced to accept something they don't want. I view local communities as worth more protecting than the wider US.

But I'm glad we agree that the US isn't sacred. It's a rather Godless nation which corrupts more than it edifies. Glad we agree.

Archivist · Apr 7, 2022

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Well one could interpret the first amendment in two ways. Does it give localities the freedom to determine for themselves how they live, or does it give the federal government the authority to determine how they ought to live? Earlier in American history when states had character of their own understand the US to have been more local in it's freedom. If one didn't like Pennsylvania they could move to New York.

Let me put on my lawyer hat for a moment. When the Constitution was adopted a person was considered to be a citizen of their state and by virtue of that a citizen of the United States. That changed with the adoption of the 14th Amendment following the Civil War. Section 1 of the Amendment provides as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm no expert and I'm not an American, so the 1st Amendment to me isn't a sacred belief or an article of faith. Christianity is my article of faith.

Obviously you are not an expert, that is clear from some of your comments. The Constitution isn't "a sacred belief or an article of faith" to me either. It is, however, the "supreme law of the land." The situation set out in the OP describes a situation in a US school district, so the Constitution is particularly relevant to this discussion.

The most vocal minority is always the one in control. It's not just on a local level but on a federal level, the minority with the loudest voice in politics will be the most likely to win.

That is one reason why courts exist, to provide correction when people overstep their authority.

But here's the thing in your example. Even if the school board accepted the books being banned/removed, you would still insist they need to be forced to include material you like.

Yes, because banning books in public libraries and public school libraries has been held to violate the First Amendment. Let me put on my lawyer hat again. In Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), our Supreme Court held that “[l]ocal school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books…” In Pico the Court recognized that the First Amendment rights of students are “directly and sharply implicated” when a book is removed from a school library. Therefore, the discretion of school boards to remove books from school libraries is limited. The law requires that if a book is to be removed, an inquiry must be made as to the motivation and intention of the party calling for its removal. If the party’s intention is to deny students access to ideas with which the party disagrees, it is a violation of the First Amendment. In other words, people (usually a vocal minority) can't have Harry Potter removed from the shelves because it is about witchcraft, or Heather has Two Mommies because it is about a homosexual couple.

That doesn't mean that libraries have to put inappropriate contentographic material on the shelves, nor does it mean that a library's collection development policy can't restrict purchases of material by age.

Again, the first amendment is not a sacred law and I don't have to abide by your American standards. And it's not all that clear to me your interpretation of the first amendment is even correct.

Again, the OP is specifically based on a situation in the US involving Central York School District, so the 1st Amendment is relevant.

Sure, I'm for localism. Even if bad people win. Because freedom of the community seems better to me than forced compliance from above.

Then show me exactly where the Constitution says that localism trumps the First Amendment. Perhaps you should go back and read the 14th Amendment again before answering.

Book Bannings

Just a library lady

Dissident

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Just a library lady

Active Member

Just a library lady

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Dissident

Just a library lady

Dissident

Just a library lady

Dissident

Just a library lady

Just a library lady

Dissident

Dissident

Senior Veteran

Similar threads