Michigan library defunded after refusing to censor LGBTQ authors

Good on em.

So what?

essentialsaltes said:

So libraries are a public good. A rich service that benefits We The People in many ways beyond lending books. But supporting the freedom to read with a diverse collection is part of the library's duty to We The People.

This town is cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Click to expand...

The town doesn't value LGBT so it's cutting off nothing. A better analogy might be it cutting off a cancerous sore.

What we need is a good old fashioned book burning.

HARK! said:

Now there is a practical use for smut. Maybe some good can come out of it in the fireplace.

Click to expand...

Are we advocating book burning?

essentialsaltes said:

But supporting the freedom to read with a diverse collection is part of the library's duty to We The People.

Click to expand...

Does the freedom to read include being able to access graphic depictions of sex acts from a public library? Because it used to be understood that anything you had to request from behind the counter at a magazine stand or bookshop or similar place (as in the first of the two examples given in this thread) was being kept back there precisely because people were not free to read it, because of its mature themes. Why exactly should the people of this county be made to feel bad about not wanting such things in their library, as though libraries have to carry everything on the taxpayers' dime if it's LGBT-related, or else they're somehow against 'freedom'?

essentialsaltes said:

So libraries are a public good. A rich service that benefits We The People in many ways beyond lending books. But supporting the freedom to read with a diverse collection is part of the library's duty to We The People.

This town is cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Click to expand...

Much like communities in the 1950s that closed their public pools rather than allow black people to use them, yes.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

The town doesn't value LGBT so it's cutting off nothing. A better analogy might be it cutting off a cancerous sore.

Click to expand...

It’s not a matter of valuing LGBT. It’s a matter of banning books. It’s arbitrary. Maybe defund a library that has books that disagree with your religions or politics. I’m sorry, but it’s a public library and has an obligation to have books, including those people disagree with. It’s called starting conversations.

ruthiesea said:

It’s not a matter of valuing LGBT. It’s a matter of banning books. It’s arbitrary. Maybe defund a library that has books that disagree with your religions or politics. I’m sorry, but it’s a public library and has an obligation to have books, including those people disagree with. It’s called starting conversations.

Click to expand...

It wasn't an arbitrary decision. It was a calculated decision to not fund a certain kind of literature that goes against the conservative the values of the town.

The town obviously values it's conservativism over any notions you might have and doesn't want to fund an institution that is promoting material that is against it.

Makes perfect sense to me.

I just wonder why they still have libraries, with Conservapedia on the internet, there's no reason to have to read a book.

HARK! said:

I see it much more like shutting down brothels, rather than allowing children to wander in and look at things that their parents don't want them looking at..

Click to expand...

Public libraries = brothels now?
This is beyond satire.

HARK! said:

I see it much more like shutting down brothels, rather than allowing children to wander in and look at things that their parents don't want them looking at..

Click to expand...

that's a very weak viewpoint with nothing to back it up.
you are stating that the existence of a book that has say a gay character(s) in it is the same as visiting a brothel. do you know what actually happens in a brothel? that is so laughable that it's sad.
if a parent isn't able to properly set boundaries for their children and explain to them what is and is not appropriate for them at a time then they have no business being parents in the first place. what you and others are advocating is effectively another way for do nothing lazy parents to again take no responsibility in raising their own children. furthermore you advocate raising another generation of low intelligence individuals that have no idea about the outside world beyond what their own low intelligence parents have shown them which as always is just going to be a recipe for failure.