Book Bannings

[SoldierOfTheKing]

As far as book bannings go, Amazon refusing to sell books to adults is more consequential than books not being stocked in school libraries.

 

[Archivist]

As far as book bannings go, Amazon refusing to sell books to adults is more consequential than books not being stocked in school libraries.

Yes, I’m unhappy with Amazon. But Amazon is a private company. It can refuse to carry certain books.

 

[rjs330]

And if you read the thread—apparently you did not—no one ever said that ALL books should be allowed for ALL children to read.

Then it is okay to ban books for public school libraries. I just finished reading the thread.

It is my understanding that it is okay to ban books frim school libraries.

The uproar happens when there is a disagreement on the book someone wants banned. Some think it's should be and others so not. Then the law suits start flying.

What we seem to be missing is a sort of wisdom here. And sometimes it's from both sides.

And I'm glad we agree that it is okay to ban some books.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

Then it is okay to ban books for public school libraries. I just finished reading the thread.

It is my understanding that it is okay to ban books frim school libraries.

The uproar happens when there is a disagreement on the book someone wants banned. Some think it's should be and others so not. Then the law suits start flying.

What we seem to be missing is a sort of wisdom here. And sometimes it's from both sides.

And I'm glad we agree that it is okay to ban some books.

How did you ever reach that conclusion?

 

[Archivist]

Then it is okay to ban books for public school libraries. I just finished reading the thread.

It is my understanding that it is okay to ban books frim school libraries.

The uproar happens when there is a disagreement on the book someone wants banned. Some think it's should be and others so not. Then the law suits start flying.

What we seem to be missing is a sort of wisdom here. And sometimes it's from both sides.

And I'm glad we agree that it is okay to ban some books.

Yes, it is certainly alright to ban inappropriate contentography. But why should anyone be banning the Harry Potter books, A Wrinkle in Time, James and the Giant Peach, Who is Rosa Parks, The Lorax, the Dictionary, the Bible or the Qur’an? You forget about this little thinhg called the First Amendment.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

Yes, it is certainly alright to ban inappropriate contentography. But why should anyone be banning the Harry Potter books, A Wrinkle in Time, James and the Giant Peach, Who is Rosa Parks, The Lorax, the Dictionary, the Bible or the Qur’an? You forget about this little thinhg called the First Amendment.

It really does freak me out people be watching hardcore inappropriate content in the computer lab at the Public Library.
I will never get used to that.
Like ever.
*shutter*

 

[rjs330]

How did you ever reach that conclusion?

Because he said it was. He said that not all books should be available to all children.

Do you think it is okay that all books be allowed to all children?

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

Because he said it was. He said that not all books should be available to all children.

Do you think it is okay that all books be allowed to all children?

Age restriction/appropriateness is not the same thing as book banning.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, it is certainly alright to ban inappropriate contentography. But why should anyone be banning the Harry Potter books, A Wrinkle in Time, James and the Giant Peach, Who is Rosa Parks, The Lorax, the Dictionary, the Bible or the Qur’an? You forget about this little thinhg called the First Amendment.

No I haven't. We agree that not all books should be allowed to all children.

The argument begins when we attempt to decide which books should not be allowed. Some books are not healthy for children to read cause it fills their minds with things that are unhealthy for their little brains which are still forming.

So their should be discussion on what books they have access to.

I'm certainly okay with that discussion.

 

[rjs330]

Age restriction/appropriateness is not the same thing as book banning.

Sure it is. It's a form of banning. Now adults are a different matter all together. As an adult I shod be able to read whatever I want to. But libraries are also not required to carry every book either. They too have choices in what to carry and what not to carry. It's okay to do that. But in essence if they elect not to carry a book then they are banning that book from the library.

Most libraries are limited on space and money so they can't carrying everything. Often they can get it from other libraries in loan which is good. But I imagine there are books that no library carries. In effect banning that book.

But where children are concern we do ban books from their libraries. It becomes a contested event when we try to decide which books to ban.

 

[Archivist]

No I haven't. We agree that not all books should be allowed to all children.

But age restrictions and book banning are two different things. Age restriction means that the book might not be in the elementary school library but will be available in the Middle School or High School library.

The argument begins when we attempt to decide which books should not be allowed. Some books are not healthy for children to read cause it fills their minds with things that are unhealthy for their little brains which are still forming.

Then explain why the books I listed earlier should be banned.

So their should be discussion on what books they have access to. I'm certainly okay with that discussion.

The word is there not their.

But that discussion cannot result in abridgment of First Amendment rights.

 

[Archivist]

Sure it is. It's a form of banning. Now adults are a different matter all together. As an adult I shod be able to read whatever I want to. But libraries are also not required to carry every book either. They too have choices in what to carry and what not to carry. It's okay to do that. But in essence if they elect not to carry a book then they are banning that book from the library.

Most libraries are limited on space and money so they can't carrying everything. Often they can get it from other libraries in loan which is good. But I imagine there are books that no library carries. In effect banning that book.

But where children are concern we do ban books from their libraries. It becomes a contested event when we try to decide which books to ban.

First of all, no library has every book. Not even the Library of Congress which is the world’s largest.

Second, there is a difference between collection development and book banning. This was discussed earlier in the thread. I shouldn’t have to repeat myself. And no, choosing not to purchase a book is different from banning a book.

And yes, the First Amendment applies to children.

 

[rjs330]

But age restrictions and book banning are two different things. Age restriction means that the book might not be in the elementary school library but will be available in the Middle School or High School library.

Right, but isn't that what we are talking about here? Or did I miss something? Isn't the complaint that this book not being allowed in a school is book banning?

 

[rjs330]

Then explain why the books I listed earlier should be banned.

This is my whole point. We all agree that some books should not be allowed for children. The battle starts when a book is going to be banned from kids. Then we have a fight on our hands on which books should be banned and which ones shouldn't be.

I have not spoken about the particular books in the OP. Just on the fact that it is okay to ban some books from kids libraries. Banning books in NOT an evil thing and shouldn't be demonized just cause someone wants to ban a book from a kids.library. Its not the same thing as banning a book from an entire society.

Banning a book from a kids library needs to be fought over and a decision made. And local schools have a right to ban books they deem inappropriate for certain ages. But I understand that the battle should be fought and debate should be frequent until a conclusion has been made.

And just like politicians, if a community disagrees with a decision made by the school board they could be voted out of office and replaced by those that would then put the book back in.

 

[rjs330]

First of all, no library has every book. Not even the Library of Congress which is the world’s largest.

I think I said that.

And yes, the First Amendment applies to children.

No it doesn't the same way as it applies to adults. We all understand that First Amendment Rights are not absolute and you agreed that age content is appropriate to consider. So yes it applies to kids but not the same way as it applies to adults.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

This is my whole point. We all agree that some books should not be allowed for children. The battle starts when a book is going to be banned from kids. Then we have a fight on our hands on which books should be banned and which ones shouldn't be.

I have not spoken about the particular books in the OP. Just on the fact that it is okay to ban some books from kids libraries. Banning books in NOT an evil thing and shouldn't be demonized just cause someone wants to ban a book from a kids.library. Its not the same thing as banning a book from an entire society.

Banning a book from a kids library needs to be fought over and a decision made. And local schools have a right to ban books they deem inappropriate for certain ages. But I understand that the battle should be fought and debate should be frequent until a conclusion has been made.

And just like politicians, if a community disagrees with a decision made by the school board they could be voted out of office and replaced by those that would then put the book back in.

It works both ways.
If you ban books on LGBT then people will ban the Bible and Christianity.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[rjs330]

It works both ways.
If you ban books on LGBT then people will ban the Bible and Christianity.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

That's why you have the debate over individual books.

It seems the real issue here is NOT book banning but WHAT books should be banned. Cause it appears that we all agree that it is appropriate to ban books that are not appropriate for children.

The real debate is over if a book is appropriate or not for children.

 

[Archivist]

Right, but isn't that what we are talking about here? Or did I miss something? Isn't the complaint that this book not being allowed in a school is book banning?

Obviously you do not have an MLS. Removing a book from the collection or refusing to purchase a book based on political pressure is book banning. Collection development—developing a collection that meets specific purposes—is not book banning.

 

[Archivist]

This is my whole point. We all agree that some books should not be allowed for children. The battle starts when a book is going to be banned from kids. Then we have a fight on our hands on which books should be banned and which ones shouldn't be.

No, limiting a collection by age is appropriate. Banning books because of complaints about book content is entirely inappropriate. Why should Harry Potter or James and the Giant Peach or I am Rosa Parks not be part of the collection for appropriate ages?

I have not spoken about the particular books in the OP. Just on the fact that it is okay to ban some books from kids libraries. Banning books in NOT an evil thing and shouldn't be demonized just cause someone wants to ban a book from a kids.library. Its not the same thing as banning a book from an entire society.

Yes, book banning is an evil thing. Essentially what parents who want to ban books are saying is “I don’t want my child reading (insert book title here) so it can’t be in the library for your child to read either.”

Banning a book from a kids library needs to be fought over and a decision made. And local schools have a right to ban books they deem inappropriate for certain ages. But I understand that the battle should be fought and debate should be frequent until a conclusion has been made.

Perhaps you should take the time to read the Supreme Court’s decision in Pico. Once a book is on the library shelf the general rule is that it can only be removed for content neutral reason. Otherwise you have a potential First Amendment violation.

And just like politicians, if a community disagrees with a decision made by the school board they could be voted out of office and replaced by those that would then put the book back in.

Again, read Pico. I already provided the citation.

 

[Archivist]

I think I said that.

No, you said “Most libraries are limited on space and money so they can’t carrying everything.” No, there isn’t a single library that carries every book. It isn’t a question of “most.” And you should have used the word carry, not carrying.

No it doesn't the same way as it applies to adults. We all understand that First Amendment Rights are not absolute and you agreed that age content is appropriate to consider. So yes it applies to kids but not the same way as it applies to adults.

Try reading Pico. And again, you aren’t seeing the difference between collection development and book banning. I spent 34 years as a law librarian. Under our collection development policy we collected American, foreign and international legal materials. We did not purchase children’s books. That is a collection development determination. But if we had the Qur’an in our collection (which we did) and we would be pressured to remove it, that would be book banning.