It's banned books week

[johnridley]

Here's the ALA's list of top 100 banned books.

Find one you haven't read yet and put it on your short list today!

Comments

[forestweather.livejournal.com]

Really, it would be nice if you had more facts and could back up your statements. H.Finn has been banned and on the list. Libraries have boards who set collection policies--these boards are not made up of library employees but the "public."

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

H. Finn was not on this list, even though it was involved in recent controversies.

And I still think it's funny that library bureaucracies complain when the public gets involved. If there are elections in Chicago to some library board, for example, I've never heard of them.

This is part and parcel of using public money: public participation. There's absolutely no basis for complaint.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

I think the complaint is when the public gets involved in order to try to ban books. I don't know any librarians that favor banning almost any book. OTOH, all the librarians I know are absolutely thrilled when people come in and want to get involved with the library in any positive way.

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

It's the public's money, and therefore the process is fundamentally a political process. Attempts to take the process of approval out of the realm of public discourse are undemocratic.

The only alternative solution is to dissolve public libraries, public schools, and the like. I'd like to see that happen one day, but eliminating public libraries come way down on the list after other non-essential spending.

[johnridley.livejournal.com]

The problem comes when a very small minority act to get books banned. I personally doubt that most book bans would happen if it were actually brought to a vote, but it never is. People with minority agendas get themselves on committees and push through bans. They always claim to be acting for public decency, for the good of the public, but their aim is always to suppress information from the public.

I agree, it's the public's money. Therefore any book ban should have to be agreed to by the majority.

I would say further that book bans are fundamentally flawed. It may be that public funds should not be used to purchase books that the majority find offensive or dangerous, but many book bans attempt to go further, and keep some books from being obtained by anyone at all, even privately and at their own expense (banning their sale). I would hope that any reasonable literate person would agree that is going too far, at least with the books on this list. I might agree with banning the distribution of a book that gave a formula for making bathtub neurotoxin, but attempting to suppress a work of literature is not in the same class.

My personal feeling is that many people attempt to get books banned because they don't want anyone to start actually thinking; they want people to just be nice and normal and just like them; in other words, they're attempting to suppress a thinking democracy, and win the political game not by being right but by causing the other side to atrophy.

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

Banning books from the public marketplace is a completely different discussion; for example, I don't agree that books on bathtub neurotoxins can, in fact, be legally banned in the US. (Besides, why bother when you can purchase them in bulk at Home Depot?)

However, democracy is more that just 50% + 1 vote. Minorities have rights, and a smart democracy such as ours tries to accomodate all viewpoints in a compromise.

I personally think that people who try to ban Harry Potter are not evil; they are genuinely attempting to prevent what they perceive as an evil and dangerous influence away from children. Given that it's their money, in a democratic society they are permitted to express their opinion and influence public spending. Librarians do themselves a dissservice when they huff and puff about censorship; they need to find a new tactic to fend off these attacks.