Do you have a problem with a religious parent deciding the definition of “appropriate” in the context of their religion, and foisting that belief on kids of other religions or no religion?
I know that the people pushing those beliefs consider them the one true, correct set of moral beliefs that every right-thinking person should hold - so much so thatt they reject the idea of naming them, because that would suggest there could be other correct beliefs. That's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already share their beliefs though (especially given how often and quickly they shift).
We shouldn’t, that’s my point. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but if there were secular groups trying to ban books I’d feel the same way.
Being public libraries, I assume there are official channels with which to convey opinions to the powers that be, and proper procedures that must be followed to permit or not permit books from being included in a library's collection.
What's more, being public, it's reasonable to assume the libraries are funded in majority from taxpayer money.
So personally: If the taxpayers who provide the money for the library are unsatisfied with the library's book selection, file formal complaints, and the books are subsequently removed as applicable, I see no problem.
And ultimately: Taxpayers (aka voters) have the ultimate and absolute authority to just rescind funding for public libraries and/or school districts with objectional collections if they refuse to comply with complaints and other such requests and demands.
Protect freedom so as to avoid being one left standing when the music pauses. Cue Pink Floyd.
Like i said in another comment, while i haven't read most of the books discussed, I've read 'a modern romance' (Streisand effect mostly tbh), and 'a handmaid's tale'. Those are infinitely less stressful to read than 1984 (especially the last part which still traumatize me 17 years after) or even worse: Howard Buten books, which were so fundamental in my development, but the most stressful read.
Of you think those should be banned from school libraries, why not, but please, do we agree this is still banning books.
Also the "we put the 'lit' in literature" exposition which shows old, now unbanned classics, Fahrenheit 451 and books burned in public by the local pastor: pure genius.
Then they should try convincing more fellow taxpayers, aka voters, to get the things they want passed.
In a democracy, majority consensus rules. If you're in a minority and failed to be accomodated by the majority consensus, sucks to be you.
>but please, do we agree this is still banning books.
Nope, because the books are freely available using your own money.
Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
I am a fan of democracy but when it comes to a local issue like this, the reality is “consensus of the people who have the most free time rules”. It’s not like there was a vote on whether to ban these books, and my hunch is such a vote would not have passed.
> Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement.
You aren't a "fan of democracy" if you immediately toss it out because you don't like its results.
Also, there has been at least one prior example of a public library losing its public funding[1] after angering voters with their defiant behaviour.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32364615
>They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement.
And? You can still buy those books from your favorite bookstore or other retailer if you really want them that badly.
And it contradicts your implication that this is about procurement/use of public funds.
> Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
I admit that I have an incomplete understanding of the situation, because as I mentioned earlier the NYT article is obnoxious to read.
But what I presume is: A public library removed books from its collection after complaints from the public.
That isn't book banning, not the least because the people demanding this are the people themselves.
Anyone who really still wants those books can procure them with their own money. Nobody's stopping that. The only thing the public is stopping is using public funds to procure and present those books.
This is not "the people", this is a very small handful of people.
In fact, it is a group of people attempting to use policies designed to stop actual pornography from getting into the library to ban LGBTQ and race-centric memoirs, well regarded critical works like Beloved, Lolita, and Maus, and completely age-appropriate books.
This is an decidely undemocratic action, and as stated above, it's disproportionately voiced by "people with free time" (including free time to send death threats and show up at school board meetings carrying assault rifles)
Deciding whether Anne Frank's diary belongs in a school library should not be a function of who can yell the loudest. Thay is what small children do.
If there was an actual vote by "the people" on these works, they would be allowed in a heartbeat. But the reason we don't have votes on books is because minority views have rights, too, and what's in the library is not a popularity contest.
So there is no "majority consensus" option here. Minority views have rights, too.
This is purely in terms of what can be declared "harmful" or "obscene" or "inappropriate" and again, these have to be weighed against the artistic merit and value of the work as a whole (so a single sex scene in a memoir doesn't count.)
And yeah it is book banning and has a chilling effect - my duaghter brought a book from home and had it stolen - as we later learned, it was by a teacher who was worried they (the teachers) would get in trouble for it being at the school at all, regardless of how it got there.
They're free to form their own groups that push for keeping the books. TFA doesn't say whether there's actually a group though[1].
[1] The article writing style is deliberately short on facts and long on emotion. I see this often in New York Times posts, and it's infuriating to read, because to glean two or three facts you have to read all this irrelevant stuff like how the person grew up, what they did as a kid, etc.
What's your alternative proposal?
It looks to me like the system is working as intended; if something matters to you, form a group and petition the government.