that thing Gov. Palin was accused of, because she asked a librarian what the librarian's reaction would be if there was a demand to remove problematic books. Via American Thinker:
First, I'd like to clarify the language. Normally, a thing is considered "banned" only if it is a crime to buy or own that thing. You know, like guns have been banned in New York City and Washington, DC. If a book is removed from a public library, it is not "banned," it is simply not provided free of charge at taxpayer expense. And if a book is not even removed from the library, but merely taken off its prominent display shelf, it is not banned or censored at all, it is simply not promoted by your local government. If anything not provided free by the government is considered "banned," then everything from guns to stereo systems have been banned throughout our history. By that measure, almost everything except scooters for the handicapped is now banned. But let's get back to considering the stocking of public libraries with books. The Library of Congress has about 21 million catalogued books. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, has 91,805 books in its entire Joseph T. Simpson Public Library system. The University of Kansas has 51,563 books in its Dykes Library. That means these two large library systems contain about 0.4% and 0.2%, respectively, of the universe of books contained in the Library of Congress. And even the Library of Congress does not have every book.Please, read the rest. Honestly, I'm not too keen on supplying Mein Kampf or pornographic internet for folks, on my dime; one can be justified by historical power, the other...no. If folks can get the book, legally, and there is no legal interference with them getting the book (going to ignore porn for now), then the book isn't banned. Taking something out of the publicly funded bookshelf is NOT a ban. Nor, for those who started hyperventilating at the THOUGHT that the public doesn't HAVE to keep specific books in the library, does it make folks "book burners." Frankly, I'm finding it more and more typical that the left side of the issue tries to make an argument not from the facts, not from reason, but by misstating the issue-- thus, "pro-choice" people who insist Trig should have been killed, "free speech" zones on campus, and "book banning" or "homophobia" is not paying for what the liberals think should be subsidized.
17 comments:
Let's not forget that over the years, liberals have tried to "ban" "Huck Finn" and "Tom Sawyer" because they contained unsavory depictions of blacks and currently verboten terminology.
- Checkin' in from DIA
An interesting distinction. What word would you use to describe the situation if I was not allowed into the Library any more, perhaps because I talked too loudly? Typically I would say I'd been banned, with the implication that I was talking about the library, not that I was no longer allowed to exist.
One starting distinction-- words are often used in manners that aren't exactly accurate. (Google the famous libertarian's annoyance, that "liberals" do not embody classic liberalism in any way)
That said...I'd say you had been kicked out; one could use the term "I have been banned from the library, because not allowing you in would be to prohibit, forbid, or bar.
I'm going to guess that you're trying to make a point that if it works for a human, it works for a book-- I counter with a couple of points, including that I've never heard of a legal expulsion from public libraries unless it was crime-and-punishment related, and that kicking out a human is different than not paying for the purchase and upkeep of a book.
...good gravy, I need more coffee, that was long winded even for me.
I'd say "you were kicked out of the library for talking too loud".
A "ban" suggests a more permanent judgement being levied, whereas getting the boot for talking too loud is implicit that you would be allowed back in at a later date if you promised to pipe-down.
Here's a story about people being 'banned' from a library (http://www.librarystuff.net/2008/09/06/kennewick-students-are-no-longer-banned-from-visiting-library-during-lunch/). And the ALA co-runs an annual 'banned books' day aimed at the banning or challenging of books at local and national levels. So clearly librarians think banning applies in this case, and they're somewhat known for their love of language :)
More seriously, banning a book is distinct from not carrying it. Libraries have limited money and space, so clearly they can only carry a small fraction of what's available. Librarians make choices of what to carry, therefore, based on the cost of the book versus the number of times it's likely to be borrowed, and the utility of providing it (so they might stock an expensive atlas instead of the latest Stephen King, because patrons can more easily afford their own copy of the novel).
What rarely gets factored in to that calculation is whether books are 'proper'. If they contain illegal material that's definitely a factor. If they are truly likely to shock the populace (rather than just offending a small group) that's also a factor, not because a library shouldn't shock, but because they're not likely to be borrowed. But a large majority of librarians would rail against being told by the governor or legislature that they couldn't stock certain books because they didn't want them stocked. Controlling books like that is a ban, however you might wish to use the word.
Shoot, that's right next to where I'm from!
They're *supposed* to have a closed campus, for what it's worth.
I'm aware that the ALA has the banned book thing yearly-- if you'd read the article I linked, you'd notice that they do far more "banning" as a basic matter of course-- *if* we are going to expand "banned" to mean "not provided free of charge."
It comes down to this: the ALA calls it banning when someone besides their librarians does it; when they do it, it's just good business.
Side note: this is more like banning:
http://sailorette.blogspot.com/2008/09/on-book-banning.html
If book banning is such a life-and-death issue to these celebrity foot soldiers for free speech, where were they four years ago when John Kerry and his rabid minions were pressuring Regnery Publishing to withdraw “Unfit for Command” from bookstores? Where were they when members of the Borders Books Employee Union were openly advocating sabotaging book sales? A message on the union’s members-only website urged:
You guys don’t actually HAVE to sell the thing!
Just “carelessly” hide the boxes, “accidentally” drop them off pallets, “forget” to stock the ones you have, and then suggest a nice Al Franken or Micheal Moore book as a substitute…
I don’t care if these Neandertals (sic) in fancy suits get mad at me, they aren’t regular customers anyway. Other than “Left Behind” books, they don’t read. Anything you can do to make them feel unwelcome is only fair. They are the people pushing retailers to cut costs, don’t forget. And they would censor your speech, your books, your music in a heartbeat, so give them a taste of it!
Where were they when left-wing hit man David Brock of Media Matters for America sent a demand letter to Wal-Mart, Amazon.com, and Barnes & Noble urging them to pull “Unfit for Command” from their shelves?
Still not *precisely* a ban in that ownership would still be legal, but still an attempt to make it impossible to legally get a copy of books.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17/the-book-banners-hollywood-ignores/
not my site.
*goes for more coffee*
Banning does not mean 'not providing free of charge', it means 'not allowed to provide a book, whatever its merits'. Compare these two scenarios:
1. You request a book from the library, and the librarian says "I'm sorry, we don't have a copy of that because we thought it had limited appeal, but I'll note your request and if we get enough demand we might get a copy".
2. You request a book from the library, and the librarian says "I'm sorry, the government says we can't let you read that. You're free to buy your own copy."
Do you really not think there's a difference between those two?
I should add - I don't approve of banning books unless they contain illegal material. There shouldn't have been an attempt to stop people stocking Unfit for Command; instead Kerry should have sued the authors for defamation, based on the lies contained in the book, and then made much of the fact that the right was lying about his service.
Let me offer a different scenario:
You go in to check out a book, and the Librarian says sorry, we don't have that because the ALA didn't list it as a suitable book.
Your idea that because there *is* a difference between "you might get to use it free of charge" and "those elected to take care of the spending of those paying for this library aren't going to pay for that" are good examples of not-banned and banned is rather silly.
ban Pronunciation verb, banned, ban·ning, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime.
2. Archaic. a. to pronounce an ecclesiastical curse upon.
b. to curse; execrate.
–noun 3. the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction.
4. informal denunciation or prohibition, as by public opinion: society's ban on racial discrimination.
5. Law. a. a proclamation.
b. a public condemnation.
6. Ecclesiastical. a formal condemnation; excommunication.
7. a malediction; curse.
Now, nobody thinks that Bush is banning the New York Times when he doesn't pay to have it delivered to everyone-- and nobody (I know of) thinks that my home town Libra was doing the same when they stopped subscribing to news papers.
I think this comes down to a disagreement on what libraries are for-- I see public libraries as a source for books paid for by taxes, and thus they should be held accountable to said tax payers. (and thus, their legally elected Representatives)
Some, like the ACLU, see them as a way to get anything "expression" related from the Anarchist's Cook Book to porn sites, without accountability to those paying for it. No idea where you stand-- although I'm gathering you're on the "libraries should have anything there's a demand for that isn't illegal."
BTW, Kerry couldn't sue for defamation-- that would require that he *find* any lies in the book. That well known challenge is still up, last I heard....
"nobody (I know of) thinks that my home town Libra was doing the same when they stopped subscribing to news papers."
My very point. I assume they stopped subscribing because the cost/benefit no longer justified the subscription. Perhaps viewing online is more economical, or people in your neighborhood just prefer buying their own. That's not a ban, that's a business decision. My guess is if you could demonstrate demand for the book to your librarians they'd resubscribe (and cancel something else to balance the books).
The problem isn't that they're not going to pay for something; as you've pointed out several times, they're not going to pay for almost all of the books published each year. The problem is that they're not going to pay for something because the government knows better than you what you should be allowed to read.
I can understand if you don't like the idea of libraries at all (I'm an enormous fan, but I can appreciate the argument against). But if the government creates a list of books it won't allow that's functionally the same as having a list of government-approved reading. Controllling what you read, if only incompletely, is almost as bad in my eyes as controlling what you can say.
(If you think I'm exaggerating about the government controlling this, consider school text books. Your school district is free to get any text book it likes, but in practice the only ones available are the ones the Texas schools review board accepts.)
My very point. I assume they stopped subscribing because the cost/benefit no longer justified the subscription. Perhaps viewing online is more economical, or people in your neighborhood just prefer buying their own.
Took too much room, and they couldn't talk folks into paying otherwise.
The problem is that they're not going to pay for something because the government knows better than you what you should be allowed to read.
I do wish you'd quit saying "the government" this and "the government" that; "the government" could mean anything from the local council to the federal government, or possibly the UN.
The folks who are paying for the books should have input, rather than depending solely on the judgement of whoever in the library choses books.
Actually I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that idea - let the people vote online for what books they want to see stocked, for example. I still think there's a role for librarians, because while I love books I'm clueless compared to your average librarian, and don't even know what it is I don't know. Such a vote isn't a ban, however, unless we have a vote for the books we don't want at the library. That I'm less comfortable with, but given that a 'for' vote could override it that still seems reasonable.
The problem is that in reality none of that happens. Instead it is 'the government', typically the city council or mayor, who want to decide that no matter how good, popular or virtuous a certain book may be, you're not fit to read it at the library.
The point of electing reps is so that you *don't* have to resort to direct democracy-- which always favors those who have more time on their hands or a bigger axe to grind.
If someone wants to set up a *private* library, they can stock whatever they want; if money is going to be taken from everyone in an area, they should at least have a reasonable expectation that it won't be spent on highly objectionable things.
(imitation child porn, for an extreme example)
I know that every library I've ever helped out at was more than willing to take donations of new books, so it's not as if "the library isn't buying this" means "the library will never have it."
Sorting system to be determined by those who pay for it.
I agree with your comment about representative government entirely, that's why I've been saying 'the government' all the way through. One of the problems of representative democracy (that in some circumstances can also be a great strength) is that your representatives vote as they see fit, not in the way that the people they represent would necessarily vote. So having a politician ban (or not ban) a book doesn't mean that's what the community would want. And furthermore an issue such as this, compared to health policy, the economy, etc., is unlikely to get a representative voted out, so they can do whatever they want. Now as good public servants I'd hope they'd do the 'right' thing, while acknowledging that they very often do whatever the constituents who shout loudest want.
Your point about donated books is excellent, and shows why banning books is so objectionable. I don't mind a library not stocking a book because it couldn't justify the expense. But if it's given the book and still can't stock it because a politician has told them not to I find it reprehensible.
Your simulated child porn example. I'm going to guess you'd agree with me that child porn, simulated or not, is disgusting and unacceptable. I would make it illegal without hesitation, whatever the first amendment arguments might be. So the issue isn't anything to do with libraries (it's no better or worse in a library than in a bookstore), but with the legality of it; as I said before, if material is illegal it's automatically banned from the library.
Your simulated child porn example. I'm going to guess you'd agree with me that child porn, simulated or not, is disgusting and unacceptable.
That's why I chose it-- something that all decent people can say "this is bad" without having to argue about it; simplifies discussions to have something that is bad while still being legal.
I know that right now, most libraries *do* have some basic bans-- obscene books and videos, for example. I'm still not sure how that works, when those that have internet have to allow surfing of porn sites, but that hobgoblin is nearly extinct, small minds or no....
Going WAY back to the original point:
books in the library take money for upkeep, and the books that they upkeep will be replaced. The people paying for this should be able to have some influence on what books are supplied with their funds.
The claim that removing objectionable material from being provided for free is the same as a ban is an abuse of language.
Furthermore, more 'banning' is done by the librarian's choosing than any sort of politician; the over-reaction to the question of how one could go about the challenging of books by possibly conservative representatives, vs the ignoring of know-liberally-biased ALA librarians having far, far greater control without oversight, is a telling red flag about the intellectual honesty of those doing it. (wow, that's an ugly sentence)
To really fix the situation, it would have to be worked from the ground up; I'd start by removing the requirement for certification to file, check out and keep up books, but I'm one of those wild and crazy revolutionaries who thinks that requiring a profession license to be an interior decorator or landscaper is silly....
Post a Comment