S/O Book Banning

[Mama Lynx]

What are your thoughts?

 

Even if you're against book banning across the board, are there books you *wish* you could ban?

 

Does it suppress ideas, or does it utterly fail to suppress ideas?

 

I just though I'd move this to a different thread, to focus on the topic, which is a good one.

[hsmamainva]

I don't support banning books in any way, shape or form.

 

If anything, banning a book, or trying to ban it, will only increase its popularity...and more children / teens / what-have-you will be wanting to read it *because* they've been told they can't or shouldn't.

[JFSinIL]

No book should be banned. BUT - just because a book is published does not mean I have to read it.

[TXMomof4]

I can't think of any books I'd ban off the top of my head.

 

However, I've thought about banning the internet! No, I haven't thought through all of the constitutional issues there, but the misuse of the internet in public libraries sickens me. I don't know why p*rn should be allowed and why my tax money should have to pay for it.

 

How's that for a complete thread hijack? sorry about that.

[sleepy]

Totally against book banning.

 

I think it is absolutely none of my business what anyone else reads. Likewise, what I choose to read should be of no concern to anyone else.

[hsmamainva]

I can't think of any books I'd ban off the top of my head.

 

However, I've thought about banning the internet! No, I haven't thought through all of the constitutional issues there, but the misuse of the internet in public libraries sickens me. I don't know why p*rn should be allowed and why my tax money should have to pay for it.

 

How's that for a complete thread hijack? sorry about that.

 

That's why I think computer areas in libraries should be designed better.

 

In our library, they're in a circle, right in front of the check-out desk, so whatever someone's looking at could be easily viewed by children. I don't care what they're viewing -- that's their business -- but I *do* care if children can see it just because they happen to be standing at the check-out desk.

 

I wish they'd line the chairs up against a backwall, have the computers facing the users, and then no one could see what they were viewing unless they went up directly behind someone's chair.

[sdWTMer]

What are your thoughts?

 

Even if you're against book banning across the board, are there books you *wish* you could ban?

 

Does it suppress ideas, or does it utterly fail to suppress ideas?

 

I just though I'd move this to a different thread, to focus on the topic, which is a good one.

 

As I posted in the other thread, I'm absolutely against banning books; as well as banning anything on the internet and talk radio! I like my Bible and I wouldn't want that banned. :)

[Aubrey]

What's the difference between banning a book & a library not buying it in the first place? Or sending something over to the library book sale?

 

I'm just curious, because there are some books that seem to me unworthy of even being banned. "Banning" is a term we use for censoring *real* books, kwim? Whereas some of the, um, *lighter* fare at the library--like, say Gossip Girl, etc.--might not qualify for something as validating as being banned, kwim? ;)

[Mama Lynx]

I don't see how it does the least bit of good. There is no way to remove *all* copies of a book from an area, especially not now with Amazon delivering to our doors, and scans of practically everything on the internet. Effective banning is just not possible. It would take a massive, massive effort with full government and private sector involvement.

 

So while I'm utterly against book burning, I'm not afraid of it, because I don't think it's an effective tool.

 

I once donated a bunch of books to my little library in Texas. Among them were many books on witchcraft and astrology. The library refused to take them.

 

I do think libraries, and librarians, often quietly "ban" by refusing to accept or order certain books, especially in smaller towns.

[cin]

I am against book banning in general, but I do feel that there are books that are really not books, but pornography. Those should be banned. I do believe that there should be a rating system for books. And alot of the new teen books should be rated *R*. Detailed s&x acts are NOT appropriate for young teens. Well, my PERSONAL opinion is that NO ONE should read them, but one should at least be an adult before reading that stuff.

 

I PERSONALLY think that many books have a negative impact on our lives and should not be read, but I feel that that is a personal decision. Just like alcohol & cigarettes. The sad thing is, the impact of these books is not discussed publicly. harlequin romances can breed discontent in a marriage, even a good one, because DH is not of SuperHero proportions. Just as an example.

 

This book is an example of books that I believe have absolutely NO value except titillation. I prefer Junie B Jones. And if not banned completely, they should at least be available ONLY to adults. I have seen in the bookstores, kids reading books such as Letters to Penthouse. Each letter is just a fantasy. No educational value, not even Galore Park sketch ; ) Just pure stimulation, Not of the mental variety.

[Mama Lynx]

What's the difference between banning a book & a library not buying it in the first place? Or sending something over to the library book sale?

 

I'm just curious, because there are some books that seem to me unworthy of even being banned. "Banning" is a term we use for censoring *real* books, kwim? Whereas some of the, um, *lighter* fare at the library--like, say Gossip Girl, etc.--might not qualify for something as validating as being banned, kwim? ;)

 

Good question. And it's the job of the librarian to decide what stays, what goes, what is useful in circulation, and what is taking up dead space because no one has checked it out in 75 years ...

 

I have heard (and I have no hard facts to back this up) that many libraries are dumping older books because it's the romances and pop fiction that circulate best - and they go for circulation. Are we going to end up with libraries full of twaddle ... and whatever is on the local school reading list?

[hsmamainva]

Good question. And it's the job of the librarian to decide what stays, what goes, what is useful in circulation, and what is taking up dead space because no one has checked it out in 75 years ...

 

I have heard (and I have no hard facts to back this up) that many libraries are dumping older books because it's the romances and pop fiction that circulate best - and they go for circulation. Are we going to end up with libraries full of twaddle ... and whatever is on the local school reading list?

 

In our local library, they had a large book sale and, when I asked why they were selling the books, they said -- and this is a direct quote! -- "Because books are going out of style and we want to make more room for videos, DVDs, and books on tape" :glare:

[sleepy]

In our local library, they had a large book sale and, when I asked why they were selling the books, they said -- and this is a direct quote! -- "Because books are going out of style and we want to make more room for videos, DVDs, and books on tape" :glare:

 

:svengo: What is the world coming to?

[RoughCollie]

At our library, the librarians used to weed out books that have not been checked out recently or that were in bad condition -- recently being within the last 10 years.

 

We have a new library that has so much extra shelf space that the books won't need to be weeded for a long time.

 

I don't know of any books that I wish to ban everyone from reading. In my own home, I have banned one book so far because even though it was a young adult novel, it was s*xually explicit in the extreme.

 

When my kids used the children's room at our library, the librarian would refuse to let DD check out inappropriate books, with my permission. I would look at the books in question when I retrieved DD, and I usually agreed with the librarian.

 

RC

[dragons in the flower bed]

In our local library, they had a large book sale and, when I asked why they were selling the books, they said -- and this is a direct quote! -- "Because books are going out of style and we want to make more room for videos, DVDs, and books on tape" :glare:

 

:scared:

[Mama Lynx]

At our library, the librarians used to weed out books that have not been checked out recently or that were in bad condition -- recently being within the last 10 years.

 

 

 

 

 

RC

 

 

Doesn't it make you want to run to the library and check out random, obscure, books? Or all the classics?

[RoughCollie]

Libraries have limited budgets and many books from which to choose. Not buying a book is not the same thing as banning it, else all books not purchased could be thought of as having been banned.

 

I do not buy or read Harlequin Romances, but they are not banned from my home. I read a lot of books that I get from the library. I don't buy those books because, although I want to read them, I do not want to waste money on a book I will only read one time and which falls into my pleasure reading (as opposed to literature) category.

 

What's the difference between banning a book & a library not buying it in the first place?

[PariSarah]

. . . I really did take dragons seriously about engaging in the intellectual exercise.

 

Here's what I said:

 

There are a few books on this list that I find morally or intellectually bankrupt--not "bad" or "evil," just devoid of anything worth reading. I find it amusing that people expend their energies trying to protect or champion these books. If a library decided that it had limited circulation, and these relatively worthless books were trashed to make room for meatier, gentler, or more helpful fare, I wouldn't lose any sleep.

 

There are other books on this list that I look forward to reading with my child, at an appropriate level of maturity, but that I would fight tooth and nail if a school system tried to impose it on him inappropriately. This would certainly be labeled censorship, and would incite headlines about "banning books." I suspect that some of the books on this list are there for that reason--not because communities got together and tried to have them yanked from the B&N, but because a parents' group complained to a school board that their six-year-olds didn't need to be reading "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings." A terrific book that belongs on every high school syllabus, but wildly inappropriate in some contexts.

 

I do get frustrated when that gets labeled censorship. It is censorship, technically, but it is appropriate censorship.

 

I also think that school systems should be a little more respectful of cultural sensitivity when choosing texts. There are some books on that list, for example, that deal with important themes in inflammatory or gratuitously graphic ways. Having such books removed from bookstores or libraries would be censorship worth fighting. Asking them to be moved to the adult section of the public library, or requiring public school systems to respect parental sensibilities by choosing less graphic or less offensive texts to approach the same issues, seems to me in a different category.

 

Public education in this country has to deal with religious and cultural pluralism--which means erring on the side of caution with respect to potentially offensive material. Much as I find redeeming and beautiful in Lewis's "The Horse and His Boy," I would not cry foul if a school district with a heavy Muslim population decided to take it off a "recommended reading" list, or asked a teacher not to use it in her 4th grade reading group. There are equally redeeming and beautiful texts that don't use such heavy-handed stereotypes of Arabs to make their point. It's misleading to label such caution "censorship" or "banning," and I think it ultimately doesn't help us fight genuine censorship.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Even if you're against book banning across the board, are there books you *wish* you could ban?

 

I often find that I have an urge to cram a book down the whole world's throat, but there's only one book I ever wished I could ban. (Not that I would have wished it, had a fairy appeared before me willing to grant one such.) I ended up defacing the book by writing a note of warning in one of the front pages, and returning it to the library like that. As far as I know, that book is still in circulation. If anyone is in Cheyenne, WY, and feels like doing a research project for me, could you check out the Ezzo books and see if they have a note in them? If you look it up for me, I'll give you rep for a week. :) This was back before they changed their feeding schedule. Hopefully the library has the new editions.

 

Does it suppress ideas, or does it utterly fail to suppress ideas?

 

I'm in the utterly failing camp, human nature being what it is.

 

I just though I'd move this to a different thread, to focus on the topic, which is a good one.

 

:blushing:

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I'm not into book banning. But, I am into censoring what is appropriate for certain ages! In other words, as a parent, I want to be able to decide what is appropriate for my dc and what isn't, not someone who doesn't know them. I don't want to decide for someone else's dc either.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Doesn't it make you want to run to the library and check out random, obscure, books? Or all the classics?

 

Yes, and we do this, actually.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I wish they'd line the chairs up against a backwall, have the computers facing the users, and then no one could see what they were viewing unless they went up directly behind someone's chair.

 

 

 

That nebulous They -- they make these really neat computer screens that no one can see unless they're at a certain angle in front of them. My grandmother's library has these. The computers line the walls, but until you sit on the chair that's been placed just so, you can't see what you're looking at. You can't see your neighbors' screens either. It's pretty cool.

[RoughCollie]

No. Our former library had no extra room on their shelves. We have about 7,000 books at home, and we own a used (OOP) bookstore that has 45,000 books available for sale. Why do we have such a large book selling operation, when that is not my profession, nor DH's? Because he is into saving OOP books.

 

I do not want to see another book enter my home or office, unless I want to read it. I see them as clutter, unless they are library books.

 

Doesn't it make you want to run to the library and check out random, obscure, books? Or all the classics?

[hsmamainva]

That nebulous They -- they make these really neat computer screens that no one can see unless they're at a certain angle in front of them. My grandmother's library has these. The computers line the walls, but until you sit on the chair that's been placed just so, you can't see what you're looking at. You can't see your neighbors' screens either. It's pretty cool.

 

I'd love to see those!! (Maybe I'll suggest them to the local library!)

[dragons in the flower bed]

I'm just curious, because there are some books that seem to me unworthy of even being banned. "Banning" is a term we use for censoring *real* books, kwim? Whereas some of the, um, *lighter* fare at the library--like, say Gossip Girl, etc.--might not qualify for something as validating as being banned, kwim? ;)

 

The difference is political. With one model, individuals choose what they want and librarians get it. This has flaws -- see posts below about books being sold to make room for DVDs, and classics being burned 'cause no one checks them out.

[sleepy]

That nebulous They -- they make these really neat computer screens that no one can see unless they're at a certain angle in front of them. My grandmother's library has these. The computers line the walls, but until you sit on the chair that's been placed just so, you can't see what you're looking at. You can't see your neighbors' screens either. It's pretty cool.

 

That is cool. Never seen anything like it, but it is a great idea for libraries.

[Parrothead]

I am against book banning in general, but I do feel that there are books that are really not books, but pornography. Those should be banned. I do believe that there should be a rating system for books. And alot of the new teen books should be rated *R*. Detailed s&x acts are NOT appropriate for young teens. Well, my PERSONAL opinion is that NO ONE should read them, but one should at least be an adult before reading that stuff.

 

I PERSONALLY think that many books have a negative impact on our lives and should not be read, but I feel that that is a personal decision. Just like alcohol & cigarettes. The sad thing is, the impact of these books is not discussed publicly. harlequin romances can breed discontent in a marriage, even a good one, because DH is not of SuperHero proportions. Just as an example.

 

This book is an example of books that I believe have absolutely NO value except titillation. I prefer Junie B Jones. And if not banned completely, they should at least be available ONLY to adults. I have seen in the bookstores, kids reading books such as Letters to Penthouse. Each letter is just a fantasy. No educational value, not even Galore Park sketch ; ) Just pure stimulation, Not of the mental variety.

:iagree:

[Jenny in Atl]

No book should be banned. BUT - just because a book is published does not mean I have to read it.

 

Ditto... :D

[Murphy101]

Even if you're against book banning across the board, are there books you *wish* you could ban?

 

I am against banning books "across the board".

I believe that I have the power to ban any books I want by simply not buying or endorsing it.

 

Does it suppress ideas, or does it utterly fail to suppress ideas?

 

I don't know about "ideas" per se, but I do believe it can suppress freedom of speech and opinions. THAT certainly might suppress ideas.

 

To me people wanting to ban books is no different than people wanting to ban things other areas of media.

 

It boils down to lazy citizenship wanting the gov't to watch over them like a big brother, when what they really need to do is be vigilant in their own home. Change the channel, turn off the tv, don't buy whatever. If they really feel that strongly, it won't be that hard to do.

 

Now, I have no issue with labeling or separating. That to me is not censorship but information being made available.

[TN Mama]

What are your thoughts?

 

Even if you're against book banning across the board, are there books you *wish* you could ban?

 

Does it suppress ideas, or does it utterly fail to suppress ideas?

 

I just though I'd move this to a different thread, to focus on the topic, which is a good one.

 

I am against banning books. However, I do think there are books that should not be in school libraries and I do think that teachers, librarians and especially parents should know what kids are reading.

[Desert Rat]

Against banning books across the board here too. That's why books have covers. So people can close them if they don't want to see what's inside. This also applies to knobs on radios and buttons on TV. But that's another topic. If you don't like what you're reading put it down but don't tell me I can't pick it up!

[The Governess]

I'm completely against it. I think that it is up to us as individuals to make our own choices when it comes to reading material. And imagine some of the wonderful books we could be without due to banning (you only have to scan the list in that *other* thread ;) to see how many important, maybe even life-changing books would be lost to us).

 

My mom was very upset with some of the books that we studied in public high school (including Brave New World and Native Son). She threatened taking it up with my English teacher and the school several times. Of course, I always protested loudly. I didn't want anyone telling me what I could and could not read. She backed down, and I was able to read and enjoy all of the books on the reading list. I think the experience made me more passionate about the whole concept of book banning.

[genie]

What's the difference between banning a book & a library not buying it in the first place? Or sending something over to the library book sale?

 

 

I do think libraries, and librarians, often quietly "ban" by refusing to accept or order certain books, especially in smaller towns.

 

For the first time ever, I got upset with my library system not too long ago. I had checked out a kid's philosophy book, renewed it as many times as possible, and even kept it past its due date and subsequently payed a late fee. About a week after I returned it I tried to put it on hold again. Strangely enough, it wasn't in the online catalog anymore. When I returned to my library I asked them to check on it for me, and come to find out it was "removed from circulation". The librarian said that happens sometimes when a book is in bad shape. This one wasn't. It also happens when a book doesn't get checked out often. This one had been out for weeks and even made late fee income.

 

I believe it was discarded because on the front of the book were philosophical questions, one in particular of a religious nature. And the book didn't answer the question with a resounding YES. (Nor did it any of the other questions. That was the whole point of the book, to get the kid thinking philosophically.) I wished they would have called and offered the book to me. I would have gladly paid for it.

 

OK. Rant over. :glare:

[bettyandbob]

I'm totally against book banning. I don't think we should prevent libraries from purchasing any specific books, even the new young adult stuff that appears to be total trash to me (maybe I'm old). At my library, when children apply for a library card it can be linked to the parent's account and I can monitor my dcs reading if I wish. I'm all for parents knowing what their own children are reading and what their own children have interest in. The public library is for the public. If you don't want your children to have free reign there don't give it to them.

 

I know I will not like everything the library purchases. I will not like everything my municipality makes available through parks and recreation. I will not like all activities that my taxes pay for in public schools (obviously). But that doesn't mean I don't recognize these and other things suit other peoples' interests well. People who also pay taxes.

 

I want a society that encourages free thought and independent thinking. If the government started to seriously restrict books purchased for the general public to have available at the library, then there goes free thought and independent thinking. There goes the America that has fostered great scientists, inventors, writers and artists. There goes the America that produces the incredible outside-the-box thinking that we need to solve the great problems in foreign policy, health care, economics...

 

I'm proud of America. I don't want America to become a state where the government decides what I can think. And yes, government strongly dictating public library purchasing is a step down that road.

[Christy B]

Until the comment on Ezzo got me to thinking . . .

 

There are books that exist as instruction manuals for human pain and suffering. I am thinking specifically of some "child training" books that IMO perpetuate child abuse. If it were in my power to make it so, those books would not exist. Sure, I'd like for them to be banned (or better yet, never published). But I don't see how that can happen without starting down a very slippery slope . . .

 

Okay, I guess I'm completely against book banning, but not above wishing some books would disappear off the face of the earth. Or at the very least, be returned to the library with strategically placed sticky notes left inside the book.

[Peek a Boo]

against it --for all the reasons mentioned already :D

[pqr]

No books should never be banned, but... (Yes, there is always a but),

 

there certainly some which should be controlled in such a manner as to make it difficult for children to access them. Examples,

 

1. those that are sexually explicit, those that encourage depravity etc. (I understand that this is extremely dificult to define and will lead to never-ending debate, we generally return to the unsatisfactory "I know it when I see it" quote.) Community standards must apply and we need to give due regard to parental wishes. This is certainly true when a parent does not wish a child to see a book. In cases such as this the library should never be allowed to check said book out to a child (yes I know he will get it some other way, but at least the effort will have been made, with computers this is not too hard.)

 

2. children's books that discuss homosexuality (In the eyes of many parents this is not a topic that they want the school to enter into a discussion of, and certainly do not want their library to be a source of information to their children). The much hashed over titles Heather Has Two Mommies or Jenny lives with Eric and Martin are cases in point. It certainly should be within a parent's ability to ensure that their children do not access these books.

 

3. Extremist literature. (Children should not read Mein Kampf or some of the stuff coming out of the Radical Islamist camp without parental supervision.)

 

4. Graphic material. Books on crime scenes, torture etc can be too graphic for children.

 

5. How to manuals eg. Anarchist's Cookbook. A ten year old who gets hold this can do himself serious harm.

 

Once a child comes into his majority, so to speak, then he has to be allowed to read what he wants. Until that time, the parents wishes must be given priority.

 

For adults, there really should be no restrictions (illegal material or that which can be shown to compromise national security being the obvious exception).

 

As for the decision not to publish The Jewel of Medina that was sheer cowardice. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080818/ts_alt_afp/usbookreligionislam

[genie]

 

2. children's books that discuss homosexuality (In the eyes of many parents this is not a topic that they want the school to enter into a discussion of, and certainly do not want their library to be a source of information to their children). The much hashed over titles Heather Has Two Mommies or Jenny lives with Eric and Martin are cases in point. It certainly should be within a parent's ability to ensure that their children do not access these books.

 

 

 

But the library IS a source of information, not only to their children, but to the community. It is completely within any parent's ability to ensure that their children do not access books they don't approve of. It's called going to the library with them. There may be books that I don't want my daughter to read, but I can make that happen without forcing a library to do it for me.

[laylamcb]

I'm not in favor of banning books in any way--though I could list a bunch that I don't see any point to. (Rose mentioned A Clockwork Orange--gag me. I know, I know: It's a deep psychological study of the effects of violence on society yadayadayada. My take? It's violence as titillation--plain and simple.)

 

I don't think that book banning is generally successful in suppressing ideas--quite the contrary. But I'm still against it.

 

Great topic, Rose and Lynx! :001_smile:

[laylamcb]

No books should never be banned, but... (Yes, there is always a but),

 

there certainly some which should be controlled in such a manner as to make it difficult for children to access them.

 

I would agree with this, generally speaking. :001_smile:

[Mamagistra]

...they said -- and this is a direct quote! -- "Because books are going out of style and we want to make more room for videos, DVDs, and books on tape" :glare:

 

:eek: :svengo:

[abbeyej]

Well, lol, I sort of wish someone had banned "The Cement Garden" before I was assigned it in college! ;) Ugh!!! I can't seem to recall any redeeming qualities about it (except, I suppose, that I still remember how wretched it was?)...

[Danestress]

depending on how "banning" is defined. I assume we are all against banning people from reading what they choose.

 

But I don't think every book belongs in a public library, and just off the top of my head, I'm not sure I want public money spent on books explaining how to set up and operate a meth lab or hijack an airplane, or kill your wife, or, say, a compliation of the PlayBoy centerfolds from the last decade.

 

I don't want to keep people from reading those books if they want to read them, but I have no problem with my library system saying, "With the limited resources we have, we can't buy everything, we don't have to buy everything, and we aren't buying those books."

 

Is that "banning?"

[Melinda in VT]

For the first time ever, I got upset with my library system not too long ago. I had checked out a kid's philosophy book, renewed it as many times as possible, and even kept it past its due date and subsequently payed a late fee. About a week after I returned it I tried to put it on hold again. Strangely enough, it wasn't in the online catalog anymore. When I returned to my library I asked them to check on it for me, and come to find out it was "removed from circulation". The librarian said that happens sometimes when a book is in bad shape. This one wasn't. It also happens when a book doesn't get checked out often. This one had been out for weeks and even made late fee income.

 

I believe it was discarded because on the front of the book were philosophical questions, one in particular of a religious nature. And the book didn't answer the question with a resounding YES. (Nor did it any of the other questions. That was the whole point of the book, to get the kid thinking philosophically.) I wished they would have called and offered the book to me. I would have gladly paid for it.

 

OK. Rant over. :glare:

 

This sounds like a cool book. Do you happen to remember the name?

 

(And yes, I completely agree that the library should have called and offered the book to you!)

[Melinda in VT]

But the library IS a source of information, not only to their children, but to the community. It is completely within any parent's ability to ensure that their children do not access books they don't approve of. It's called going to the library with them. There may be books that I don't want my daughter to read, but I can make that happen without forcing a library to do it for me.

 

:iagree:

 

I can see children's books on homosexuality being very helpful for the parent of a young child who has a new friend with homosexual parents.

[laylamcb]

depending on how "banning" is defined. I assume we are all against banning people from reading what they choose.

 

But I don't think every book belongs in a public library, and just off the top of my head, I'm not sure I want public money spent on books explaining how to set up and operate a meth lab or hijack an airplane, or kill your wife, or, say, a compliation of the PlayBoy centerfolds from the last decade.

 

I don't want to keep people from reading those books if they want to read them, but I have no problem with my library system saying, "With the limited resources we have, we can't buy everything, we don't have to buy everything, and we aren't buying those books."

 

Is that "banning?"

 

Oh, sure--my library tells me that all the time. Not that I'm asking for the book about the meth lab or anything.... ;) But I think that's a lot different from most people's conception of banning. Just IMHO.

[genie]

This sounds like a cool book. Do you happen to remember the name?

 

(And yes, I completely agree that the library should have called and offered the book to you!)

 

It is Philosophy Rocks by Stephen Law. Upon finding it on Amazon to link here, I realized the potentially offensive question wasn't actually on the cover of the book, but was simply the name of a chapter. :glare:

[Murphy101]

depending on how "banning" is defined. I assume we are all against banning people from reading what they choose.

 

wha???? um no. I'm not anyhow.

 

But I don't think every book belongs in a public library, and just off the top of my head, I'm not sure I want public money spent on books explaining how to set up and operate a meth lab or hijack an airplane, or kill your wife, or, say, a compliation of the PlayBoy centerfolds from the last decade.

 

I don't want to keep people from reading those books if they want to read them, but I have no problem with my library system saying, "With the limited resources we have, we can't buy everything, we don't have to buy everything, and we aren't buying those books."

 

Is that "banning?"

 

yep. many library materials are ordered based on customer request, either for specific books or certain genres, and an assessment of what is deemed to be popular or likely to be wanted by the public. If a library has received requests for such materials or has a valid reason to believe they would be checked out, then I have no problem with them ordering in those materials. Other people have just as valid a right to their tax money being used for books they want in their library as you do. I don't have to like their choice of reading materials to respect their right to be able to read it just as easily as I can get my hands on what I want to read.

 

Separating them out from general public sections? - yes! I wouldn't like any of the materials you referenced, but I'm not comfortable with a librarian determining what is and is not appropriate for her patrons to have access to. THAT is really what I'm not okay with.

 

As another noted, if the patrons don't like it - they don't check it out and it gets tossed/sold out of the collection and not purchased again.

[nmoira]

I am against book banning in general, but I do feel that there are books that are really not books, but pornography. Those should be banned. I do believe that there should be a rating system for books. And alot of the new teen books should be rated *R*. Detailed s&x acts are NOT appropriate for young teens. Well, my PERSONAL opinion is that NO ONE should read them, but one should at least be an adult before reading that stuff.

I suspect that your definition of pornography and mine are widely diverging. I do think that the quality of most books for teens leaves something to be desired, but I wouldn't have a problem with my (then teen) children reading books like you describe. Admittedly, I do hope they are of sufficiently discriminating taste to prefer good books with some erotic content to poorly written teen books.

 

I PERSONALLY think that many books have a negative impact on our lives and should not be read, but I feel that that is a personal decision. Just like alcohol & cigarettes. The sad thing is, the impact of these books is not discussed publicly. harlequin romances can breed discontent in a marriage, even a good one, because DH is not of SuperHero proportions. Just as an example.

I can't let this one go by. Do you really believe that there are adult women out there who are dissatisfied with their marriage solely because of reading romance novels? Or solely because of the relative size of their husband's member?

 

This book is an example of books that I believe have absolutely NO value except titillation. I prefer Junie B Jones. And if not banned completely, they should at least be available ONLY to adults.

We'll have to agree to disagree. This is an example of a text I would hope my kids would read instead of teen twaddle.

[CactusPair]

I'm against banning books. That's my automatic response.

 

But then what about older books that use horribly ingnorant language about race and eugenics?

 

CHOW had to be edited and revised. Is that the same as banning?

 

I was reading a Raggedy Ann book to the dc last year and had to edit on the fly a couple of times due to ugly racial epitaphs. In Raggedy Ann!! I was surprised that part hadn't been revised/edited by the publisher.

 

I don't think Raggedy Ann should be banned, but I do think those phrases should be taken out by the publisher. Is that the same as banning or censorship?

 

I confess that I have thrown one book into the recycling bag rather than donate it to the library give-away shelf or the Goodwill.

 

In that way, I was practicing banning as I wanted to prevent others from reading the book because I thought the content was harmful and dangerous. I have mixed feelings about what I did and still am not sure if it was wrong or right. I probably wouldn't do it again, though I think the book is heinous. I can't believe that it was published, but I don't think I should have deprived others from making up their own minds about it.

 

I do think it should be up to the librarians to mangage their own libraries--that is their job--unless they are stocking the domain with outrageously inappropriate books. A library full of Neo-Nazi books would be unacceptable, for example.

 

But then, that would never happen, would it? Or would it if the public demand was there? I would be for banning such a stock as that, but if that was the public's demand the tide would be against me.

 

Checks and balances--who determines these in a democratic society in order to insure we remain democratic, open, free and diverse?

 

One hopes that we can trust the people, the librarians, the teachers, the writers to keep dialogue open, striving for the good, the beautiful, the true, the educated. Opinions on what constitutes these traits will vary and foster debate, which is how a civilization grows, well, "civilized" and more humane.

 

Imo, the list of books that Gov. Palin may have tried to have banned isn't important at all. What matters to me it that she may have tried to use her influence to remove any library book that *she* deemed inappropriate.

 

I wonder if she sees the parallel (as one of our insightful posters does) between banning certain books here, today, and banning the Bible and other books many hold dear, as is done in other countries now and has been throughout history.

 

To impose personal will on others, restsrict and redefine their right to decide what is best for them, their families, their children, isn't democratic or moral.

 

If Gov. Palin--such a pretty, likable, popular lady--tries to ban a library book and that act is excused, poo-pooed, overlooked, explained away, who might come along next and ban other books, work to remove other freedoms?

 

Personally, I hate all guns, wish they didn't exist, wish people like Gov Palin didn't hunt or arm themselves in their private homes. I think guns are murdering machines and therefore immoral. But I oppose a ban on guns because

 

1. I think a ban, or even strict gun control, might create a dangerous black market akin to bootlegging in the 30's

 

and

 

2. I respect the Constitution's 2nd amendment and people's right to choose for themselves what is right and moral.

 

Tolerance nurtures democracy, education and strength.

 

Would Gov. Palin, whose values & ideas differ drastically from mine, extend the same tolerance toward me?

 

Would she foster good will and openness toward those different from her here and abroad, or seek to clamp her own will upon Washington and the world as she did on Wasilla?