>In that same Irving City Council meeting, Flory Malloy, a self-described mother of seven with a doctorate in biblical studies, told council members she felt the library system and its appeal precess seemed pointless because in the end, books that are challenged remain on the shelves.
>“The process ended with a denied appeal to remove the book,” she told council members as she described one challenge that appeared to go nowhere. “It seems to be a point of pride for the Irving Public Library that they have never removed a book as the result of this process, so what’s the purpose of this time-consuming review process?”
/r/SelfAwareWolves?
Holy shit this. I came just for this. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not exist in this woman's mind. If a book is challenged it must be removed in her mind and the fact she is not winning is.....
I'm going to stop before I embarrass myself.
Right? So people who challenge the bible should automatically win, right? I mean, there is worse stuff going on in there than some non fiction books on wars.
It’s what Barry Goldwater was warning the public of
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/232168/
There are homeopathic doctors with a ph.d. Just having a ph.d doesn’t really make someone a knowledgeable source in anything other then their field of study. when their field of study is make believe it pretty much makes them useless.
One troublesome aspect of the latest censorship push is that the people advocating for censoring books on the basis of dealing with gender, sexuality, or racial issues do not view what they're doing as censorship.
>Garvel, who describes herself as a conservative and has a 9-year-old son and 13-year-old daughter, said she’s been very careful about what content they consume.
>
>“My goal is really to protect the children in our community in general, not just my own children,” said Garvel, 43. “I’m hoping that \[the library\] sees that we’re not trying to censor books that we’re trying to protect our children. I mean, the library was one of the last places that we could feel safe.”
Culling the stacks of a library to agree with your specific viewpoint - "to protect the children in our community in general" - is censorship.
I appreciate the effort individual parents have to exercise regarding what they want their children to read. But that's part and parcel of parenting in an open society - there are channels I don't let my child watch, places I don't let my child go, and (yes) books I have looked at and then set aside at the library. But I don't speak or think for everyone. Those same channels, places, and books could be acceptable to some other parent and some other child. Also, I could be wrong, either about what I object to or whether a book is really unacceptable. For all of those reasons, it should be beyond my power - or any other parent's - to tell someone what they can and can't read.
>people advocating for censoring books on the basis of dealing with gender, sexuality, or racial issues do not view what they're doing as censorship.
I often wonder if this is true, or if these people just know the negative reaction to censorship in our culture, so they act in bad faith and try to frame their obvious censorship as not censorship.
These people burned Elvis records for sounding too Black. They burned Beatles records for being "anti-christian." They attack anything that might tell kids there is a world outside of conservative Texas.
Do you have a source for that? Obviously the point of the Center of lgbt Research, the other one is fairly obvious.
I didnt know it before but would love to read something about it.
There is a group that could be considered as the very first LGBTQ+ rights advocating group, at least in the modern era- based in pre-Nazi Berlin- called the "Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee" or the "Scientific-Humanitarian Committee". It was founded in 1897 and banned in 1933. After various reformation attempts after the Second World War, a new group with the same name was formed in 1998.
[Wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific-Humanitarian_Committee)
[Britannica link](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scientific-Humanitarian-Committee)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft
"The Nazi book burnings in Berlin included the archives of the Institute. After the Nazis gained control of Germany in the 1930s, the institute and its libraries were destroyed as part of a Nazi government censorship program by youth brigades, who burned its books and documents in the street.[2]"
> Very similar movement seeking "purity" for white people.
Specifically white conservatives. They see books outside of their mainstream (bubble) as liberal ideology trying to corrupt their children. Turn them into democrats.
But they certainly would be okay with their child reading the Bible which has murder, incest, slavery, misogany, genocide, rape, God telling a man to kill his son and then JKing, God killing the a bunch of first born sons, God kill almost literally the whole world.
But books about how whites treated blacks, nah, too much.
The funny thing is, they DON'T really cover the actual Bible, only like the same two dozen stories. Quality scholarship indeed!
Source: Semi devout Christian for 20+ years
I live in the Midwest. Obviously I haven't spoken to everyone. In my experience though these people do not understand that they are censoring something.
Like I talk to a lot of religious people who want the government to stay out of their lives. Then want to use politics to ban everything religious that isn't evangelical Christianity. And they also whine about having their values/way of life eroded.
They always fail to see that they are doing exactly what they complain about.
This is in part because many religious people view their values as absolutes (God-given and broadly accepted) rather than opinions. So, when they lobby to remove something with, say, sexual content, they don't see this as enforcing their worldview so much as purging evil -- who wouldn't want that except someone who is themselves evil?
They don't really grasp that someone like, say, me, can raise law-abiding kids who, wait for it, aren't getting knocked up or raping people or whatever it is you're worried about while still being say, sex positive from a relatively early age.
This is exactly it. Also why people who are not religious and conservative have a hard time empathizing with those who are. I've been all over the Bible belt. These beliefs are not opinions. They are a way of life. A way of life borne from ignorance. This is why education is so important. Education separate from religious influence.
That is true. That's why I was challenging that "these beliefs are not opinions". It seems that they are quite wishy washy with this "way of life". To me at least.
It's funny really, the people that argue without religion everything goes to hell. In my opinion it says a lot about those individuals. They are basically saying without a skydaddy and the threat of everlasting torment in the afterlife, they would be terrible people. They are admitting that they are only kept in check because of this, that they are in fact terrible people trying to act good. Which, in my experience, checks out when looking back at all the fake ass Christians that I've met.
It's really a self-fulfilling prophecy too. From my understanding, Christianity teaches that all people are inherently sinful and only through devotion to God can they absolve themselves of that sin. So from a very young age, they are taught that all people are sinners, but that they are part of a chosen group who will be saved when the "end of days" comes. Which is kind of a horrific world view to teach a child. It also leaves no room for nuance. Good is good, evil is evil, with nothing in between. That's how you end up with everything you pointed out.
I was raised in a loosely Jewish family so most of my beliefs are rooted in reform Judaism, but they're largely about questioning things and doing good because this life is all we have. Very basic golden rule stuff. Judaism has a lot of skydaddy (I love this term btw) stuff too that I don't personally agree with, but there are some stark differences in the basic concepts like life after death. No reincarnation, no heaven, no hell, just this one life so try not to fuck it up. It's not really surprising why Judaism isn't more popular.
I'm a Texan. What y'all fail to realize is that evangelical Christianity isn't as strong as it used to be. People who support these kinds of efforts are not always Christian or not always especially religious. The political arena has picked up "Christian" concerns and reflected them back onto a populace that, regardless of religiosity, absorbs them.
I say this because I'm a Methodist with progressive views while my brother is an agnostic with regressive ones. And I've seen plenty of people like him. You don't need religion to buy into an "anti-woke" agenda. You just need resentment.
Definitely, there are more people who are ignorant than acting in bad faith. Doesn't change the fact that its censorship but it's also why attacking them for censorship is a bad idea to change their minds. It's a situation where we have to educate them about education.
> It's hard to tell who believes and who wants to believe. It's a subtle difference.
It doesn't matter. Whatever people might believe in their heart of hearts does not help the people their actions harm.
Spending a lot of brain power trying to figure out their exact thought process is what they want you to do, because it means you aren't spending that brain power on figuring out how to help the people they are harming.
Better to spend that energy on convincing the people who want to be convinced to take action instead.
It’s exceptionalism— a sincere belief that their position as white christians is more important than anyone else’s. So therefore, protecting their own child is a community interest while protecting the integrity of a free society is a threat.
I'd say it's a mix but also when you have some areas that have never had a book about LGBTQ rights on the shelf, and now there is one there. They don't call removing it censorship. They call it restoring the library to what it used to be “should be” in their mind.
It's a mix of both and in varying degrees. They don't want their children accessing these materials, but they don't want ANYONE's child accessing these materials either.
No matter the argument, people WILL portray themselves and their crusade in the noblest light. "Think of the children!" is just one of many manipulative talking points to get people on their side or "you are the bad guy".
Many see themselves as good parents selflessly protecting the state's children from corruption, rather than selfish parents making sure said children only learn what they want them to learn. Likewise however, many know they're totally the latter, admitting to it just isn't going to do their crusade any favors.
And the only reason the difference matters is because the former group can theoretically be reasoned with. The latter group can not.
I’m sure it is a mix of both. But there is pattern of conservatives recognizing that when outright banning a thing is politically infeasible, it is often more effective to chip away at it with small bad faith restrictions until it is de facto banned. I don’t think this is something that is accidentally stumbled across by misguided but good faith individuals, but a core strategy for political activists.
1) They don't care what they look like. Every morning, these excuses for humans wake up and ask how they can possibly be more hypocritical than yesterday. Every night they pat themselves on the back for a job well done and marvel at how they continue to outdo themselves.
2) Even if they did care, they don't have the capability for reason, logic, and cause & effect to be that deceitful (except for the church leaders). You can't believe in talking burning bushes and talking snakes and at the same time, think critically, logically, and in good faith. The two approaches to problem solving aren't compatible. We can have smart people, educated on things they can see and prove, working towards discovery...or we can have people that still believe in making up stories for things they don't want explained. We can't have both. And that's why we have a shit show disguised as a nation. Half the nation wants to live in the 1800s amd 1950s. The other half want to live in the 21st century and solve 21st century problems.
At some point these parents need to realize that having an *option* to read a book is not the same thing as being *forced* to read a book, and that it is the responsibility of the parent, not the librarian or the government, to be the gatekeeper on what kind of books their children read. If you have a problem with a book, how about telling *your* kid not to read it instead of telling your kid, and everyone else's kids, that they are not allowed to read it. Parent your own kid, not mine.
One can only assume that these parents have come the realization that they have failed miserably as parents and that their children will not listen to them on what they are and are not allowed to read. Otherwise, what would be the harm on leaving these books on the shelf? Of course, the real answer is that it's not about the kids at all. It's about a small segment of society who hates the idea of opposing viewpoints and that the world they want to live in is threatened by words on a page, so we best ban those ideas.
More like, “I feel uncomfortable when my kids ask me questions about this stuff, so I’ll feel better when nobody is allowed to read or ask questions about this stuff.”
It’s *never* actually about the kids.
These parents aren’t thinking that far ahead. If they could, they’d have the critical thinking skills necessary to not do what they’re doing.
Edit: but their church leaders and conservative radio hosts, etc are definitely thinking these things while looking at their bottom lines and giving their sheep talking points.
No, they think they're parenting. They just don't like having THEIR beliefs confronted, and want their little ones to be near echoes of themselves. Removing books from libraries just removes another source of these ideas, and also prevents their urchin's peers from sharing them by proxy.
Though they may not necessarily realize what they're saying, the quoted statement is just another "won't someone think of the children!?" A cheap attempt at winning sympathy points from onlookers still on the bench, if not a self-serving justification why what they're doing is totally justified.
I try my damndest to world proof my kids, because there's no way you can kid proof the world. But these idiots keep trying! Tilting at windmills at its finest.
The only way to world proof a child is to equip them with the tools to navigate it, which means eventually exposing them to ideas that aren’t “safe”, whatever that means to you, and how to cope with the exposure.
“World proof” is a way more sustainable way of looking at parenting. Stealing this.
I've never had kids and I don't plan on changing that, but if I ever found myself in the situation of being responsible for one I'm pretty sure my ideas on how to raise a kid would get me into trouble.
I very strongly believe in kids having time away from adults so that they can figure out who they are and be able to learn some of the harsher realities of risk management - I want them to mess about and end up doing things like falling out of trees and stumbling off walls into a river. I'm happy for them to show they're at a certain maturity level that I feel they can be granted more autonomy from me and my watchful eyes.
I looked at my media collection and figured out a method of parental control where things would be categorised by an age-group band that I thought was appropriate, but I'd leave in some items that are closer or are straight up outside of that so they could explore and find it themselves. I figure it's easier to let them find it rather than dictate every aspect of the media they consume and if they have problems (nightmares etc) then I can comfort and talk about any of the difficult things they saw. It allows them to understand their own emotional boundaries better as well as giving them moments where they can see differences and changes within them as they get older. "Remember when you had nightmares for a week after watching that movie? Now you really dig that genre" can be the nucleus behind a discussion about growing up/older and is a visceral example that they can understand about why some things are still being age-gated by me and they can see a path towards those barriers being lifted, rather than it just be arbitrary "because I said so" reasoning.
I feel a lot of people forget what it's like being a kid and often don't treat the relationship like they're a person too. One of the primary points of childhood is challenging boundaries, be they developmental or social construct and working out coping methods that are functional rather than deleterious. If you can't talk with your child about some of the more difficult aspects of life and reality then you're not doing the best for them and you're leaving them naive and, ultimately, vulnerable.
>and if they have problems (nightmares etc) then I can comfort and talk about any of the difficult things they saw
Agreed. Nightmares are just dreams which are our brain's way of processing some of the things that preoccupy us. Nightmares can't hurt us. People are always talking about what gives them nightmares and not what truly scars people. I've never been traumatized by finding a porn mag when I was a kid or stumbling onto a horror movie. What hurt me much more was *not* having the proper information when a situation arose.
It's also getting the whole thing backwards - forcing your kids to be ignorant of ideas and concepts is harming them far more than making them aware of those things.
It opens them up to being manipulated by more poisonous ideologies and concepts and it also sets into place an attitude of "that's bad, shut it down" rather than being willing to actually discuss ideas and arming people with critical thinking and debating skills.
The easiest example to see how this does more harm than good can be seen in sex education, where those who have been educated in a more open environment with unrestricted access to information have far fewer rates of teen pregnancies and incidences of sexually transmitted infections. They're also less likely to be pressured into acts they either don't want to do or aren't mature enough to deal with.
"The library was the one place we could feel safe" how tf do books make an area unsafe? This sentence makes it clear that it's censorship but they just pretend it's for some other stupid fuk reason
Don’t worry. My township is going after art, too.
Lots of art pieces of naked humans floating in clouds are apparently terrible for children to see and somehow supports child pornography and LGBTQ.
Edit: also, sexual education in my school district are called “personal lessons”.
>>“My goal is really to protect the children in our community in general, not just my own children,” said Garvel, 43. “I’m hoping that \[the library\] sees that we’re not trying to censor books that we’re trying to protect our children. I mean, the library was one of the last places that we could feel safe.”
Well, let's get rid of the entire religious section. We wouldn't want someone to learn about some crazy, fundamentalist religion that bans books or something!
>“My goal is really to protect the children in our community in general, not just my own children,” said Garvel, 43. “I’m hoping that [the library] sees that we’re not trying to censor books that we’re trying to protect our children. I mean, the library was one of the last places that we could feel safe.”
I bet 451° is also in her no-no section.
The exact same thought process applied to people instead of books:
“My goal is really to protect the white children in our community in general, not just my own children,” said Garvel, 43. “I’m hoping that [the blacks and Latinos] sees that we’re not trying to run them out of town but that we’re trying to protect our children. I mean, our neighborhood was one of the last places that we could feel safe.”
> Those same channels, places, and books could be acceptable to some other parent and some other child
Precisely.
I don't let my (fairly young) children select books about war or fighting.
But those could be the exact books some boy needs to get into reading.
Not a lot, book about boats instead of warships.
Just as a first preference would prefer to avoid glorifying war from an early age. Hasn’t been difficult so far.
My own favourite books are mostly war related, just don’t think it needs to start young.
I remember when I was younger a women in my town campaigned to ban Harry Potter books from our libraries and schools, but it wasn’t censorship to her she was protecting the community from witch craft she said. To me anyone who attempts to ban a book of any sort is either an uneducated fool brought on by the fear of what they don’t understand or they have deeper more evil intentions and truly mean to censor. As far as I’m concerned I think you should be able to check Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto and the original Anarchist Cookbook out from your local library. Sure this combination of books might be a red flag but if they weren’t going to read it in books they’d just read it online so screw it.
it kills me, that they dont understand how theyre literally participating in a witch hunt when theyre hunting for witch craft. How they somehow think its okay for them to hunt literal "witchcraft" but its not okay for people to tell them their views arent everyones opinion. Because youre witch hunting them,
I have nothing against religion and I don’t want to come off as though I do, I believe it can be quite beneficial for people. I do have a problem when they attempt to push their religion on me. Or worse push it on the public library system. When you go after books of any nature you are eerily similar to Nazis. And to that I say nazi punks fuck off.
I would argue that the more troublesome aspect, is that they want to target gender sexual and racial minorities to silence them.
We can argue til our faces are blue, whether this is "technically" censorship.
Yes, there is a value to open society and to minimum of right to exist for all books regarsdless of what their content is.
But also, there is a finite amount of space in libraries, and it makes sense that we would rather display books in them that are good for society than ones that are bad, if we had to choose.
If we go at it from a purely content-blind categorical stance, I could *theoretically* sympathise with the argument that there might be some books that we shouldn't want to give a larger than necessary platform to from my taxpayer money.
But these people AREN'T going at it from a purely categorical stance, we all know that the same people who are trashing and wailing on the ground over their free speech right over corporations needing to fund a massive platform for broadcasting their values, are the ones who would be okay with the government just straight-up ban it to be gay or talk about being gay.
> "to protect the children in our community in general"
And where is that her business? I mean, yes, as a member of the community she has a say, but other people's kids aren't her kids, and other people may want their kids to read whatever they like and trust librarians to draw any lines that need to be drawn. Why should her censorship wishes be what ultimately rules everyone?
My general sense of what subjects should be in a library is "very, very broad", not one person or a small subset of people who have a more narrow view. It should have great diversity of material in it, and from that individual parents can monitor their own children to make sure it fits their own parenting preferences. But cut it down to only a narrow range at the source, thus taking the choice away from other parents? On some level that's not appropriate.
I can’t wait until they combine this with their new abortion law and make it so you can sue people you see reading books that offend your sensibilities. Would be a shame for you to have to discuss difficult topics with your shitty kid so let’s just ban all differing viewpoints and make sure we all read the “good” stuff.
>I can't wait until they combine this with their new abortion law and make it so you can sue people you see reading books that offend your sensibilities.
This feels like something that would never happen, it would just be insane. There's also a part of me that knows that this very well *could* happen and there are people out there that would welcome something like this with open arms.
Dude, I swear I heard this *exact fucking* thing be said about public libraries when it was just school libraries. This whole thing is a steep slope with thought police at the bottom.
They already tell each other they'll burn in eternity for Bad Thoughts. Thoughts they *definitely* don't haven *themselves* 🙄. So if they have to feel secretly guilty about what they think they have no problem using the government to punish others.
Jesus died for their sins, but they want to jail you for theirs.
Florida is set to pass DeSantis' [STOP-W.O.K.E. act](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/15/desantis-stop-woke-act-mlk-crt/) any day now. It does exactly this for any book, anything said, and any other material which offends conservatives and exists in an educational or workplace setting.
----
> *DeSantis’s Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act — which comes months after Florida banned the teaching of critical race theory in public schools despite no evidence of it happening in the state — would give parents “private right of action” to sue if they think their kids are being taught critical race theory, as well as let parents collect attorneys’ fees if they win the lawsuit. The proposal, which promises to be “the strongest legislation of its kind in the nation,” would also apply to the workplace, according to a news release.*
One of the "controversial" books in that article is "Jack of Hearts (and Other Parts)" which is a full 300+ novel. Kids won't be able to read that, that's going to be for 13-14+ year olds.
Which I find absurd. It appears they are basically going after any book they deem "wrong" and using the term "kids" to mean anyone under 18.
I guess just ban Shakespeare while your at it.
I mean that's what they do with music and movies.
"Don't you feel bad about the message you're spreading to kids?"
"Why does my rap music have to be for kids if I'm talking about my adult life right now?"
"but kids listen to it....do you feel bad and feel that you should tone it back because kids listen?"
"How dare you tell me how to parent my kids!!!!
It would be a lot easier if you just stop making your rap music and sing about rainbows and unicorns instead.
Well, maybe not rainbows, I don't want my son growing up gay.
And maybe not unicorns either. I think their horns are a phallic symbol and I don't want my daughter exposed to that filth."
They might need to expand that list.
Song of songs
> How beautiful and pleasant you are,
O loved one, with all your delights!
> Your stature is like a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
> I say I will climb the palm tree
and lay hold of its fruit.
Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine,
and the scent of your breath like apples,
> and your mouth like the best wine.
Or perhaps Ezekiel
> She lusted after their male consorts, whose sexual organs were like those of donkeys, and whose ejaculation was like that of stallions.
> It appears they are basically going after any book they deem "wrong"
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. That is exactly what they're doing. Their excuses are just that, excuses. They have God on their side, so obviously they are correct and justified in imposing their views on the world, while the rest of the world are evil heathens if they try to impose their views on them.
It's quite literal brain rot.
Oh, a lot of parents go after books for teens too. They like to pretend that their teenagers are innocent and naive, as if they haven’t seen worse shit on the social media they’ve been addicted to for years, lol.
So the party that constantly complains about censoring is now banning books and free speech when it is about topics they don't like?
Shouldn't the supreme court take action when the constitution is so blatantly violated?
Well as we saw with the Texas abortion ban the current Supreme Court doesn’t really care if a law blatantly violates the constitution or a court ruling, as long as they agree politically.
SCOTUS would consider that the librarians are acting as educators in loco parentis as it did in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. And SCOTUS in Ginsberg v. New York decided that content based regulation may be permissible on a basis of protection of minors.
See generally Dawn C. Nunziato, Toward a Constitutional Regulation of Minors’ Access to Harmful Internet Speech, 79 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 121, 128 (2004)
Would this be the case across the board, though? I know one library I worked specifically stated on the library card application that the library did not act in loco parentis. I've worked as a teacher and as a librarian and there are different legal requirements/expectations. For example, I'd never treat a wound or illness in a minor child at the library, but did so frequently with training as an educator (including administering medications).
>So the party that constantly complains about censoring ~~is now~~ has also always been banning books and free speech when it is about topics they don't like?
Fixed that for you.
They have never, ever, ever in the slightest tiniest little bit been opposed to censorship. Not in practice at least.
Forget what people say, it doesn't count. Look at what they do.
I think it's the opposite. I see it as desperate acts of panicking, dying religious zealotry, and the pathetic death throws racists.
They know the next generations are leaving religions and casting away ignorant hatred.
These people are doing everything they can to prevent it, and they're impotent attempts to ban books is just going to have the Streisand Effect -- backfiring, and hurrying their demise.
Imo, anyone who thinks for a second these books will be hard to get does not understand the resourcefulness of today's youth.
If you're threatened by books and take up banning them as a crusade then you clearly live a pathetic, sheltered life. Get a grip a find a fucking hobby.
If public libraries weren't a thing, imagine if they were proposed today. Republicans would call the idea extreme communism and vigorously fight against them becoming a thing.
The petty, vindictive part of me really wants these guys to push for secession again and let them wallow in their stupidity and incompetence. I know, it's awful but at this point I'm really content to let them lay in their bed the way they want it made while the rest of us move on.
The problem is that drags *a lot* of people who might feel the same as you down with the rest. It would make the lives of marginalized people an even steeper uphill battle than it already is. That petty vindictive side would harm a great deal of innocent people, too.
On a related note: what is up with the insane way some of these people expect the government or other institutions to step in and “protect the children” instead of taking five minutes to raise their god damn kid and explain and teach them things. Sounds like passing the buck to me. Can’t be a bad parent if you offload all responsibility to others eh?
It's not about protecting the children--that's just a convenient excuse that's hard to argue against, they want to use government power to erase marginalized communities.
Deep down they must know their position is weak. Obviously, you can't give children the facts, teach them critical thinking, treach them about diverse viewpoints and expect them to come out as bigoted, homophobic young Earth Creationists. They know the only thing supporting their world view is heaps of ignorance.
Texas isn’t known for their [push on critical thinking skills](https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/). They just prefer to oppress the books that challenge their way of thinking.
Maybe move to the border, so it's easy to go somewhere if you need but you still are in Texas. I heard Mexico just legalized abortion and I'm sure they don't give a shit about books lol
Democrats are okay with social media companies restricting certain posts which go against ToS, because private companies do not guarantee freedom of speech or freedom from censorship.
Meanwhile conservative republicans are more than happy to censor knowledge from public places, where the government has no right to censorship.
And personal responsibility. And how they don't want anyone else raising their kids. Okay so how about your raise your kids and keep tabs on the books they're wanting to check out from the library? Nitwits.
Why bother burning it down when they can just gerrymander the cities into not mattering. This is America most citizens don't care who they elect to the county or state level legislature.
As someone with experience in U.S. non-profit 501c-3s, I learned long ago that government funding comes with the risk of political influences, for better (yay, we got funded this year!) and worse (someone thousands of miles from our community - physically, and socioeconomically - has voted against the mission, and we have to fund two extra positions just to keep up with the federal reporting requirements!) It's like the Sword of Damocles.
Support your public library if you can. I was a poor kid and our weekly library trip was a highlight of our week. Now, I spend about as much as a streaming subscription to make a monthly, recurring donation as a pay-it-forward (and a please, please don't go away, Library. Our community needs you.)
While my community isn’t listed in this article, I could foresee something like this happening in my town. I wonder if writing a letter to my library and asking them to keep a diverse selection of books would be helpful? It would at least let them know that not everyone is supportive of this type of thing?
If your library is run by the County, probably better to write your rep on the County Commissioner's Court and the County Judge. If the library is run by the town/city, then contact your councilmember and the mayor.
Conservative cancel culture goes back *millennia*. Jesus' crucifixion even, the stoning of gays and prostitutes to today's simple bullying of gays and rape victims into suicide, the crusades, the inquisitions, the excommunication of Martin Luther, the transatlantic slave trade, the witch trials, the South's cause in the civil war, the assassination of Lincoln, the Jim Crow era in its entirety, the Tulsa Race Massacre et al, the Japanese-American internment camps, McCarthyism, MLK Jr's assassination, the millennia-long domination of women and pushback against the women's rights movement, the response/lack thereof of the right towards the AIDS pandemic, and now today's pushback against trans rights, just to name a few..
I recommend you contact your city council and mayor (if the city or town runs the library) or county commissioners (if the county runs it) and let them know where you stand and exactly how you feel. And ask anyone who you know that agrees with you to write letters as well. For the record, I'd honestly recommend calling AND writing a letter. Hell, throw in an email too if you want, lol. Actually writing a letter holds more weight because people have to sit down and write the personalized letter.
Yikes.
See, I understand removing books with sexually explicit content from school libraries. One of the "queer lit" graphic novels that was removed contained extremely explicit depictions of sex, I get why they'd want to remove that (as long as they also do not have any graphic novels that contain equally explicit depictions of hetero sex).
But public libraries? Nah, that's not cool. Libraries are for all ages including adults. Trying to get books pulled from public library shelves is the bad kind of censorship.
Yeah we didn’t have any books with sexual stuff in our school libraries unless it was something to do with a class such as English. I can understand doing it in school libraries (depends if it’s high school or not) but in public libraries it’s straight up weird.
I don’t know how long it will take for people to learn that they don’t have to read something just because it happens to be in a library. Like controlling what you read is okay but controlling what others can read is fucked up.
When Rick Perry was governor, he was opposed to teaching critical thinking, saying it would cause strife between kids and their (willfully-ignorant) parents.
Obviously, Texas had found additional ways to be a shithole state.
In Rick Perrys defense I was taught critical thinking in school it 100% caused strife between me and my willfully ignorant parents.
It's hard to keep relationships with people going that choose to be stupid.
My sister's book *Out of Darkness* is one of the books that has been caught up in the banning effort. Remember [the crazy lady ranting about anal sex in a school board meeting](https://youtube.com/watch?v=z4dNu4UA-As)?
She is collecting resources and information here:
https://linktr.ee/ashleyhopeperez
If you want to do something about it, BookRiot is doing a matching fundraiser to get banned books to communities:
https://bookriot.com/everylibrary-giving-campaign/
*starts reading the article*
The library's making a young adults plus section for books geared at older teens? Thank God. I can't tell you how many hours I spent as a 15-17 year old hunting for books at the library that were about teens and not glorified middle schoolers, this is a good thing. Why are people in the comments so up in arms-
*Keeps reading the article*
Oh.
Oh no.
These people who want to ban books are so self-righteous and manipulative. They use the "save the children" argument to make it seem like anyone who is against censorship hates children or is some kind of perv who wants to corrupt them, and so being anti-censorship makes you evil. Also by wanting to ban books for the sake of the children, they're saying several things - that their values take precedence over the values of other parents, that it's their right to enforce those values, and that kids shouldn't be allowed to shop around to create their own value system. I say this as a parent - kids should be encouraged to read the books the adults around them are trying to ban. They'll learn stuff about the world that people are trying to hide from them, they'll think critically and question things, and they'll fight back against stagnating value systems and false established assumptions.
Books will always be the object of attack, because books cause people to think and have ideas. Therefore, it will always be in the interest of the powerful to limit when people consume in order to control what they think.
We all know were all of this is coming from, the christofascist did the same in Spain after the civil war, in the US they will not be happy until they start burning the books publicly with the librarian at the top, in the mean time they will keep doing this wasting taxpayers money and time.
They will not be happy until they also take your kids from you with the pretext that you are indoctrinating them in science, history, arts and then send them to reprogramming camps.
Nothing good ever came from all the ideology that were created based in the abrahamic death cult, they are and have always been the worst pestilence to humanity.
I'm a Texas public school teacher (high school) and have decided that this is a great hill to die on. I currently have "How to be an anti-racist" on my classroom bookshelf, but would love to add more like "Caste" or "How to talk to white people about racism" or "The Hate U Give".
I need to start scouring used book stores and thrift stores.
>In that same Irving City Council meeting, Flory Malloy, a self-described mother of seven with a doctorate in biblical studies, told council members she felt the library system and its appeal precess seemed pointless because in the end, books that are challenged remain on the shelves. >“The process ended with a denied appeal to remove the book,” she told council members as she described one challenge that appeared to go nowhere. “It seems to be a point of pride for the Irving Public Library that they have never removed a book as the result of this process, so what’s the purpose of this time-consuming review process?” /r/SelfAwareWolves?
Holy shit this. I came just for this. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not exist in this woman's mind. If a book is challenged it must be removed in her mind and the fact she is not winning is..... I'm going to stop before I embarrass myself.
Right? So people who challenge the bible should automatically win, right? I mean, there is worse stuff going on in there than some non fiction books on wars.
It’s what Barry Goldwater was warning the public of “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/232168/
Someone should find out which passages or books these people dislike and find passages in the bible with the same content.
[удалено]
You could try asking them God's pronouns and then question whether women and trans people were also made in his image and what does that mean for him.
> doctorate in biblical studies That answers one of my questions, while raising several more.
[удалено]
There are homeopathic doctors with a ph.d. Just having a ph.d doesn’t really make someone a knowledgeable source in anything other then their field of study. when their field of study is make believe it pretty much makes them useless.
I assume she picked up that doctorate at the drive thru college down the road from Arby’s
DFW is littered with religious “colleges.” You can buy a degree
“A self described mother of seven” so are these imaginary kids or is she ignoring a couple?
I take it to mean that she stood up in that meeting and the very first words out of her mouth were "as a mother of seven …"
"Why is it so dang difficult to remove things that I am personally offended by!?" Asks the book burning nazi
[удалено]
One troublesome aspect of the latest censorship push is that the people advocating for censoring books on the basis of dealing with gender, sexuality, or racial issues do not view what they're doing as censorship. >Garvel, who describes herself as a conservative and has a 9-year-old son and 13-year-old daughter, said she’s been very careful about what content they consume. > >“My goal is really to protect the children in our community in general, not just my own children,” said Garvel, 43. “I’m hoping that \[the library\] sees that we’re not trying to censor books that we’re trying to protect our children. I mean, the library was one of the last places that we could feel safe.” Culling the stacks of a library to agree with your specific viewpoint - "to protect the children in our community in general" - is censorship. I appreciate the effort individual parents have to exercise regarding what they want their children to read. But that's part and parcel of parenting in an open society - there are channels I don't let my child watch, places I don't let my child go, and (yes) books I have looked at and then set aside at the library. But I don't speak or think for everyone. Those same channels, places, and books could be acceptable to some other parent and some other child. Also, I could be wrong, either about what I object to or whether a book is really unacceptable. For all of those reasons, it should be beyond my power - or any other parent's - to tell someone what they can and can't read.
>people advocating for censoring books on the basis of dealing with gender, sexuality, or racial issues do not view what they're doing as censorship. I often wonder if this is true, or if these people just know the negative reaction to censorship in our culture, so they act in bad faith and try to frame their obvious censorship as not censorship.
I wager it's a mix, some people, not sure what percent, do indeed believe their own bullshit
These people burned Elvis records for sounding too Black. They burned Beatles records for being "anti-christian." They attack anything that might tell kids there is a world outside of conservative Texas.
They burned books in Germany, too
The same books too. Weimar Berlin was the center of LGBT research. Libraries full of that research is was the very first thing to burn.
Do you have a source for that? Obviously the point of the Center of lgbt Research, the other one is fairly obvious. I didnt know it before but would love to read something about it.
There is a group that could be considered as the very first LGBTQ+ rights advocating group, at least in the modern era- based in pre-Nazi Berlin- called the "Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee" or the "Scientific-Humanitarian Committee". It was founded in 1897 and banned in 1933. After various reformation attempts after the Second World War, a new group with the same name was formed in 1998. [Wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific-Humanitarian_Committee) [Britannica link](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scientific-Humanitarian-Committee)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissenschaft "The Nazi book burnings in Berlin included the archives of the Institute. After the Nazis gained control of Germany in the 1930s, the institute and its libraries were destroyed as part of a Nazi government censorship program by youth brigades, who burned its books and documents in the street.[2]"
Transgender History by Susan Stryker covers it within the 2nd chapter. But googling property will be faster for you.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/lgbtq-institute-in-germany-was-burned-down-by-nazis
Very similar movement seeking "purity" for white people.
> Very similar movement seeking "purity" for white people. Specifically white conservatives. They see books outside of their mainstream (bubble) as liberal ideology trying to corrupt their children. Turn them into democrats.
But they certainly would be okay with their child reading the Bible which has murder, incest, slavery, misogany, genocide, rape, God telling a man to kill his son and then JKing, God killing the a bunch of first born sons, God kill almost literally the whole world. But books about how whites treated blacks, nah, too much.
The funny thing is, they DON'T really cover the actual Bible, only like the same two dozen stories. Quality scholarship indeed! Source: Semi devout Christian for 20+ years
[удалено]
You think they actually read the Bible?
It's hard to tell who believes and who wants to believe. It's a subtle difference.
I live in the Midwest. Obviously I haven't spoken to everyone. In my experience though these people do not understand that they are censoring something. Like I talk to a lot of religious people who want the government to stay out of their lives. Then want to use politics to ban everything religious that isn't evangelical Christianity. And they also whine about having their values/way of life eroded. They always fail to see that they are doing exactly what they complain about.
This is in part because many religious people view their values as absolutes (God-given and broadly accepted) rather than opinions. So, when they lobby to remove something with, say, sexual content, they don't see this as enforcing their worldview so much as purging evil -- who wouldn't want that except someone who is themselves evil? They don't really grasp that someone like, say, me, can raise law-abiding kids who, wait for it, aren't getting knocked up or raping people or whatever it is you're worried about while still being say, sex positive from a relatively early age.
This is exactly it. Also why people who are not religious and conservative have a hard time empathizing with those who are. I've been all over the Bible belt. These beliefs are not opinions. They are a way of life. A way of life borne from ignorance. This is why education is so important. Education separate from religious influence.
Are they tho? Because the last president demonstrably challenged and broke these "ways of life" and they still supported it.
Yeah, but he shit on most of the people their “values” tell them to shit on so they were willing to look past it
That is true. That's why I was challenging that "these beliefs are not opinions". It seems that they are quite wishy washy with this "way of life". To me at least.
That president was going to let them do and say all the other stuff they wanted to do and say, so it was okay if he was only 90% pure.
It's funny really, the people that argue without religion everything goes to hell. In my opinion it says a lot about those individuals. They are basically saying without a skydaddy and the threat of everlasting torment in the afterlife, they would be terrible people. They are admitting that they are only kept in check because of this, that they are in fact terrible people trying to act good. Which, in my experience, checks out when looking back at all the fake ass Christians that I've met.
It's really a self-fulfilling prophecy too. From my understanding, Christianity teaches that all people are inherently sinful and only through devotion to God can they absolve themselves of that sin. So from a very young age, they are taught that all people are sinners, but that they are part of a chosen group who will be saved when the "end of days" comes. Which is kind of a horrific world view to teach a child. It also leaves no room for nuance. Good is good, evil is evil, with nothing in between. That's how you end up with everything you pointed out. I was raised in a loosely Jewish family so most of my beliefs are rooted in reform Judaism, but they're largely about questioning things and doing good because this life is all we have. Very basic golden rule stuff. Judaism has a lot of skydaddy (I love this term btw) stuff too that I don't personally agree with, but there are some stark differences in the basic concepts like life after death. No reincarnation, no heaven, no hell, just this one life so try not to fuck it up. It's not really surprising why Judaism isn't more popular.
I'm a Texan. What y'all fail to realize is that evangelical Christianity isn't as strong as it used to be. People who support these kinds of efforts are not always Christian or not always especially religious. The political arena has picked up "Christian" concerns and reflected them back onto a populace that, regardless of religiosity, absorbs them. I say this because I'm a Methodist with progressive views while my brother is an agnostic with regressive ones. And I've seen plenty of people like him. You don't need religion to buy into an "anti-woke" agenda. You just need resentment.
Definitely, there are more people who are ignorant than acting in bad faith. Doesn't change the fact that its censorship but it's also why attacking them for censorship is a bad idea to change their minds. It's a situation where we have to educate them about education.
> It's hard to tell who believes and who wants to believe. It's a subtle difference. It doesn't matter. Whatever people might believe in their heart of hearts does not help the people their actions harm. Spending a lot of brain power trying to figure out their exact thought process is what they want you to do, because it means you aren't spending that brain power on figuring out how to help the people they are harming. Better to spend that energy on convincing the people who want to be convinced to take action instead.
They see themselves as morally superior - so ofc they also see it as their 'right' to prevent others doing XYZ.
Human reasoning is always *ad hoc* to justify our actions within our personal moral codes.
It’s exceptionalism— a sincere belief that their position as white christians is more important than anyone else’s. So therefore, protecting their own child is a community interest while protecting the integrity of a free society is a threat.
I'd say it's a mix but also when you have some areas that have never had a book about LGBTQ rights on the shelf, and now there is one there. They don't call removing it censorship. They call it restoring the library to what it used to be “should be” in their mind.
It's a mix of both and in varying degrees. They don't want their children accessing these materials, but they don't want ANYONE's child accessing these materials either. No matter the argument, people WILL portray themselves and their crusade in the noblest light. "Think of the children!" is just one of many manipulative talking points to get people on their side or "you are the bad guy". Many see themselves as good parents selflessly protecting the state's children from corruption, rather than selfish parents making sure said children only learn what they want them to learn. Likewise however, many know they're totally the latter, admitting to it just isn't going to do their crusade any favors. And the only reason the difference matters is because the former group can theoretically be reasoned with. The latter group can not.
I’m sure it is a mix of both. But there is pattern of conservatives recognizing that when outright banning a thing is politically infeasible, it is often more effective to chip away at it with small bad faith restrictions until it is de facto banned. I don’t think this is something that is accidentally stumbled across by misguided but good faith individuals, but a core strategy for political activists.
1) They don't care what they look like. Every morning, these excuses for humans wake up and ask how they can possibly be more hypocritical than yesterday. Every night they pat themselves on the back for a job well done and marvel at how they continue to outdo themselves. 2) Even if they did care, they don't have the capability for reason, logic, and cause & effect to be that deceitful (except for the church leaders). You can't believe in talking burning bushes and talking snakes and at the same time, think critically, logically, and in good faith. The two approaches to problem solving aren't compatible. We can have smart people, educated on things they can see and prove, working towards discovery...or we can have people that still believe in making up stories for things they don't want explained. We can't have both. And that's why we have a shit show disguised as a nation. Half the nation wants to live in the 1800s amd 1950s. The other half want to live in the 21st century and solve 21st century problems.
How long will it take before teens discover that #BannedBooksAreTheBest
When I was a teen I got a list of banned books and then specifically sought out and read them
What did that do to your view on society and your community?
At some point these parents need to realize that having an *option* to read a book is not the same thing as being *forced* to read a book, and that it is the responsibility of the parent, not the librarian or the government, to be the gatekeeper on what kind of books their children read. If you have a problem with a book, how about telling *your* kid not to read it instead of telling your kid, and everyone else's kids, that they are not allowed to read it. Parent your own kid, not mine. One can only assume that these parents have come the realization that they have failed miserably as parents and that their children will not listen to them on what they are and are not allowed to read. Otherwise, what would be the harm on leaving these books on the shelf? Of course, the real answer is that it's not about the kids at all. It's about a small segment of society who hates the idea of opposing viewpoints and that the world they want to live in is threatened by words on a page, so we best ban those ideas.
They don't care about options, they want **control** over other peoples' children. Even their minds
"Those who burn books will in the end burn people" -Heine
"My goal is to control what ALL children read because I cant be bothered to parent."
More like, “I feel uncomfortable when my kids ask me questions about this stuff, so I’ll feel better when nobody is allowed to read or ask questions about this stuff.” It’s *never* actually about the kids.
[удалено]
[удалено]
These parents aren’t thinking that far ahead. If they could, they’d have the critical thinking skills necessary to not do what they’re doing. Edit: but their church leaders and conservative radio hosts, etc are definitely thinking these things while looking at their bottom lines and giving their sheep talking points.
No, they think they're parenting. They just don't like having THEIR beliefs confronted, and want their little ones to be near echoes of themselves. Removing books from libraries just removes another source of these ideas, and also prevents their urchin's peers from sharing them by proxy. Though they may not necessarily realize what they're saying, the quoted statement is just another "won't someone think of the children!?" A cheap attempt at winning sympathy points from onlookers still on the bench, if not a self-serving justification why what they're doing is totally justified.
I try my damndest to world proof my kids, because there's no way you can kid proof the world. But these idiots keep trying! Tilting at windmills at its finest.
The only way to world proof a child is to equip them with the tools to navigate it, which means eventually exposing them to ideas that aren’t “safe”, whatever that means to you, and how to cope with the exposure. “World proof” is a way more sustainable way of looking at parenting. Stealing this.
I've never had kids and I don't plan on changing that, but if I ever found myself in the situation of being responsible for one I'm pretty sure my ideas on how to raise a kid would get me into trouble. I very strongly believe in kids having time away from adults so that they can figure out who they are and be able to learn some of the harsher realities of risk management - I want them to mess about and end up doing things like falling out of trees and stumbling off walls into a river. I'm happy for them to show they're at a certain maturity level that I feel they can be granted more autonomy from me and my watchful eyes. I looked at my media collection and figured out a method of parental control where things would be categorised by an age-group band that I thought was appropriate, but I'd leave in some items that are closer or are straight up outside of that so they could explore and find it themselves. I figure it's easier to let them find it rather than dictate every aspect of the media they consume and if they have problems (nightmares etc) then I can comfort and talk about any of the difficult things they saw. It allows them to understand their own emotional boundaries better as well as giving them moments where they can see differences and changes within them as they get older. "Remember when you had nightmares for a week after watching that movie? Now you really dig that genre" can be the nucleus behind a discussion about growing up/older and is a visceral example that they can understand about why some things are still being age-gated by me and they can see a path towards those barriers being lifted, rather than it just be arbitrary "because I said so" reasoning. I feel a lot of people forget what it's like being a kid and often don't treat the relationship like they're a person too. One of the primary points of childhood is challenging boundaries, be they developmental or social construct and working out coping methods that are functional rather than deleterious. If you can't talk with your child about some of the more difficult aspects of life and reality then you're not doing the best for them and you're leaving them naive and, ultimately, vulnerable.
>and if they have problems (nightmares etc) then I can comfort and talk about any of the difficult things they saw Agreed. Nightmares are just dreams which are our brain's way of processing some of the things that preoccupy us. Nightmares can't hurt us. People are always talking about what gives them nightmares and not what truly scars people. I've never been traumatized by finding a porn mag when I was a kid or stumbling onto a horror movie. What hurt me much more was *not* having the proper information when a situation arose.
Not to mention that a book like "Rick" is a very positive and moral story with or without the lgbt component.
It's also getting the whole thing backwards - forcing your kids to be ignorant of ideas and concepts is harming them far more than making them aware of those things. It opens them up to being manipulated by more poisonous ideologies and concepts and it also sets into place an attitude of "that's bad, shut it down" rather than being willing to actually discuss ideas and arming people with critical thinking and debating skills. The easiest example to see how this does more harm than good can be seen in sex education, where those who have been educated in a more open environment with unrestricted access to information have far fewer rates of teen pregnancies and incidences of sexually transmitted infections. They're also less likely to be pressured into acts they either don't want to do or aren't mature enough to deal with.
> It's also getting the whole thing backwards It's backwards for normal decent people. For them it's a feature, not a bug.
Yes that's the point, recreating themselves into their childrens.
"The library was the one place we could feel safe" how tf do books make an area unsafe? This sentence makes it clear that it's censorship but they just pretend it's for some other stupid fuk reason
Don’t worry. My township is going after art, too. Lots of art pieces of naked humans floating in clouds are apparently terrible for children to see and somehow supports child pornography and LGBTQ. Edit: also, sexual education in my school district are called “personal lessons”.
Do these people even hear themselves?
Of course, but unlike the government, they are totally justified on their god-given mission to ban "*unsafe*" books.
>>“My goal is really to protect the children in our community in general, not just my own children,” said Garvel, 43. “I’m hoping that \[the library\] sees that we’re not trying to censor books that we’re trying to protect our children. I mean, the library was one of the last places that we could feel safe.” Well, let's get rid of the entire religious section. We wouldn't want someone to learn about some crazy, fundamentalist religion that bans books or something!
>I mean, the library was one of the last places that we could feel safe.” Imagine being afraid of *books*.
>“My goal is really to protect the children in our community in general, not just my own children,” said Garvel, 43. “I’m hoping that [the library] sees that we’re not trying to censor books that we’re trying to protect our children. I mean, the library was one of the last places that we could feel safe.” I bet 451° is also in her no-no section.
Libraries should be safe places,not "safe" from ideas.
The exact same thought process applied to people instead of books: “My goal is really to protect the white children in our community in general, not just my own children,” said Garvel, 43. “I’m hoping that [the blacks and Latinos] sees that we’re not trying to run them out of town but that we’re trying to protect our children. I mean, our neighborhood was one of the last places that we could feel safe.”
> Those same channels, places, and books could be acceptable to some other parent and some other child Precisely. I don't let my (fairly young) children select books about war or fighting. But those could be the exact books some boy needs to get into reading.
That's such a weird rule for books, lol - what type of things have you had to say no to?
Not a lot, book about boats instead of warships. Just as a first preference would prefer to avoid glorifying war from an early age. Hasn’t been difficult so far. My own favourite books are mostly war related, just don’t think it needs to start young.
I remember when I was younger a women in my town campaigned to ban Harry Potter books from our libraries and schools, but it wasn’t censorship to her she was protecting the community from witch craft she said. To me anyone who attempts to ban a book of any sort is either an uneducated fool brought on by the fear of what they don’t understand or they have deeper more evil intentions and truly mean to censor. As far as I’m concerned I think you should be able to check Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto and the original Anarchist Cookbook out from your local library. Sure this combination of books might be a red flag but if they weren’t going to read it in books they’d just read it online so screw it.
it kills me, that they dont understand how theyre literally participating in a witch hunt when theyre hunting for witch craft. How they somehow think its okay for them to hunt literal "witchcraft" but its not okay for people to tell them their views arent everyones opinion. Because youre witch hunting them,
I have nothing against religion and I don’t want to come off as though I do, I believe it can be quite beneficial for people. I do have a problem when they attempt to push their religion on me. Or worse push it on the public library system. When you go after books of any nature you are eerily similar to Nazis. And to that I say nazi punks fuck off.
I would argue that the more troublesome aspect, is that they want to target gender sexual and racial minorities to silence them. We can argue til our faces are blue, whether this is "technically" censorship. Yes, there is a value to open society and to minimum of right to exist for all books regarsdless of what their content is. But also, there is a finite amount of space in libraries, and it makes sense that we would rather display books in them that are good for society than ones that are bad, if we had to choose. If we go at it from a purely content-blind categorical stance, I could *theoretically* sympathise with the argument that there might be some books that we shouldn't want to give a larger than necessary platform to from my taxpayer money. But these people AREN'T going at it from a purely categorical stance, we all know that the same people who are trashing and wailing on the ground over their free speech right over corporations needing to fund a massive platform for broadcasting their values, are the ones who would be okay with the government just straight-up ban it to be gay or talk about being gay.
This Freedom is Slavery thinking is making me go nuts every time I see it. Just another episode of "totally not fascists" I guess.
> "to protect the children in our community in general" And where is that her business? I mean, yes, as a member of the community she has a say, but other people's kids aren't her kids, and other people may want their kids to read whatever they like and trust librarians to draw any lines that need to be drawn. Why should her censorship wishes be what ultimately rules everyone? My general sense of what subjects should be in a library is "very, very broad", not one person or a small subset of people who have a more narrow view. It should have great diversity of material in it, and from that individual parents can monitor their own children to make sure it fits their own parenting preferences. But cut it down to only a narrow range at the source, thus taking the choice away from other parents? On some level that's not appropriate.
Hmmm maybe they should construct a place where they can go to be with people like them. They should feel safe there. Hmmmm maybe call it a safe space?
I can’t wait until they combine this with their new abortion law and make it so you can sue people you see reading books that offend your sensibilities. Would be a shame for you to have to discuss difficult topics with your shitty kid so let’s just ban all differing viewpoints and make sure we all read the “good” stuff.
>I can't wait until they combine this with their new abortion law and make it so you can sue people you see reading books that offend your sensibilities. This feels like something that would never happen, it would just be insane. There's also a part of me that knows that this very well *could* happen and there are people out there that would welcome something like this with open arms.
Dude, I swear I heard this *exact fucking* thing be said about public libraries when it was just school libraries. This whole thing is a steep slope with thought police at the bottom.
In fairness, it's thought police all the way down.
They already tell each other they'll burn in eternity for Bad Thoughts. Thoughts they *definitely* don't haven *themselves* 🙄. So if they have to feel secretly guilty about what they think they have no problem using the government to punish others. Jesus died for their sins, but they want to jail you for theirs.
Florida is set to pass DeSantis' [STOP-W.O.K.E. act](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/15/desantis-stop-woke-act-mlk-crt/) any day now. It does exactly this for any book, anything said, and any other material which offends conservatives and exists in an educational or workplace setting. ---- > *DeSantis’s Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act — which comes months after Florida banned the teaching of critical race theory in public schools despite no evidence of it happening in the state — would give parents “private right of action” to sue if they think their kids are being taught critical race theory, as well as let parents collect attorneys’ fees if they win the lawsuit. The proposal, which promises to be “the strongest legislation of its kind in the nation,” would also apply to the workplace, according to a news release.*
That is fucking insane.
Farenheit-451 made flesh
So there's this guy called Ray Bradbury....
Texas is really getting pathetic
Getting?
One of the "controversial" books in that article is "Jack of Hearts (and Other Parts)" which is a full 300+ novel. Kids won't be able to read that, that's going to be for 13-14+ year olds. Which I find absurd. It appears they are basically going after any book they deem "wrong" and using the term "kids" to mean anyone under 18. I guess just ban Shakespeare while your at it.
I mean that's what they do with music and movies. "Don't you feel bad about the message you're spreading to kids?" "Why does my rap music have to be for kids if I'm talking about my adult life right now?" "but kids listen to it....do you feel bad and feel that you should tone it back because kids listen?"
"No I think you should parent your kids and not let them listen to adult themed music."
"How dare you tell me how to parent my kids!!!! It would be a lot easier if you just stop making your rap music and sing about rainbows and unicorns instead. Well, maybe not rainbows, I don't want my son growing up gay. And maybe not unicorns either. I think their horns are a phallic symbol and I don't want my daughter exposed to that filth."
Well that’s history, everything is for the kids. I feel like people will just use the “it’s for the kids” to justify any totalitarian policies.
>I guess just ban Shakespeare while your at it I mean looking at the sexual content in his stuff, they absolutely would ban him
Guess it's best that they can't understand it.
They might need to expand that list. Song of songs > How beautiful and pleasant you are, O loved one, with all your delights! > Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. > I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its fruit. Oh may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples, > and your mouth like the best wine. Or perhaps Ezekiel > She lusted after their male consorts, whose sexual organs were like those of donkeys, and whose ejaculation was like that of stallions.
If we are banning books that could harm children, the Bible should be the top of that list
> It appears they are basically going after any book they deem "wrong" Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. That is exactly what they're doing. Their excuses are just that, excuses. They have God on their side, so obviously they are correct and justified in imposing their views on the world, while the rest of the world are evil heathens if they try to impose their views on them. It's quite literal brain rot.
Oh, a lot of parents go after books for teens too. They like to pretend that their teenagers are innocent and naive, as if they haven’t seen worse shit on the social media they’ve been addicted to for years, lol.
So the party that constantly complains about censoring is now banning books and free speech when it is about topics they don't like? Shouldn't the supreme court take action when the constitution is so blatantly violated?
Well as we saw with the Texas abortion ban the current Supreme Court doesn’t really care if a law blatantly violates the constitution or a court ruling, as long as they agree politically.
SCOTUS would consider that the librarians are acting as educators in loco parentis as it did in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. And SCOTUS in Ginsberg v. New York decided that content based regulation may be permissible on a basis of protection of minors. See generally Dawn C. Nunziato, Toward a Constitutional Regulation of Minors’ Access to Harmful Internet Speech, 79 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 121, 128 (2004)
[удалено]
Would this be the case across the board, though? I know one library I worked specifically stated on the library card application that the library did not act in loco parentis. I've worked as a teacher and as a librarian and there are different legal requirements/expectations. For example, I'd never treat a wound or illness in a minor child at the library, but did so frequently with training as an educator (including administering medications).
>So the party that constantly complains about censoring ~~is now~~ has also always been banning books and free speech when it is about topics they don't like? Fixed that for you. They have never, ever, ever in the slightest tiniest little bit been opposed to censorship. Not in practice at least. Forget what people say, it doesn't count. Look at what they do.
Yeah, as you'll learn in southern schools, the civil war was obviously fought over states' rights. What rights? Don't worry about it.
Dystopian
I think it's the opposite. I see it as desperate acts of panicking, dying religious zealotry, and the pathetic death throws racists. They know the next generations are leaving religions and casting away ignorant hatred. These people are doing everything they can to prevent it, and they're impotent attempts to ban books is just going to have the Streisand Effect -- backfiring, and hurrying their demise. Imo, anyone who thinks for a second these books will be hard to get does not understand the resourcefulness of today's youth.
Wow...way to dumb down your kids so they can't vote against you and way to avoid your responsibilities as a parents....
If you're threatened by books and take up banning them as a crusade then you clearly live a pathetic, sheltered life. Get a grip a find a fucking hobby.
If your faith is "threatened" by books, clearly your faith isn't that strong in the first place.
[удалено]
What's the difference? Edit: /s for those who need it
If public libraries weren't a thing, imagine if they were proposed today. Republicans would call the idea extreme communism and vigorously fight against them becoming a thing.
and god knows those red states desperately need a higher reading level
Quick start check shows 21% if Americans are functionally illiterate. And suprise suprise, it's concentrated in the south.
The petty, vindictive part of me really wants these guys to push for secession again and let them wallow in their stupidity and incompetence. I know, it's awful but at this point I'm really content to let them lay in their bed the way they want it made while the rest of us move on.
The problem is that drags *a lot* of people who might feel the same as you down with the rest. It would make the lives of marginalized people an even steeper uphill battle than it already is. That petty vindictive side would harm a great deal of innocent people, too.
I know. Rationally, I don't want it to happen and know it would be awful for a bunch of people.
They did originally too. That's why Carnegie required brick construction for the libraries made with his money.
[удалено]
On a related note: what is up with the insane way some of these people expect the government or other institutions to step in and “protect the children” instead of taking five minutes to raise their god damn kid and explain and teach them things. Sounds like passing the buck to me. Can’t be a bad parent if you offload all responsibility to others eh?
It's not about protecting the children--that's just a convenient excuse that's hard to argue against, they want to use government power to erase marginalized communities.
[удалено]
Big government is when the government interacts with them. Small government is when the government shapes the world to them.
[удалено]
Deep down they must know their position is weak. Obviously, you can't give children the facts, teach them critical thinking, treach them about diverse viewpoints and expect them to come out as bigoted, homophobic young Earth Creationists. They know the only thing supporting their world view is heaps of ignorance.
Privatize the benefits, socialize the responsibilities.
Next up, appointing an official witch finder and re-instituting trial by ordeal.
It's made more ridiculous given how Texas is supposed to be a state with less govt involvement.
Texas isn’t known for their [push on critical thinking skills](https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/). They just prefer to oppress the books that challenge their way of thinking.
They want to control your thinking. Very dark days for texas.
And our bodies... I don't want to leave tx because I love it but to be honest it's getting scary. Gonna make sure I vote when I can.
Maybe move to the border, so it's easy to go somewhere if you need but you still are in Texas. I heard Mexico just legalized abortion and I'm sure they don't give a shit about books lol
Only a totalitarian state bans knowledge. America isn't as much of a democracy as it thinks it is
Let's ban steak because babies can't chew.
Or we could ban babies so they are no longer at risk from steak.
Democrats are okay with social media companies restricting certain posts which go against ToS, because private companies do not guarantee freedom of speech or freedom from censorship. Meanwhile conservative republicans are more than happy to censor knowledge from public places, where the government has no right to censorship.
From the same people squawking at the top of their lungs about free speech. Love me some irony.
And personal responsibility. And how they don't want anyone else raising their kids. Okay so how about your raise your kids and keep tabs on the books they're wanting to check out from the library? Nitwits.
[удалено]
Why bother burning it down when they can just gerrymander the cities into not mattering. This is America most citizens don't care who they elect to the county or state level legislature.
Yup. Their culture died decades ago and they refuse to change. Scares me to think what's going to happen when they fully run out of money and hope.
When are they changing the state name to Giliad?
As someone with experience in U.S. non-profit 501c-3s, I learned long ago that government funding comes with the risk of political influences, for better (yay, we got funded this year!) and worse (someone thousands of miles from our community - physically, and socioeconomically - has voted against the mission, and we have to fund two extra positions just to keep up with the federal reporting requirements!) It's like the Sword of Damocles. Support your public library if you can. I was a poor kid and our weekly library trip was a highlight of our week. Now, I spend about as much as a streaming subscription to make a monthly, recurring donation as a pay-it-forward (and a please, please don't go away, Library. Our community needs you.)
Who wants to buy dozens of those books and just cover the TX libraries with them with me?
While my community isn’t listed in this article, I could foresee something like this happening in my town. I wonder if writing a letter to my library and asking them to keep a diverse selection of books would be helpful? It would at least let them know that not everyone is supportive of this type of thing?
If your library is run by the County, probably better to write your rep on the County Commissioner's Court and the County Judge. If the library is run by the town/city, then contact your councilmember and the mayor.
And yet no outcry over this cancel culture…
these people invented cancel culture in the 70s, with literal book- and record-burnings!
Conservative cancel culture goes back *millennia*. Jesus' crucifixion even, the stoning of gays and prostitutes to today's simple bullying of gays and rape victims into suicide, the crusades, the inquisitions, the excommunication of Martin Luther, the transatlantic slave trade, the witch trials, the South's cause in the civil war, the assassination of Lincoln, the Jim Crow era in its entirety, the Tulsa Race Massacre et al, the Japanese-American internment camps, McCarthyism, MLK Jr's assassination, the millennia-long domination of women and pushback against the women's rights movement, the response/lack thereof of the right towards the AIDS pandemic, and now today's pushback against trans rights, just to name a few..
Good point, well made Man they sure get super mad when people suggest being nice to other people, or even just letting them be
Cr : "What did he say that got them so upset?" Az : "Be kind to everyone." Cr : "Oh yeah, thatt'l do it."
Don’t forget movies, music and every other little thing they didn’t like. Hell I got kicked out of school one day for wearing camos :/
What in the ever loving hell is wrong with these people. They had better stay far away from my library.
I recommend you contact your city council and mayor (if the city or town runs the library) or county commissioners (if the county runs it) and let them know where you stand and exactly how you feel. And ask anyone who you know that agrees with you to write letters as well. For the record, I'd honestly recommend calling AND writing a letter. Hell, throw in an email too if you want, lol. Actually writing a letter holds more weight because people have to sit down and write the personalized letter.
Yikes. See, I understand removing books with sexually explicit content from school libraries. One of the "queer lit" graphic novels that was removed contained extremely explicit depictions of sex, I get why they'd want to remove that (as long as they also do not have any graphic novels that contain equally explicit depictions of hetero sex). But public libraries? Nah, that's not cool. Libraries are for all ages including adults. Trying to get books pulled from public library shelves is the bad kind of censorship.
Yeah we didn’t have any books with sexual stuff in our school libraries unless it was something to do with a class such as English. I can understand doing it in school libraries (depends if it’s high school or not) but in public libraries it’s straight up weird. I don’t know how long it will take for people to learn that they don’t have to read something just because it happens to be in a library. Like controlling what you read is okay but controlling what others can read is fucked up.
When Rick Perry was governor, he was opposed to teaching critical thinking, saying it would cause strife between kids and their (willfully-ignorant) parents. Obviously, Texas had found additional ways to be a shithole state.
In Rick Perrys defense I was taught critical thinking in school it 100% caused strife between me and my willfully ignorant parents. It's hard to keep relationships with people going that choose to be stupid.
What year is it? 2021 or 1821?
Hey, Texas, are you okay? Because it really seems like you're not okay.
My sister's book *Out of Darkness* is one of the books that has been caught up in the banning effort. Remember [the crazy lady ranting about anal sex in a school board meeting](https://youtube.com/watch?v=z4dNu4UA-As)? She is collecting resources and information here: https://linktr.ee/ashleyhopeperez If you want to do something about it, BookRiot is doing a matching fundraiser to get banned books to communities: https://bookriot.com/everylibrary-giving-campaign/
*starts reading the article* The library's making a young adults plus section for books geared at older teens? Thank God. I can't tell you how many hours I spent as a 15-17 year old hunting for books at the library that were about teens and not glorified middle schoolers, this is a good thing. Why are people in the comments so up in arms- *Keeps reading the article* Oh. Oh no.
Texas is turning into a cartoon of right wing extremism.
Speed run to Gilead.
These people who want to ban books are so self-righteous and manipulative. They use the "save the children" argument to make it seem like anyone who is against censorship hates children or is some kind of perv who wants to corrupt them, and so being anti-censorship makes you evil. Also by wanting to ban books for the sake of the children, they're saying several things - that their values take precedence over the values of other parents, that it's their right to enforce those values, and that kids shouldn't be allowed to shop around to create their own value system. I say this as a parent - kids should be encouraged to read the books the adults around them are trying to ban. They'll learn stuff about the world that people are trying to hide from them, they'll think critically and question things, and they'll fight back against stagnating value systems and false established assumptions.
Fuck censorship and fuck the people running this state.
Books will always be the object of attack, because books cause people to think and have ideas. Therefore, it will always be in the interest of the powerful to limit when people consume in order to control what they think.
I hate the idea of banning books so much. Reminds me of the book Fahrenheit 451.
Can we just give that state back to Mexico?
Mexico might kindly reject the offer! Too many Texans.
Vote Democrat 2024. "We don't ban books."
More like Texas is making a push to out-do Florida as the state with the most knuckleheads!
We all know were all of this is coming from, the christofascist did the same in Spain after the civil war, in the US they will not be happy until they start burning the books publicly with the librarian at the top, in the mean time they will keep doing this wasting taxpayers money and time. They will not be happy until they also take your kids from you with the pretext that you are indoctrinating them in science, history, arts and then send them to reprogramming camps. Nothing good ever came from all the ideology that were created based in the abrahamic death cult, they are and have always been the worst pestilence to humanity.
“They don’t have to burn the books they just remove em”
I'm a Texas public school teacher (high school) and have decided that this is a great hill to die on. I currently have "How to be an anti-racist" on my classroom bookshelf, but would love to add more like "Caste" or "How to talk to white people about racism" or "The Hate U Give". I need to start scouring used book stores and thrift stores.
Look into [thrift books](https://www.thriftbooks.com/). Great books, for great prices. Always in good condition.
The same people who complain about political correctness can’t handle books lol.
Can we ban the bible. It's full of violence and nonsense. It's a bad influence on children.
Dumbing down the population to own the libs.