Banned Books Week

[Ottergame]

Snowmen have a gender when you craft a snowphallus for them. Hey, I was a dirty minded gay kid.

 

[Christian]

Ahh. This explains why I can;t get "Kinky Buddhist Afro-French Depressed Angst-Ridden Teens Protest The Anti-Fist Raising Protocols, Naked" for love nor money.

Actually, there are two active eBay auctions offering this title. You've just gotta know where to look, partner!

 

[Luddite]

This reminds me of a time when I was a very young child in the winters of upstate New York. Our next-door neighbor helped us kids make a "snowman." We were too young to realize the significance of these extra globes we were making.

-The Luddite

 

[Camarath]

I think banning books is wrong.

It's neither the left nor the right that is trying to do this. It's both sides. it's various special interest groups. That's why banned books week is so important, because IMO, most clear thinking, rational, Americans, whatever their political choice may be, cherish the freedom to read whatever they wish, and do not want the government or any one special interest group picking and choosing what is in their public libraries.

What kind of "banning" are we talking about? I don't think we are talking about the possession is illegal kind. I also do not think that not being provided with material is the as that material being banned. If your public (or school) library does not stock the material you want to bad they are under no obligation or responsibility to provide you with all the material you desire. For example I don't think most public libraries stock porn even though I am sure many potential patrons would wish to view such material. If you want to read something not available in your public library or school your traditional and legal recourse is to buy the book you want. You have a right to free speech and to hear the free speech of others but you have to pay for that right with time and/or money. If you want the government to stock or not stock certain books in public libraries with public funding then you have the right to spend your time and money to try and accomplish that. And I have no problem with that type of “banning” (i.e. banning equals public intuitions not stocking or providing the desired book) but if you are trying to prevent me from owning, buying, reading, writing, or publishing (legally) certain books then IMO you are denying me my rights.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Regarding Camarath's post above, you must have missed Buttercups reply a few pages back to what was basically the same arguement. I'll quote it again for you:

But whose definition of appropriate are we going to use?

I manage a branch library in a large public library system. About half a dozen times each year, I end up with a parent in my office complaining about the 'appropriateness' of something they found on our shelf. The following is exactly what I tell them.

"I'm glad you came to talk to me. I can see that you are a concerned parent, and that's wonderful. And I fully support your right to control what your children read. I support it so much that I wouldn't dream of taking that right away from you. But here's the thing. I also support the right of every other parent who uses this library to control what *their* children read. And sometimes, not all parents agree on what is or is not appropriate. For example, we have a book on our shelf called Daddy's Roommate which is the story, told through a child's eyes, of his gay father and the father's new boyfriend. Some of our patrons don't want their children to read that book, for various reasons. But some other of our patrons want and need that book, because it reflects their lifestyle. Now, however you might feel about the choices those other parents have made, the truth is that they pay taxes just like you do, and I do, and every other adult in this county does. This library and its collection belong to *all* of us. So I have to buy books that appeal to many different sorts of people. You can find books in this building that represent every point on the political spectrum, from far right to far left. You can find books that address opposite sides of controversial issues here. Pro abortion and anti abortion. Pro homosexuality and anti homosexuality. Pro Harry Potter and anti Harry Potter. I invite you to read the books that appeal to you, and to select the books for your children that are appropriate for you family's values. Isn't it wonderful that we live in a free country where we can all make these decisions for ourselves?"

In seven years, that has shut every one of them up. Because it's the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

Sorry for the long quote in this post, but it was easier to quote the whole thing than try to come up with a response of my own that would be quite as effective.

 

[Camarath]

Regarding Camarath's post above, you must have missed Buttercups reply a few pages back to what was basically the same arguement. I'll quote it again for you:

I read it and it is a good quote. I was mainly intending to respond to what I interpreted as an assumption that people have a right to be provided with the books they want. You have the right to buy, read, and own most books that you wish but those books do not have to be bought for you. Public and school libraries are public services not public rights.

 

[Mark Chance]

I read it and it is a good quote. I was mainly intending to respond to what I interpreted as an assumption that people have a right to be provided with the books they want. You have the right to buy, read, and own most books that you wish but those books do not have to be bought for you. Public and school libraries are public services not public rights.

Quite right. The courts in the U.S. have pretty much consistently ruled that the government is not necessarily obligated to provide people with the means to acquire services even if those services cannot by rights be withheld. IOW, just because a person has a right to X doesn't mean the government (read: taxpayers) are obligated to pay for X. The only significant exception to this that I am aware of is the right to provided legal counsel via a public defender in the case of criminal prosecution.

So, let's say a library doesn't carry a certain book. I can request the library get the book, but no one in the library is legally obligated to honor that request, especially in times like the current ones (at least here in Texas) where budgets are shrinking and services are being reduced on pretty much all fronts.

 

[jaerdaph]

So what about books that are ALREADY owned by the library (and therefore the taxpayers) that are pulled from the shelves?

Or books that have been donated?

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Or books that have been donated?

I don't want to make any judgements on book donations, but the majority of what I see donated at the library I work at looks like someone was cleaning out their attic and decided to dump all the books at the library rather than ask what books the library could use. We get tons of outdated computer books, cheap paperbacks from the 70s and 80s, and Readers Digest condensed books. We don't need another paperback copy of Tom Clancy's 3rd novel (we already several copies in hardcover, thanks).

If you want to donate a book to the library, GREAT! But ask what books are wanted, what section of the libraries collection needs books, or if you have a specific title in mind, can the library use it. Better yet, how about a monetary donation?

We can't use every book that gets dropped off. Right now, there are several shelves of "gift" books that will be auctioned off to generate money for things the library needs.

I work at an academic library, but I'm sure that the other library folk on the boards could say the same things about their places of employment, whether they are public libraries, school libraries, or academic libraries.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I read it and it is a good quote. I was mainly intending to respond to what I interpreted as an assumption that people have a right to be provided with the books they want. You have the right to buy, read, and own most books that you wish but those books do not have to be bought for you. Public and school libraries are public services not public rights.

Let me turn this around and phrase it differently, because I think you may be misinterpreting what banning and challenging books means in the case of this thread (FYI, I'm not always the best at putting my thoughts into words so I very well could have phrased something in a way that did not make sense...) :

People do not have a right to say "I wish to read "Sex" by Madonna, therefore it should be in my public library and they better use their resources to buy a copy or I will start a big crusade against them for not buying what I want ".

However, people also do not have a right to say "I do not wish to read "Sex" by Madonna, therefore it should NOT be in my public library and they'd better take it off their shelves right now or I will start a big crusade against them for not doing what I want".

I'm sure that there are people who do complain that libraries do not have the books they want. I understand that libraries have rather limited resources and they usually try to please the vast majority of their readers with what they have. However, I think that these people are few, since most people understand that not every library can afford everything, nor do they expect the library to use it's resources to buy obscure books that they want.

I work for the publisher that produced "Sex" by Madonna. I can say honestly that there is no way anyone is getting a copy of this book, as it's out of print and I'm told that it sells secondhand for a couple of hundred. If your public library does not have a copy, chances are quite likely they are never getting one, because it would be bad business sense to buy a secondhand copy for that much money, for a book that is likely to not appeal to as many people as spending that money on 30 other books that have mass appeal.

I think the vast majority of library patrons do not "expect" books to be purchased for them. Most libraries are againts the banning of books, and I'm guessing wouldn't carry things like "Sex" simply due to finances. And I agree completely that with a $100 buying a couple of nice history books, a few James Patterson and Sandra Brown novels and extra copies of classics is a much better purchase choice than purchasing a book that will not have that sort of mass appeal.

The problem is the people, or groups of people who want books taken off of the shelves that are *already there*. Most of the books on the top 100 list are in most public libraries and the problem is people who wish to impose their values of what is and is not "decent" upon their entire community . Or people who want to try and stop libraries from ordering , say, the new Harry Potter book because they think it "encourages witchcraft".

See Buttercups excellent post.