Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet53
Sorry I am not sure I agree with you. What would be required for you to say a book is “banned?” A national law prohibiting the distribution of the book? Or a similar state, or local law?
|
Yes. A book should only be considered "banned" if it's illegal. This is, by the way, the plain and usual meaning of the word. "Cities of Salt" is banned in Saudi Arabia. That means - and everyone understands that to mean - that it's illegal to sell that book in Saudi Arabia. No one would interpret that to mean that, while the book was widely available, one school district in Riyadh had removed the books from its library as being in appropriate for 12 year olds. The same is true of "All Quiet on the Western Front" (banned by the Nazis) or of "American Psycho" (banned in an Australian state in the '90's). "Banned" means it's illegal to possess (or maybe to sell) the book in question. It's stretching the word beyond its meaning to apply it to a book removed from a school library.
Quote:
|
Same question for school libraries. I submit “banned” is appropriate anytime on group of the public is able to exert pressure on a library sufficient to cause a book to be made unavailable.
|
Is a book also banned if a library decides not to carry it? If a bookstore decides to remove a particular book due to public protests, is it also banned?
Quote:
It would be nice if all libraries and librarians were heroic defenders of free speech, but the truth is when even a small group complains loud enough a book can be “banned” at least locally because it is tough to fight a dedicated group of fanatics. Especially for institutions dependent on public funding, and hence the whims of politicians.
|
But removing a book from a school library is not "banning" it locally. If a school board in Bakwerdz, KS, removes Harry Potter from the school library, the book will still be widely available at stores in the town, and likely one of the bestsellers. In no way has the book been "banned" in the town.
Everyone knows that banning books is bad - it's the kind of things that Nazis, Communists, and repressive middle eastern despots do. And the kind of things that developed countries used to do to books that are now considered literary classics. But of course all of these governments actually outlawed possession, sale, or importation of the books
It's precisely because book banning is so bad that people want to apply it to their cause - they want to associate the school board's removal of a certain books with the Nazi policy of sending artists of degenerate works to concentration camps. (Or the Soviet policy of sending authors to the gulag). But this is ludicrous on its face. "The Gulag Archipelago" was banned in the USSR, as mentioned above. Harry Potter was not, and has never been, banned in the US, or in any city, state, or county of the US.
The ALA should be honest and talk about "Challenged and Removed Library Books," since that's their actual issue and their actual concern.