Book Bans

[drofgnal]

I didn't want to start a new thread, but the most likely one was closed. I saw this article today:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s/86468824007/

Includes the top 5 banned books, states leading the most (FL followed by TX, no surprise there), and most banned authors. I would've never guessed Stephen King

[JSWolf]

This really should be moved to the P&R forum as this will get political very soon.

[rantanplan]

This is why you remove DRM from your ebooks and have a comprehensive backup for all of them, so that a change in government or publisher or book seller cannot remove your ebook.

Book banning is a sign of authoritarianism, so yes, you probably cannot talk about it without talking about US politics.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rantanplan

This is why you remove DRM from your ebooks and have a comprehensive backup for all of them, so that a change in government or publisher or book seller cannot remove your ebook.

Book banning is a sign of authoritarianism, so yes, you probably cannot talk about it without talking about US politics.

There is a reason why those top three states mentioned in the article are the top states to ban books. But the reason is very much political.

[rcentros]

If parents pay for public schools, they should be able to make decisions on what books they find acceptable for their children in those schools. It's not censorship (as these books are still available everywhere) it's setting standards about what books parents think are appropriate for their children. The article says these school bans "harm the authors," but in other articles we're told that "even more people buy the books because they're banned." So which is it?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by rcentros

If parents pay for public schools, they should be able to make decisions on what books they find acceptable for their children in those schools. It's not censorship (as these books are still available everywhere) it's setting standards about what books parents think are appropriate for their children. The article says these school bans "harm the authors," but in other articles we're told that "even more people buy the books because they're banned." So which is it?

And how many parents does it take a have a book banned? One American friend of mine was complaining that their child's school had on and off banned several hundred books based on complaints by a single family. Of 326 complaints about inappropriate content, 283 were from one child's parents.

Their procedure is to ban and then review the ban, books were popping on and off library shelves with enthusiasm. Some of the prolific complaints were about books in which the US army was not automatically good guys in their conflicts with various Indian nations. One example being a book about the Trail of Tears which showed the Cherokee in a sympathetic view. Another complained about My Daddies! since it encourages children to embrace homosexuality.

Oddly when several parents complained about the Bible being present in the school based on sex and violence, the parents who hold the complaints record were present to state that no one should be allowed to complain about their holy book.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by rcentros

If parents pay for public schools,

People pay for public schools, not just parents.

The purpose of public schools is to give children an education, the schools are not there for the parents' sake. It's in the interest of everybody that children get a good education, that they get access to books which will make them well informed and happy. Parents can tell their children whatever they want at home, but at school everybody should be exposed to the views of the broader society, and have a chance to learn valuable things their parents might be unwilling or unable to teach them.

What "well informed" and "valuable" means will, of course, vary with time and place, and people will disagree about what it means. Of course the choice of books is political, there's no way it can be anything else. There's no book collection or set of selection criteria which is neutral.

My children learnt things I disagree with in school. That's one of the costs of living in a society. I discussed some topics with them, and told them that it's OK to take their time to decide what they want to believe.

[Sirtel]

I'm grateful to my parents that they didn't try to instill a belief system in their children, but let us make up our own mind.

[xyzzy_foo]

The banning of books by the government is political, but the banning of Kindle eBooks by Amazon is not supposed to be. They ban legal books at their discretion.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I'm grateful to my parents that they didn't try to instill a belief system in their children, but let us make up our own mind.

I agree with that. My parents allowed us to read what we wanted to read but were always available to discuss when the contents of the reading material dealt with material we did not understand.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I'm grateful to my parents that they didn't try to instill a belief system in their children, but let us make up our own mind.

They didn't? We have definitively tried to instill our most important beliefs and values in our children, such as "Yes, I can see that the people in that other boat is jumping the queue and will get to the quay with the ice cream shop before us. We don't jump the queue, because that is wrong" and "When I'm telling the story, there will be girl pirates. I'm a girl, and I like pirates" and "A god is a kind of nice ghost who helps people. Noone knows if they exist, I don't believe they do, but many people do believe in them. You don't have to decide now what you believe, you can do that whenever you want, and change your mind whenever you want".

Originally Posted by xyzzy_foo

The banning of books by the government is political, but the banning of Kindle eBooks by Amazon is not supposed to be. They ban legal books at their discretion.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. A private company, like Amazon, can -- and often do -- make political decisions, just like a private person can. I'd say even a decision that is mainly motivated by profit can be political, if it has some kind of significant impact on society.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by hildea

They didn't? We have definitively tried to instill our most important beliefs and values in our children, such as "Yes, I can see that the people in that other boat is jumping the queue and will get to the quay with the ice cream shop before us. We don't jump the queue, because that is wrong" and "When I'm telling the story, there will be girl pirates. I'm a girl, and I like pirates" and "A god is a kind of nice ghost who helps people. Noone knows if they exist, I don't believe they do, but many people do believe in them. You don't have to decide now what you believe, you can do that whenever you want, and change your mind whenever you want".

I don't mean generic values, I mean a belief system. Of course my parents taught us general moral values, what is good or bad, how one should behave with others and so on. But they didn't try to raise us in a specific belief/value system - in fact, they never talked to us about God/gods/religion at all, in one way or another. I learned such stuff on my own, from books. And for that I'm grateful to my parents. That was the best gift they could give me - not instilling any pre-conceived notions about what one should think or believe.

[issybird]

I'm closing this because at a minimum a discussion of values isn't News related to ereading and at worst it's a platform for people to post politically motivated agendas so far off-topic they're in the next county, as happened above. As always, take it to P&R.