upvote
I believe when most libraries and stores use the term 'ban', they rely on PEN America's definition: "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished." [1]

[1] https://pen.org/book-bans/book-bans-frequently-asked-questio...

reply
Thanks, this is useful.

> "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished."

Though this is a fascinating definition.. anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book outside of purely budgetary or physical space limits, it is now a "ban".

The more fascinating question would be discovering the boundary of what PEN, et al consider a "good ban" because I bet we could come up with a few.

reply
> anytime, anywhere says "no thanks" to carrying a book

That's not what the definition you just quoted says. In fact, the definition you quoted is very close to the common definition of "ban": a refusal to allow something, usually by an official entity.

It matters a lot who does it.

reply
What would happen if a child brought those not-banned or not-censored books to a library/school where they have "forgo those specific books"? What would the reaction be?

I feel like if they'd still let the person read the book by themselves, and freely share it with others, then indeed it's merely a curation choice. But, if I'd expect, they try to prevent this person from reading their own brought book or sharing it with others, then I think it's fair to say that book been banned and/or censored, at least in that particular location.

reply
What if someone brought a porno to blockbuster?
reply
How is that at all related or relevant to anything I wrote?
reply
No, you need to understand that your specific narrow definition has not handed down by God, and is not more valid than others. US book banning has been a subject for so long now that you are tilling at windmills if you think you can deside what 10000s of people mean when they say banned.

Is a specific institution or library are banned by their decision makers to have a book - that book is banned in that context. If you don't buy this that fair, but don't come at me with your pedantry when I just answered your question.

reply
> Is a specific institution or library are banned by their decision makers to have a book - that book is banned in that context.

By that reasoning, all PG-13 and R rated movies are "banned" just because your elementary school library doesn't carry them. Absurd, huh?

"10000s of people" can create new definitions of words as they choose, just don't be surprised when educated people think they're fools.

reply
Yes, this is colloquially referred to as "banning." Sorry, you don't get to decide how others use language.
reply
Used by those wanting to sell and profit from outrage about "banned" books to be precise.
reply
deleted
reply
See also: normal people who aren't afraid of books and think that banning them is silly.
reply
Banning books on a country level may be silly but curating what is allowed in a school library is not. Which is exactly why people with an agenda want to conflate these two.
reply
The librarians should curate, not the parents. The parents are welcome to decide for their own children what is permissible and not, but should have no authority to prevent others' children from accessing materials they do not find objectionable.

Why is it about "parental rights" when it comes to anti-vaccination, but authoritarian control mechanisms when it comes to someone else's kid reading a fucking book?

reply
It is censorship if those books are not included for a specific reason.

“We aren’t including this book in the library because we don’t have space for every book.” <—— not censorship

“We aren’t including this book because we don’t think it’s appropriate for kids to learn about trans people.” <—- censorship

reply
> “We aren’t including this book because we don’t think it’s appropriate for kids to learn about trans people.” <—- censorship

Removing books from public libraries (not just schools) because we find criticism of certain ideas around gender to be offensive <-- definitely censorship

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-66441947

reply
Yes, book bans are bad no matter who does it. See how simple that is?
reply
Playboy was never in school libraries either, basically because children aren't adults.

Isn't this basic curation and child protection, not censorship?

reply
Since there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship?
reply
> Since there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship?

When people ban books because they don't want others to learn about trans people, they're usually pretty vocal about their motivations.

reply
>When people ban books because they don't want others to learn about trans people, they're usually pretty vocal about their motivations.

You assume they are vocal about their motivations, because how could you possibly know, if they claim it under cover of "not enough shelf space"?

reply
Well, maybe a lot of people do keep it secret… that’s true. But plenty of people do not keep it secret.
reply
I largely agree with you for the time being; I think right now we are in the "dumb authoritarian" phase because Trump, Musk, Thiel can't keep their mouths shut about their true motivations. I fear that there are probably a smarter generation of authoritarians who are more clever (Russel Vought, for example), and not in the spotlight, waiting for their time to ascend.

The loud ones come first, because they have to corrupt the minds of the youth and the mentally weak so they can have a movement.

reply
That's a childish argument.
reply
My point was to highlight the ridiculousness of the comment to which I was responding; glad it worked!
reply
It didn't work. The comment wasn't ridiculous. Your reply was. But yes, if you want to flip thing around so you feel validated, be my guest.
reply
Of course it worked. Any authoritarian intent on banning a book just could give the spurious reason that "the library does not have enough room" and then there is no censorship ever, according to the original post. See how childish that reasoning is?
reply
You're right
reply