[cameldrv]

The Seuss foundation is free to stop publishing the books. I don’t see how that creates an obligation for Amazon or eBay to prohibit sale, nor for any library that was happily lending these last week to pull them from circulation entirely.

After all of this, it is considerably easier to procure the writings of Adolf Hitler than of Dr. Seuss. That is very strange and wrong.

[acdha]

Did anyone say it creates an obligation for Amazon or eBay to ban them? Those companies chose to do so voluntarily under their existing policies, which used to be a thing conservatives supported.

The Mein Kampf comparisons also tend to leave out two key factors: most of Dr. Seuss’ books are intended for children and they’re presented without critical analysis. I don’t think you’d find much objection to the same kind of scholarly work discussing Seuss’ works in the historical context – Dr. Seuss Goes to War being a good example of what that might look like.

[cameldrv]

I wouldn't call myself a conservative. Obviously as private companies, Amazon and eBay are able to make rules about what they allow to be sold. I do think it creates a real chilling effect when both Amazon and eBay refuse to sell these books, since they are essentially an oligopoly in book sales.

It's actually the libraries pulling them from the shelves that seems so bizarre to me. I could understand them moving them from the children's section to somewhere else, but to remove them from circulation entirely, and then presumably put a bunch of other books out on the table for banned books week is just strange.

Public libraries have historically been a big institutional force for the rights of free speech and free thought, fighting in court to be able to loan out (and keep secret the names of borrowers) very controversial books. I honestly cannot understand sacrificing those principles and all of that history over Dr. Seuss.

[acdha]

It's less whether you're a conservative than that almost all of the people pushing this as a story are, and they're doing it with the intention of politicizing it so you really want to look for primary sources and make sure that critical details aren't being removed.

Librarians are generally quite opposed to banning books and I haven't seen any sign that this is different: some large systems (e.g. NYPL) have said they're keeping them in the general collection and others (e.g. Chicago) have said that they're temporarily removing them from circulation while deciding what to do long-term. I would bet that the major of local decisions will end up being along the lines of either not shelving them in the children's section or having some kind of contextual note for people who request it.

[cameldrv]

Well I'm not so interested in the meta-political aspect to this. What I think this shows though is that perhaps librarians aren't quite as opposed to banning books anymore as I thought they were.

It's easy for Chicago to say that they're figuring out what to do long term, but somehow these books were all fine (and in the children's section!) for something like 70 years, and now they're suddenly radioactive.

What this suggests to me is that there has been a shift in values among librarians, and when the publisher made the decision to take them out of print, this forced a reevaluation, and then we discovered that avoiding any whiff of racism is a more important value than free speech. I think that's really sad and depressing.