[steviedotboston]

Cool project, except these aren't really "banned" books. thats a misleading term. In most of these cases, the book isn’t actually banned. Nobody is being arrested for owning it, Amazon isn’t forbidden from selling it, and adults can still read it whenever they want.

What’s really being debated is whether a particular school library, children’s section, or curriculum should include a book. That’s not the same thing as government censorship. Schools and libraries make age-appropriate selection decisions all the time. They don’t carry every book ever published, and not every objectionable book belongs in front of kids just because someone wants to call its removal a “ban.” A single school library deciding not to carry a book because they think it's inappropriate, but that same book being available at the local public library, every book store in town, the internet, etc is not the same as the soviet union literally banning the ownership of books.

[john_strinlai]

>What’s really being debated is whether a particular school library, children’s section, or curriculum should include a book. That’s not the same thing as government censorship.

except for the cases where the government, not the librarian, is saying "you cannot have that book on your shelf, even if you think it is appropriate and want it".

>Nobody is being arrested for owning it, Amazon isn’t forbidden from selling it, and adults can still read it whenever they want.

when tomhow/dang "ban" someone from HN, that user doesn't get arrested if they make a new account. they can still visit the site. is it misleading for them to use the word "ban"?

[woodrowbarlow]

i agree, with a bit more nuance. it's one thing for a government agency staffed by educational professionals (like a public school district) to issue guidance (or even rules) on how libraries should be stocked -- but what's become widespread is legislative bodies bypassing those existing structures and issuing laws without input from educational professionals.

[imgabe]

Words exist in a context. "User was banned from a site" and "Book is banned" have different connotations. You have to be purposely obtuse to conflate these.

[john_strinlai]

just like how you can figure out when tom/dan say "we've banned this account" doesn't mean "banned this account from the internet", you can use similar context clues to figure out "banned book" doesn't mean "banned across the world and is now illegal".

[imgabe]

I mean, when you're like "I have to make a hidden wifi server in a light bulb to distribute these books" that does kind of imply some dystopian totalitarian state that will put you to death for reading those books or something and not the reality that they are given their own highlighted section in literally every single bookstore in existence.

[blanched]

Did you read the article? The author doesn’t say anything like that.

It’s pretty clear this was mostly a fun idea with a bit of “could be useful in this scenario” motivation, which they mention came from reading a short story.

[therealpygon]

What led you to make up that this was said? Also, you realize there are other countries in the world where books are banned…right?

[nerdjon]

The problem is that there isn’t really a better term, and using “banned” gives the correct impression for most people to see the problem.

In many cases these books are not simply being removed at the school level but are being driven by the government and it is politically motivated.

Ignoring the problem won’t lead to them being banned in the sense that having them would be illegal, but it could make it more difficult to get. It would not be hard to imagine states like Florida going further and attacking public libraries or possibly even making it so you have to show an ID to buy these books.

Some public libraries are already being attacked.

“Banned” may not be technically correct but it also properly communicates the seriousness of this and the goals of the people pushing this.

[olalonde]

I find the trend of redefining or twisting terms to serve a specific cause really counterproductive. It eventually devalues the words themselves and makes nuanced discussion nearly impossible. If a problem is really that serious, it shouldn't require misleading language.

[john_strinlai]

>I find the trend of redefining or twisting terms to serve a specific cause really counterproductive.

which term is being redefined?

[lotsofpulp]

In the context of supplying banned books in the software of a lightbulb, I expect banned to mean a China style ban where possession can get you punished. Not the (current) US version where certain taxpayer funded entities cannot provide the book.

But there might not be a better word for the latter scenario. Surely, few oppose libraries from “banning” pornographic books, so some level of discretion must be used by administrators.

[jl6]

> But there might not be a better word for the latter scenario.

How about age-gating?

[ranger_danger]

> I expect banned to mean

That's the thing... everyone may have a slightly different definition of banned. Even if an entire country agreed on one definition, another country might not, or it could change over time, so I don't think it's ever possible to say there is a single right or wrong definition for any word.

[Guthwine]

From what I can find with a quick look, 'Banned' is most likely using PEN America[1]'s definition, which is “either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.”

[1] Free speech non-profit mostly focused on literature.

[olalonde]

Some that comes to mind: violence, -phobia, fascism, nazism, rape, genocide, supremacy, safety, political, diversity, man/woman.

In the context of this thread, it would be calling a book a "banned book" because it is banned in some school libraries, despite being widely available everywhere else. Akin to calling dogs a "banned pet" because they are banned from post offices. Technically correct but highly misleading without context.

[halostatue]

This has been called book banning for a very long time. Banned Books Week has existed since 1982.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_Books_Week

I suspect that the same applies to most of the words that came to your mind; they're just being used in contexts you politically disagree with and therefore it's a "misuse". (Seinfeld's "soup nazi" was a misuse. Putin's use of the same word is a misuse. Descriptions of modern nationalist movements and the powers that support them are descriptive.)

There is a concept for pets called "banned breeds" (e.g., "pit bulls") that are similarly politically motivated in the same way that book banning happens.

[olalonde]

> I suspect that the same applies to most of the words that came to your mind; they're just being used in contexts you politically disagree with and therefore it's a "misuse".

Nope. I just care about words and their meaning. If you tell someone that X is a "banned book", the vast majority of people will understand it as meaning that it's a country wide ban (I just verified this with a couple of people to make sure I wasn't crazy).

[some_random]

But the problem is that with very few exception, it's not serious at all. Public libraries already make curation choices with politics in mind, school libraries already make curation choices with content moderation in mind, etc. In order to make it something approaching a real problem you have to invent potential laws that some states like Florida might make in the future.

[steviedotboston]

This is admitting that its intentionally misleading, which is lying and is bad. You just think that it's an rhetorically effective term. When I walk into a public library and I see a display a books for "banned books week" that includes The Catcher in the Rye and The Color Purple, two of the most best selling books ever which are commonly assigned reading in schools, it's so obvious that the whole thing is a farce.

[john_strinlai]

"banned" just means "not allowed".

it doesn't need to apply globally for something to be banned. it doesn't need to be illegal across the country. something can be banned from a certain place (e.g. a school). it's still correct to say it is banned.

some HNers are so weird when it comes to the word "banned" regarding books, i really dont understand why. its only ever in the context of school/library books. use "ban" in the sense of "banned from the forum" or similar, and no one bats an eye.

why dont people get worked up when tom/dang "ban" someone from HN? they haven't made it illegal for that user to visit HN.

[some_random]

Because they're not "not allowed". With very few exceptions the thing people are freaking out about is books being curated out of libraries, usually for very understandable reasons.

[Guthwine]

'Curated out' not by librarians but by a singular patron challenging the purchase of a certain publication.

[some_random]

If by "singular patron" you mean the administration of the school then I guess so.

[john_strinlai]

>Because they're not "not allowed".

...yes? that is the meaning of "ban", so it seems entirely appropriate to use that word

[some_random]

Sorry to tell you this but you've been lied to about these books being banned, as in they are not being banned, they are still allowed.

[nerdjon]

It isn’t intentionally misleading, at best it is an over simplification of what is happening.

It is a fact that there is a government lead effort in various states to ban books from k-12 libraries. That part of this is not up for debate because it is happening. So they are in fact “banned”. As a society we generally accept that words have more complicated or nuanced meanings when connected to other words, as “banned” is in this case.

We also as a society generally accept that those other words may be implied or require looking at something for more than a minute to understand the context. If you are in a country where a book is actually banned, I would wager that you would likely just say “this book is banned” implying it is banned where you are instead of adding in “this book is banned here in X” since it would be unnecessary to say and would be generally understood.

If you don’t like the word than propose another word.

[havblue]

On my news feed today I saw a Newsweek story about how someone found a dvd of Birth of a Nation at Goodwill, not knowing what the plot was.

As far as I can tell the standard for a book being "banned" is just that the librarian or the bookseller is sympathetic to the book's message and thinks it should be more widely read while politicians or parents might think it's inappropriate or they disagree with the message.

If you put the shoe on the other foot and name a book that's out of print because publishers dislike the material or it's problematic in the eyes of librarians, I don't think it fits the standard. Birth of a Nation for example is not a "banned movie" and neither is Song of the South. So the standard is entirely set by teachers, librarians and booksellers.

[mothballed]

I think of stuff like Luty who was challenged in the UK under the terrorism act for sharing books on improvised firearms, Ashley Dugan who was charged with "distributing explosives training to terrorists" and some of his youtube videos pulled for sharing the well known public domain synthesis of RDX explosives.

These are non-sexually-obscene informational speech yet the librarians and teachers don't actually want you looking at these banned media because they could actually be used to challenge the established order and system rather than just shuffling who is in power to possibly the guy the librarian likes.

[graemep]

The UK bans a lot more than the US does in terms of actual government bans on books and speech, especially under terrorism law.

[eudamoniac]

If these were actually banned books people would be a lot less enthusiastic about the endeavor. Pretty much every book that is genuinely banned, in that no publisher or printing house will print it and no bookstore will sell it, is either a racist diatribe, how to make bombs, or similar. These books on the other hand are books that one librarian or school admin somewhere in this vast country decided would no longer be included in their small library. Not very interesting.

[sfink]

You may be overthinking this. "Banned" in this case means that the usual person or people who choose what books to include are being overridden by a party with more clout. From the perspective of a school librarian, for example, book X has been banned. They no longer have the option of including it. (This is even true in the case where the librarian would not have included it anyway, for their own reasons.) They are prevented by the school board, an angry mob of parents, the state legislature, the FBI, or whoever. The fact that the public library down the road carries the book does not change whether that librarian has the option of including it in their school library's collection. They can't. They are banned from including it.

[steviedotboston]

The FBI is not telling school librarians to not stock copies of To Kill a Mockingbird. I really don't see the issue with local entities like a school board having some say in material that is available in a school. That can differ across the country, and thats fine. That's what our country is supposed to be like.

But a library acting like they are doing some brave act of resistance by putting out a stack of books that are widely available, have always been widely available, and will always be, and saying they are "banned books, this is banned books week, look at all the books that have been banned!" when really they are books that a school board in wisconsin said shouldn't be in an elementary school library because the sex scenes are not appropriate for 7 year olds seems really silly to me.

[sfink]

If it were the FBI, it wouldn't be "To Kill a Mockingbird", it would be "Amateur Forgery, volume XVII: Passports" or something. Well, or something similar that wasn't already illegal.

> I really don't see the issue with local entities like a school board having some say in material that is available in a school.

Then you prefer a low-trust environment. I prefer a high-trust environment. A librarian shouldn't be putting 50 Shades of Grey on a grade school shelf to begin with. If they are, then you should be replacing the librarian, not micromanaging them. Book selection is their job. Let them do their job or don't; don't allow them the authority to only do half their job.

> But a library acting like they are doing some brave act of resistance by putting out a stack of books that are widely available...and saying they are "banned books, this is banned books week, look at all the books that have been banned!" when really they are books that a school board in wisconsin said shouldn't be in an elementary school library because the sex scenes are not appropriate for 7 year olds seems really silly to me.

Again, that's a "replace or reprimand the librarian" problem. It's not meant to be a brave act of resistance, it's information to say "these books have been banned, look at them so you can better understand what books people want to ban and why". And obviously, it's more interesting than "these are books where the 3rd letter in the title is T" and so it garners more attention, but it's no more than that. If they're including one that was banned for dumb reasons as in your example, then that makes it a dumb display (and an inappropriate one if the display is also in a library for 7 year olds.)

Obviously, the OP is not the librarian, and is aiming for an act of resistance, so my argument mostly doesn't apply there. Though the part about choices having the potential of being dumb still does. The set of books that have been banned somewhere or other is quite large, it's not like it would have any meaning to have a display of all or even a random selection of them. That's a strawman. You're going to curate based on some metric.

[havblue]

I believe that the party with the most clout is the one that controls the frame. So yes, some parents may keep Slaughterhouse Five out of libraries. Meanwhile those same parents become strawmanned villains in mainstream movies like Footloose. So I don't think pulling a book is that effective when it winds up on a "you can't read this" list.

[1970-01-01]

How is this different from banning alcohol or pets or weapons or any other thing? Whether or not you can buy and have at a different location doesn't mean the word is misleading.

[Vaslo]

Maybe something like "not library available" or "lending restricted"?

I understand the point you are trying to make and you have good evidence backing your statement ("alcohol is banned the stadium", etc) but when it comes to books, when people hear ban, they think Fahrenheit 451 or The Khmer Rouge burning books. So I also understand the OPs point.

Unless you're an alcoholic, banning alcohol in schools or stadiums isn't quite the hardship of arresting people for owning To Kill A Mockingbird.

Its connotation has changed in the same way that people calling others "Nazis" and "Fascists" has changed with the constant misuse of them.

[1970-01-01]

Possessing a banned book has very serious weight in many circumstances:

https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1315/id/2767725

> (4) The Attorney General may investigate compliance with this section. The contracting party must report to the Attorney General a provider's failure to comply with subsection (2) of this section no later than thirty (30) days after the contracting party learns of the provider's noncompliance. Such a report shall constitute a public record under the Mississippi Public Records Act.

[zymhan]

Restricting knowledge is fundamentally different.

[miltonlost]

Cool, dude, keep defending books with gay characters being banned in some libraries... I mean, not "curated". A "Ban" doesn't have to be universal for it to still be banned in one spot. A book banned in a Christian high school but available at a public library is still a "Banned book" because it has been banned somewhere.

If you're that bad with semantics, I'd recommend the next book you check out is the dictionary.

[graemep]

You are missing the point. This makes it possible to distribute something that is actually banned. The included books are just examples.

It also makes it possible to provide free access to books that libraries decide against.

A project hosted on a public git repo cannot break the law, however adding whatever books you think are required looks easy. The instructions say:

> First, you'll want to put the ebook files in the /library/data/html/books directory.