[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).

[halostatue]

Language doesn't work that way. Being prescriptivist about it doesn't change that language evolves. The time to have had this fight about "banned books" was 40 odd years ago, and you still would have lost it because your interpretation being limited to a "country-wide ban" is also nonsense in a meaningful sense. If a political figure has made a decision that a book will not be available in the places where it would otherwise normally be available for people for whom that political figure has some level of control -- and that unavailability is for purely political reasons -- it's perfectly sensible to call it a book banning.

There are books and magazines banned in prison libraries. Because it's prison, those books are also considered contraband if a prisoner's family delivers it to them. This is a book banning. One may argue whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a book banning.

If children would _normally_ have access to age-appropriate books in a school library about same sex marriages (Suzie's Two Dads or Johnny's Two Mommies or whatever) but some retrogressive numbskull politician in Florida decides that teaching kids about same sex marriages is wrong and therefore those books are no longer allowed in school libraries, it's a book banning. If the child brought said book from home because they have two dads or two moms, they'd also probably land in trouble because school administrations are conservative and CYA in nature.

If you actually cared about words and their meaning, you wouldn't try to insist that there's only one correct meaning. Language evolves.

Wikipedia: Book censorship or book banning is the act of some authority (countries, government) taking measures to suppress ideas and information within a book.

More Wikipedia: According to the Marshall University Library, a banned book in the United States is one that has been "removed from a library, classroom, etc."[19] In many situations, parents or concerned parties will ban or propose a ban on a children's book based on the book's contents.[20] The American Library Association publishes a list of the top "Banned and Challenged Books" for any given year.[21] The American Library Association also organizes a "Banned Books Week", which is "an annual event celebrating the freedom to read."[21] The goal of the project is to bring awareness to banned books and promote the freedom to learn.[22]

All that's required for a "ban" to be a ban is an official act to prevent or prohibit someone from doing something. In the case of school book bans, it's to prevent teachers or school librarians from exercising their skills and judgement on introducing books for kids to read. Sometimes this is justifiable, most of the time it is not.

[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.

[Guthwine]

I doubt that the administration would initiate the removal process with no outside pressure from a parent or maybe some sort of parental group a la the Satanic Panic and BADD [1].

[1] Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons

[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.

[john_strinlai]

what does this reply have to do with your misunderstanding about the definition of "ban"?

[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.