Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by caseysoftware 25 days ago
Are those just banned and censored in Portugal specifically or the EU as a whole?

A quick check here in the States showed all of them available on Amazon for under $25 each.

3 comments

> A quick check here in the States showed all of them available on Amazon for under $25 each.

The term “banned books” has become a pop culture meme. In this context it doesn’t literally mean banned, it means the book wasn’t allowed somewhere. In extreme cases a government in a controlling country may have forbidden the book.

However in a lot of cases the “banned books” were just not allowed in some school’s library for kids somewhere.

That’s why all of the books aren’t actually banned in the US and are readily available, unless maybe you’re a 3rd grader looking for them at some school library that probably wasn’t going to order the book for kids anyway before it became “banned”

>In this context it doesn’t literally mean banned, it means the book wasn’t allowed somewhere.

and what is a good word to use when something isn't allowed somewhere? perhaps... "banned"?

i dont understand why people think something needs be unavailable globally to be considered "banned".

there's a million examples of the word "banned" being used when X isn't allowed in Y context. people only get touchy about it when it comes to books for some reason.

dang bans people from HN, no one gets upset about the use of the word "ban" there, despite it being a context-specific ban.

The confusion is because some books were literally banned somewhere, while others were just deemed not to be age-appropriate for young children in a school environment.

We don’t call R-rated movies “banned” because we’ve decided not to show it at schools to kids. That’s why it’s confusing when we switch to books and the word “banned” means somebody, somewhere, decided it wasn’t appropriate for kids in their school or something like that.

the confusion is fake. books are the only time people get fussy about the word. (despite the same conversation occurring every month or two here)

dang bans someone from HN? no confusion. alcohol banned in public? no confusion. weapons banned from schools? no confusion.

books? oh my god, they aren't banned they just aren't allowed

> dang bans someone from HN? no confusion. alcohol banned in public? no confusion. weapons banned from schools? no confusion.

Notice how all of those bans include a specific context? From HN, in schools, in public.

No confusion.

Notice how the only context in the headline is “in Portugal” but the books are not banned in Portugal?

Confusion.

It’s really not hard.

like every post on HN, if you want the context, you should read more than just the headline. its really not hard.
If someone opened a banned speech museum and then it turns out most of the display is just spam comments from HN it would be pretty silly and rightly criticized.
In your opinion is Hustler magazine a banned book becuase its not allowed in schools?
If you were to make a list of banned books, yes, it would be fine to include Hustler magazine, as it was (and remains) banned in many places (and because of its historical significance in the fight against censorship).
I can pick one up at the corner store or order it online but its not allowed to sit in the libraries of US elementary schools so would you consider it to still be banned in the US?
No, I would not consider it to be "banned in the US".
if i said "hustler is banned from my school", and someone came along and said "it's not banned, it's just not allowed", i would laugh.

the word "banned", specifically and only in the context of books, is one of the fucking strangest quirks of HN.

Pretend confusion, especially over the very terms of the discussion, is a really common shitposting tactic all over the Internet. Though yeah it’s maybe more common here. Possibly because it falls under the category of trolling that doesn’t draw moderator ire (here, I mean, not in general)
its not strange. Books represent knowledge and ideas. Ways of thinking. An attempt to ban a book is an attempt to restrict freedom of thought and the exchange of ideas. It has a historical context and a ban is generally considered on a societal level, not building specific. Some books are not allowed in school buildings, they are not banned.

Banning books for example has a very different context than banning cocaine. Cocaine use in the United States is banned, Hustler magazine is not. I can swing by the store tomorrow and pick one up legally, I can't get cocaine legally.

Restricting Hustler from a school full of kids is not banning it. Thus the quirk.

If I don't allow Green Eggs and Ham in my house does it belong in a museam of banned books?

>a ban is generally considered on a societal level

no, its not.

>Restricting Hustler from a school full of kids is not banning it.

only if you are making up your own definition of "ban".

by any dictionary definition, it is completely appropriate to say hustler is banned from the school.

I'm more likely to laugh at the implication that Hustler somehow qualifies as a book.
At a certain point it's called lying

Something actually inaccessible? imgur.com in UK, and soon many others

The "in Portugal" is, I presume, a statement on where the library is.

Further, when people talk about banned books, they usually mean at some sub-country level, even down to a school board. Like if you look at -

https://pen.org/banned-books-list-2025/

- these books weren't banned from the United States, but they're controversial enough that individual school boards or library systems removed them.

No non of them are censored in the EU. They are all censored in the US, maybe with the exception of Salman Rushdie.

US book banning is mainly schools and parent groups strong arming libraries and educators to forgo specific books.

Are you serious about this? There’s not a single school in the EU where an employee takes books off the shelves because they find them offensive?

Because that’s the standard you’re using for ”censored in the US”.

"libraries and educators to forgo specific books" is neither "banning" nor "censoring"

In the name of literacy, we need to use words properly.

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...

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.

> 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.

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.

What if someone brought a porno to blockbuster?
How is that at all related or relevant to anything I wrote?
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

> “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

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

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

Since there are no libraries with space for every book (ever), then there is no censorship?
That's a childish argument.
My point was to highlight the ridiculousness of the comment to which I was responding; glad it worked!
> 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.

>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"?

Yes, this is colloquially referred to as "banning." Sorry, you don't get to decide how others use language.
Used by those wanting to sell and profit from outrage about "banned" books to be precise.
See also: normal people who aren't afraid of books and think that banning them is silly.
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.
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.

> 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.