[Aurornis]

The “banned books” theme has become intentionally vague because it has become a marketing tool.

That’s how we got to Dua Lipa doing a promotional photo op holding up books that can be purchased on Amazon and delivered to your Kindle to read immediately. Attaching the “banned” word to a book turns the purchase into an act of rebellion and a reason to talk about it, and the marketers are not going to waste that opportunity.

That’s why the “banned books” category has been expanded so much to include not only books that governments or corporations have tried to suppress, but also books that some school board in Kansas decided shouldn’t be included in the elementary school library.

Unfortunately once a term becomes this overloaded it loses meaning. The original topics of government censorship and oppression get less attention because it’s drowned out by pop stars holding up Margaret Atwood books for photo ops and people buying books on Amazon as a form of slacktivism.

[mossTechnician]

Banning a book in a school district still signifies a form of authoritarianism. If someone is prevented from reading Maus[0] (or finding out they are in a cult, or a victim of domestic abuse), what is the effective difference to them between an authoritarian censoring it at the national level or the local one?

[0]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/holocaust-novel-maus-banne...

[Aurornis]

We "ban" things from school kids all the time, though: Pornography, gambling, smoking, alcohol, R-rated movies.

Dua Lipa wasn't doing a photo op with Maus. In the photos she's posing with modern books that are still being promoted by their publishers. I'm not familiar with all of them, but a quick search shows one of them is not appropriate for elementary schools because it includes essays debating which sexual acts are appropriate for feminists to perform and other adult topics. Why is it "authoritarianism" to say that a book like that doesn't belong in my kids' school library?

This is a promotional stunt, and I'm surprised more people aren't seeing through it.

[cauch]

> We "ban" things from school kids all the time, though: Pornography, gambling, smoking, alcohol, R-rated movies.

And no one really pretended that these cases were cases of "banned books".

The problem is when authority bodies (school, government, ...) start to include, in these "normal non-appropriate" books other books not because they have bad societal consequences when the reader is not mature enough, but because they don't like the content for ideological reasons.

I think it would be a very bad faith argument to argue that reading Maus will lead to people less socially adjusted.

And, sure, some "banned" books may be inappropriate. But as soon as these authorities have open the doors to arbitrary banning books, they poisoned their own well: maybe under "normal" evaluation this book should be removed from the list, but they removed it "the bad way", they failed the process, and therefore the ban itself is illegitimate.

It's a bit like the procedural miscarriage of justice: if you mess up when arresting someone, they can be freed even if it turns out they were guilty. Or in a more topical subject: the Fifa can reverse some decision, but if they do it in the context where they received phone calls from the US president, then it's a big failure in the process, even if a "normal" re-evaluation should indeed have concluded to reversing the decision.

[pfannkuchen]

> not because they have bad societal consequences when the reader is not mature enough, but because they don't like the content for ideological reasons

“Bad societal consequences” is entirely subjective, though. This is the crux of the issue.

[cauch]

Saying "entirely subjective" is a bit BS, don't you think?

On one hand, you have someone who says that exposing children to sexual or violent content can have an impact on them. This is something that has been studied, sociologists, psychiatrists, doctors, ... have concluded that this is true.

On the other hand, you have someone who says that an ideology they don't like will lead to the ruin of the society. At the same time, communities, and often whole countries themselves, don't see the problem with these ideologies, and the catastrophe that this person has predicted does not occur. The only reason they claim that is because they are intolerant and want to impose their ideology, not because they want what's good for others.

So, yes, there are __some__ subjectivity. The same way that there is subjectivity around "good and bad" and yet "murdering" is universally considered as "bad" but "not going to the catholic mass" is not.

[DeusExMachina]

> "murdering" is universally considered as "bad"

Societies that practice(d) slavery and human sacrifice clearly do not share such a "universal" value.

[mossTechnician]

I don't understand the scare quotes: per my previous reply, is a ban not a ban regardless of who does it? Maus has nudity and curse words; that's why it was banned in Tennessee. 1984 has multiple sex scenes - the well-funded Christian publication PluggedIn[0] rates it 18+.

Two things can be true at the same time: a book can be both banned in one place, and used to promote someone's brand in another. Somebody in a deeply repressive and abusive home will not have a better or worse life if Dua Lipa did not exist.

[0]: https://www.pluggedin.com/book-reviews/1984/

[anthk]

In Europe every kid over 13 would buy both with no issues at all. 1984's sex scenes are so-so and something that just happens in the background like nothing.

[bananaflag]

Indeed, after reading the book I was surprised that the movie has explicit frontal nudity.

[miyoji]

> one of them is not appropriate for elementary schools because it includes essays debating which sexual acts are appropriate for feminists to perform and other adult topics. Why is it "authoritarianism" to say that a book like that doesn't belong in my kids' school library?

Who exactly are you to say what is or isn't appropriate for elementary school libraries?

It's authoritarian because it's about people with authority (parents, teachers), telling people without (students) what kinds of media they are and aren't allowed to consume, which is about controlling which ideas they're allowed to think about. You don't like children thinking or learning about sex, but there is no moral or rational reason for that. You just don't like it, and you wish to use your authority to impose your preferences on people who have no power to stop you. That's authoritarian.

And no, I don't think parents should be able to control their children's media diets, the idea that parents get to control their children is itself authoritarian. You don't own your kids.

[AlexandrB]

You should think this through. The logical endpoint is that all age based content restrictions are "authoritarian".

So it should be ok to stock movies like Martyrs[1] or Men Behind the Sun[2] in elementary school libraries, because who are parents and teachers to decide whether seeing a woman flayed to death or a child vivisected is something that a 6 year old should be allowed to see?

My real takeaway here is that you probably don't have children.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_(2015_film)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Behind_the_Sun

[grahamburger]

That type of media was never in schools to begin with. The problem here is that schools and districts made their own, informed curation decisions, and those decisions are being overridden by zealous parents informed only by their religious and political persuasions.

[AlexandrB]

The implication here is that schools are making these decisions on a neutral, apolitical basis - but this is not really possible, is it? As many on the left would say: "everything is political". So what we're discussing is (yet another) front in the "culture war", this time about what ideas and values children should be exposed to.

Let's just be honest about that at least.

[miyoji]

> You should think this through. The logical endpoint is that all age based content restrictions are "authoritarian".

I do think that. It's rude to assume that I haven't thought my position through.

> So it should be ok to stock movies like Martyrs[1] or Men Behind the Sun[2] in elementary school libraries, because who are parents and teachers to decide whether seeing a woman flayed to death or a child vivisected is something that a 6 year old should be allowed to see?

Sure.

> My real takeaway here is that you probably don't have children.

I don't, but I was one, and I accessed all kinds of stuff on the internet that my parents and teachers didn't want me to see. Including gross violence and sex stuff. It didn't kill me. It didn't even hurt me. I'm fine. I'm a better person for having exposed myself to those things than I would be if I'd been sheltered from them.

[throwitaway222]

But now in a vacuum you're advocating from your position (not being a parent) but being a human, that because you turned out ok, that everyone else will. There is no numbers, no statistics, just your anecdote here. Which is ok, but that's why two people immediately called your opinion out as being extreme.

[throwitaway222]

This take is pretty extreme.

> Who exactly are you to say what is or isn't appropriate for elementary school libraries?

parents

If you want to go full anti-authoritarian, you are literally advocating anarchy. One in which you have no right to jail someone for killing someone else.

There are many moral systems! Some of them are based in Christian ethics, which many people prescribe to. In fact it's the one the United States is based on. You can also choose something like liberalism. Many or most people would at least agree that "killing randon people at random times" being advocated in a book is not a good thing. And if that's not a good thing, then there is a moral judgement to be made to "ban" said book. I'm not saying that book exists, but if it did - would you "ban" it?

No one "owns" another person, but there are many other forms of relationships between people that allows for one person to dictate a media diet for another.

[neetle]

> parents

Parent-based rights arguments are perfectly adequate for the 80%, but degenerate in some horrific ways for the rest of the population. We need community-level input on how to raise kids so that the leftover 20% don’t just get fucked up by parents that “know best for their kid”.

Anecdotally know of a few times where kids were taught that their molestation was their own fault (both sub-10yo), and had friends whose parents actively pushed them to kill themselves

[throwitaway222]

So that has nothing to do with what I said. Parents, and if 80% of parents are good people, then it makes sense that parents have a say what is in the school library. It also makes sense that if a parent is abusing a child, a teacher will see it.

I don't have a solution for you for all types of families, but this doesn't change that miyoji's take is fairly extreme.

[carlosjobim]

The effective difference is of course that they could easily get that book from somewhere else if they want it.

If I'm prevented from bringing my dog into a restaurant, that doesn't mean that dogs are banned. It means I have to go to the restaurant on the other side of the street.

If McDonald's doesn't serve any hard liquor it doesn't mean that alcohol has been banned in the country.

[mossTechnician]

Is it really that cut and dry? A technically competent person might easily access a book while living in an authoritarian country, while someone who grows up in an authoritarian family in a "free" country might be prevented from reading a book both at home and at the school where their parents lobbied to ban the book. (It's quite hard to access suppressed information if you lack the knowledge it exists in the first place.)

[carlosjobim]

Authoritarian family? Parents have the authority over their children until they are old enough to make their own decisions. It is up to them how they raise their kids.

They will have all the time and opportunity in the world to read and try anything they want to when they're older.

[mossTechnician]

The specific examples I provided included domestic abuse; most sexual abuse is done by a family member. I hope it's not contentious to say that parental control should not be as authoritarian as to allow that, let alone suppress the victim's knowledge of what it is.

[carlosjobim]

Not any abuse, no. But who is trying to censor or ban information on how abuse victims can get help?

[amanaplanacanal]

So you are suggesting that kids should just go to a different public school?

[carlosjobim]

You can get books from other places than your public school.

[pfannkuchen]

By that definition everywhere throughout all time is authoritarian.

Everywhere throughout all time is obviously not authoritarian, so the definition fails. Sorry, you are wrong.

[grahamburger]

Authoritarian is an adjective. A thing can be authoritarian without all things being so. Yes, authoritarian things have always existed, and yes, a powerful religious group joining forces to make sure kids continue to hate themselves for being gay or trans is authoritarian.

[ZeroGravitas]

Everywhere being authoritarian throughout all time seems a fairly good summary to me?

The Romans nailed Jesus to a cross, the American south bred human slaves, Europe regularly had crusades and pogroms, post-war America supported a crazy number of military dictatorships, the Iron curtain, Communist China and so on.