Chilling. And I am not talking about the weather.

https://www.pilotonline.com/entertainment/books/sns-bc-schools-banning-books-art-trims-nyt-20220201-yowzqtaognb3jg6iw3uyqjdq5u-story.html

The idea of banning books because of “uncomfortable” themes and discussions is an affront to the 1st Amendment. I say if books can be banned, then so can guns.

32 thoughts on “Chilling. And I am not talking about the weather.

  1. It is important to draw a line between ‘banning’ books and limiting access by children.

    Public libraries have adult and children’s sections for a reason. It is the parent’s prerogative to decide what is age-appropriate for their child.

    I was somewhat precocious as a child, and outgrew to books in the children and adolescent’s section pretty early. My mother went to the librarian and told her I could have access to the adult section, The librarian took my pink library card and issued me a blue one and that was it. The whole library was fair game for me.

    Something similar could be arranged for school libraries.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Something similar could be arranged for school libraries.”

      Absolutely. But the screaming harpies complaining about books on the Holocaust, age appropriate gender stories and depictions of real life situations that occur in, wait for it, REAL LIFE, want ALL of the books on their purity lists banned, not segregated. An easy accommodation would be for a parent to send a note to the school directing library staff not to allow their child to checkout any of the books on a list.

      Banning MAUS, as was done in Tennessee, is a prime example. The same people who wanted this book banned are POSSIBLY Holocaust deniers or revisionists. A damn here and there and naked mice and they go running to the hills screaming “My 8th grader cannot be exposed to this.”

      Taking away the liberty of more forward thinking parents to allow their children to discover and read about real life to appease a bunch of snowflake parents is an affront to the 1st Amendment. If you disagree with that, then you can see why I think the 2nd Amendment should be changed (notice I did not say repealed.)

      Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “I say if books can be banned, then so can guns.”

    You might have a point:

    • IF books and guns are the same.
    • IF children and adults are the same.

    • IF the 1st and 2nd Amendments are the same.

    The strength of your comment lies in noting that if one type of liberty can be compromised, so can others, but do you really wish to suggest that compromising liberties is a good cause?

    Like

    1. Banning books is a compromise of liberty. You have it backwards … Again, Dr. Semantics.

      Apparently, some people believe that books (and words) are as dangerous as guns. They have proven it for calling for banning books.

      Books written specifically for Young Adults are being questioned and challenged. If parents believe their little angels aren’t looking at worse on their smart phones, they are delusional.

      Both the 1st and 2nd Amendments are about liberty, or so I have had explained to me numerous times by zealots. Without 2, 1 can’t occur.

      Book banning leads to worse as it stunts conversation, growth, and understanding. It also leads to ignorance and death. Just ask the Jews of 1930’s Germany.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. I’m OK with parents interacting with school boards to establish curricula and content preferences. I assume that most parents approve of banning guns in school.

          Like

          1. But one parent should not be able to dictate what other parents have to say about their children’s education. Youngkin did a good job of pitting parents v. parents. But making it sound like he was speaking for ALL parents and against schools and their administrators.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “So you are OK with banning books in schools?”

            In principle, no. I do not believe that compromising liberties is a good cause. I also do not believe that framing the issue as book banning is very helpful. I frame the issue as respecting the rights of parents to be involved in content decisions. I may not like the outcome sometimes, but I can live with life’s imperfections. I cannot live with the kind of tyranny that says no book ever can be banned, or that parents aren’t allowed to have a say.

            Like

          3. …”do not believe that framing the issue as book banning is very helpful”

            I didn’t frame the argument that way. That IS the argument.

            I take issue with people who want to deny the rights of MY children and grandchildren to read what they want to find out about life and all of its vagaries.

            You on the other hand are attempting to frame this as it isn’t about banning books.

            I got it., Ban all books I don’t like. TO hell with what others rights are.

            At least Don offered compromise. You offer semantic carpola.

            Like

          4. RE: “I take issue with people who want to deny the rights of MY children and grandchildren to read what they want to find out about life and all of its vagaries.”

            You don’t like being on the wrong side of a tyranny of the minority in a democratic system.

            Like

          5. “You don’t like being on the wrong side of a tyranny of the minority in a democratic system.”

            I am not in the minority. I AM on the right side of tyranny of the minority. It is called the GOP which gets fewer overall votes, but has more representation because they keep doing all to stay in power and ZERO for the people. ALL of the people.

            Once again you prove to all who can comprehend your drivel that my “side good, your side bad”. Even when it comes to something as basic as banning books.

            Like

          6. RE: “Once again you prove to all who can comprehend your drivel that my ‘side good, your side bad’.”

            You are the one who wrote, “I say if books can be banned, then so can guns.”

            You are the one who is approving of banning things. Is that what you meant to do?

            Like

          7. I do not approving banning of anything. I equated First and Second Amendment rights and you took it to a level of idiocy.

            Nice try to spin what I said into something YOU meant, Mr. Trum…. I mean Roberts.

            Like

    2. “IF books and guns are the same.”

      The proponents of banning books seem to be concerned about the safety of the reader with regards to evil ideas, concepts, nudity or challenging societal mores. Followed by the safety of society should the reader suffer harm or act out in a way that is detrimental to good order.

      Proponents of gun control are also concerned with the safety of the bearer, particularly if underage, and the safety of society should the bearer act out in a way that is detrimental to good order. (And the lives of others, I might add.)

      Books don’t kill, people kill. People with books don’t kill either. (Despite what Dano was ordered to do at the end of every Hawaii 5.0 show.)

      However…people with guns do kill.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “However…people with guns do kill.”

        So, because books and guns are not the same, then banning one does not justify banning the other.

        Like

        1. Banning abortions based on a certain criteria, (citizens reporting other citizens for having or assisting in an abortion) and banning guns based on similar criteria. See Texas and California.

          And going against the 1st Amendment’s protections makes going against the 2nd Amendments protections the same idea.

          Liberty my ASS. It is about control. Closed minded, homophobic, anti-History parents who appear to have NO basis for their outrage have no problem causing outrage in others. Hide history, hide real life stories, hide it all because my kids can’t handle it. Sounds like it is the parents that can’t handle it.

          And YOU still have not CLEARLY stated that you do not support the idea of banning books. The parents want the books banned. Not segregated, not kept from their children, but thrown out of libraries. MAUS is just the first.

          Like

          1. I do not support the idea of banning books.

            I do, however, support the idea of parents controlling the materials their children are exposed to in school.

            Dr. Tabor’s suggestion was a practical solution for resolving the conflicting interests, but without it I side with parental rights.

            Like

          2. “I do, however, support the idea of parents controlling the materials their children are exposed to in school.”

            The key word in your statement is CONTROL. I don’t want narrow minded parents deciding what my kids/grandkids learn. You want your little ones segregated from certain concepts (Accuracy and truth come to mind), you have that right. You do NOT, however, have the right to dictate what MY little ones are taught or not.

            Let the teachers teach. If you have an issue with it, withdraw your little snowflakes and enroll them in private school that teaches only what YOU want them to learn. Or teach them at home yourself and control everything they learn. Raising something in the shade and darkness is not conducive to good citizens or productive individuals with critical thinking skills and the ability to mix with society in general.

            Like

          3. RE: “You do NOT, however, have the right to dictate what MY little ones are taught or not.”

            Actually, I think I do, at least to the extent that the system allows me to participate. I’m only asserting the same right as you.

            Like

          4. RE: “No. You are denying my right by exerting YOUR right.”

            Yes, I am. Why is that a problem for you? Do you think your rights are more important than mine?

            Like

          5. Individual rights are important. HOWEVER, you have a habit of claiming that YOUR rights are being infringed and in order to bring balance to it, other’s rights must be infringed.

            So who’s rights are more important?

            Like

        2. Isn’t the question of book banning based on making sure the books in question don’t get into the wrong hands, that is underage children. Under 18 I would suppose.

          That there is a danger, unspecified, but danger nonetheless. Otherwise, what are we protecting children against?

          Would parents have a case to remove the Bible from the library if they thought it would indoctrinate their children with wrong ideas about evolution or creation? Or, because of the extreme violence that was justified in the Old Testament against non-believers?

          Or any books on creationism?

          If the board won’t acquiesce to removal, can they be sued by the parents?

          This banning imbroglio can be a literal can of worms and a lawyers retirement fund.

          Like

          1. RE: “Would parents have a case to remove the Bible from the library if they thought it would indoctrinate their children with wrong ideas about evolution or creation?”

            Is that a rhetorical question?

            Maybe you are looking for an ultimate, objective reality on which to base the idea of cancelling parental rights. I’m happy with allowing such practical decisions to be settled through debate in a democratic system. The result may not be perfect, but the alternative is tyranny.

            Like

    1. Thanks, RE.

      Have you asked the site owner, Dr. Tabor for “author status”? That would allow you to start new topics in the Forum, if you are ever inclined. .

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s