>>25469151
You're aware that the issue at hand with "banned books" is not
>is it possible to acquire a copy of this book
and is instead
>do state entities have the right to limit what their citizens can read
right? You're aware of this?

The "banned books" framing is at this point kind of stupid and annoying, but these have all been banned at some point, in some place. Do you expect them to put a table out for Camp of the Saints and The Turner Diaries and shit like that? Basically nobody buys that stuff, man, and it's not because it's "banned"

>be watching news
>story about Little Free Libraries
>person being interviewed talking about "banned books" being able to finally be read
>the banned books:
>1984
>A Clockwork Orange
>Fahrenheit 451
>Lord of the Flies
>Adventures of Tom Sawyer
>Grapes of Wrath
>Romeo and Juliette
>To Kill a Mockingbird
>Brave New World
>A Diary of a Young Girl
And so many required readings even in Junior High school. My nephew's English class just literally read To Kill a Mocking Bird and A Diary of a Young Girl. He's going into 8th grade in a few weeks.

These are not banned books at all. It's just a way to bait people. Every library has them. No Karen is trying to ban or censor them.

>>25469209
>these books weren't banned in my location
>therefore they were never banned anywhere
You actually think this is an intelligent point kek

>>25469151
You'd think a literate person would understand that they aren't banned given they're being sold at a bookstores table and that these are ones that people tried to get removed from their local library or school because the ideas make them uncomfortable enough they don't want others or their children to think them.

>>25469159
doesn't look like they have that right tho

>>25469214
>>therefore they were never banned anywhere
They're only banned in third world shithole dictatorships like yours.

>>25469159
>the state not spending tax dollars on buying your shitty book IS THE SAME AS BANNING IT, OKAY?

>>25469289
Both of us know this isn't true, but you're upset because you realized how stupid you sounded, so now you won't admit you were wrong

>>25469214
>own a book store located in a first world country
>have a "banned books section"
>put books that are widely available in all first world countries and are only banned in whichever third world country ur from
>nah bro it's technically banned!! What do you mean you meant books that are actually hard to get and not just banned in like Somalia or something?

>>25469151
4chan incels when book stores promote quality literature that has been historically suppressed instead of antisemitic screeds by their favorite Substack writers:

>>25469318
See >>25469159. This isn't that hard of a concept to understand. You can see the issue at hand without being woke or whatever. Just imagine that they're banning the Bible or Camp of the Saints, and think about what argument you'd use to convince a normie that government entities of any kind shouldn't tell you what you are and are not allowed to read. Same thing

>>25469151
>/lit/ still seething at a markting ploy from mainstream, franchised book shops

>>25469322
I'm curious what suppression did books like Hunger Games go through? (It's displayed on the image)

I can't find anything apart from some middle schools voting on whether to have it or not because it's violent, and even then they still voted to keep it. And even if they decided not to, is a school not having a book that you're free to buy at a bookstore anytime enough to call it a "banned" book?

I can't find any mention of it being banned anywhere, the book has multiple hollywood movie adaptations with a new one coming this November. Doesn't sound suppressed at all.

>>25469243
So how's that copy of Anarchist's cookbook looking?
The fact that you can read those books means that you are fortunate enough to not experience the problem at hand. Go to Afghanistan and brag about your copy of The God Delusion or Iran with Persepolis and see what happens.

>>25469328
No one is banning books in the US. The government deciding to not buy your book to put in a library is not a ban. You are not entitled to tax dollars simply because you wrote a book.

>>25469366
>The government deciding to not buy your book to put in a library is not a ban.
Anon, both of us can easily Google this and find multiple instances of books being actively pulled from curricula/libraries/etc. You don't have to start saying shit you know is retarded to score points against the wokes in your head lol

>>25469379
>books being actively pulled from curricula(sic)/libraries/etc
Neither of which are a ban.
Both are the government choosing to not buy your book, or to get rid of copies they already had. You are still free to buy as many of them as you want.

>>25469151
"Banned books" is a bullshit marketing term, they should be called controversial or subversive books but even then, it'd be the exact same milquetoast bullshit.

>>25469380
The government would have already bought the book in that instance. It is just that they refuse to let you read it because they feel like it may be "harmful" to them. Also it isn't always the government doing this. Private isntitutions and the community as a whole have also collectively pulled these books from availability and choose to reprimand those that they catch reading them.

File: Screenshot 2026-08-15 at (...).png (36 KB, 1002x243)

36 KB PNG

>>25469380
>curricula(sic)
If you're going to condescend you have to be correct kek
>when a book gets banned it's not a ban because ban means illegal!
See >>25469159, again. If everyone agreed to stop saying "banned books" and instead say "restricted books" would you still be arguing this point?
>Both [being pulled from a curriculum or a library] are the government choosing to not buy your book or to get rid of copies they already had
Again, you can easily google "banned book pulled from libraries" and see this isn't accurate. Reading might not be your thing so here's a local news station reporting on a book being pulled from school library shelves in Knoxville, TN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKco5c6xDFY

>>25469387
>It is just that they refuse to let you read it
You can still read the books in question, just your own copy and not one paid for by tax dollars.
>Private isntitutions(sic) and the community as a whole have also collectively pulled these books from availability and choose to reprimand those that they catch reading them.
These are not bans.

Let's compare your "grievances" to actual book bans, shall we?
>https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/news/leicester-man-sentenced-for-possessing-terrorist-document/
In Bongland, having a banned book on your shelf gets you FIVE AND A HALF YEARS IN JAIL. What were you complaining about again?

>>25469392
>If you're going to condescend you have to be correct kek
This is English, not Latin.
>If everyone agreed to stop saying "banned books" and instead say "restricted books" would you still be arguing this point?
"restricted from taxpayer-funded purchase or display" would be accurate.
>Again, you can easily google "banned book pulled from libraries" and see this isn't accurate. Reading might not be your thing so here's a local news station reporting on a book being pulled from school library shelves in Knoxville, TN.
Once again, a book being removed from a library is not a ban. You can still read your own copies without government interference.

>>25469322
Holy shit it's not even funny how much you redditors stand out outside of reddit lmao

>>25469403
>This is English, not Latin
You didn't know "curricula" was a word until right now and this doesn't play it off lmfao
>"restricted from taxpayer-funded purchase or display" would be accurate
Okay, we can go with this, that's fine. I'm not married to the word "banned" in "banned books," I'm concerned about governmental overreach into what citizens choose to read
>a book being removed from a library is not a ban
Anon, come on. Here's the conversation so far
>the issue at hand with banned books is not is the book able to be read at all, but if the government has the right to limit what its citizens can read
>NO bans are happening because you can still get the book and also it's just the government not buying things that's IT
>again, the issue at hand is government making reading decisions for you, and it's easily verifiable that books are being actively pulled from library shelves
>NO THEY'RE NOT IT'S THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSING NOT TO BUY YOUR BOOK OKAY AND YOU CAN STILL READ IT BY OTHER MEANS
>here's a link I found in five seconds describing books being pulled from shelves in exactly the manner you said isn't happening. also, for the third time, "you can still read it by other means" is not why people get upset about "banned books"
>NUH UH I'M GOING TO PRETEND TO NOT UNDERSTAND YOU AGAIN
The only thing I can think of that explains your behavior is that you think the banned books issue (or "government restricted books," or "books restricted from taxpayer funded purchase or display," whatever) is something only the evil tranny wokes care about, and if you care about it then you also have to be an evil tranny woke, and you're not an evil tranny woke, so you don't care and nobody else should either. I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is a phenomenally retarded way to think

>>25469409
You're really falling for bait that obvious?

>>25469159
>citizens
Bruh. We're talking about elementary school libraries. Nigga, ain't no 5-12 year old a productive "citizen".

>>25469392
>school library
Nigger no one cares. It's a fucking school library.

File: book.png (18 KB, 775x289)

18 KB PNG

>>25469426
>You didn't know "curricula" was a word until right now and this doesn't play it off lmfao
I've seen snotty academic types say it, but I reject their attempts to make it a thing in actual English.
>Okay, we can go with this, that's fine. I'm not married to the word "banned" in "banned books," I'm concerned about governmental overreach into what citizens choose to read
K, then stop calling banned books.
>here's a link I found in five seconds describing books being pulled from shelves in exactly the manner you said isn't happening. also, for the third time, "you can still read it by other means" is not why people get upset about "banned books"
I never said books weren't being removed by library shelves. I just said the government doing that is not a "ban", which you have repeatedly and intentionally misinterpreted.
Just for keks though, here's an excerpt of that book. Letting children read this is the hill you've decided to die on?
>The only thing I can think of that explains your behavior is that you think the banned books issue ... is something only the evil tranny wokes care about, and if you care about it then you also have to be an evil tranny woke
I have never said this and do not think this. I think it's a complete non-issue and (You) shouldn't care about it either. The only people who care about this are book publishers' marketing departments and gullible idiots like yourself who've fallen for their advertising.
>ignoring the Bongland example
Hypocrite.

File: 1786736533547877.png (597 KB, 640x868)

597 KB PNG

>>25469151
where is beer and racism?

>>25469449
Occasionally happens in public libraries too, and I don't think restricting books is better when it happens to elementary, middle, or high schoolers
>>25469454
>still trying to pretend he didn't think curricula wasn't a word
It's probably best if you drop this. You're smarter than average but insisting on this point makes you sound like an insecure pseud
>then stop calling banned books
Okay, I'll call them "restricted books." Like I keep on having to explain to you, not married to any specific terminology, more concerned with the idea
>the government [pulling books from shelves] is not a "ban," which you have repeatedly and intentionally misinterpreted
You're fighting me on word choice when I'm talking about concept, anon. I keep on trying to talk about concept and you keep on falling back on word choice and then acting like doing so makes a substantive point
>I bet you won't let kids read THIS
Yeah, if I had kids I would let them read that. I would let them read The Turner Diaries, Siege, Camp of the Saints, Mein Kampf, or whatever. Granted, I could see how another parent of another kid wouldn't want their kid to read that excerpt. What I can't support is a government entity saying that no kid's allowed to read that excerpt, or excerpts from any of the books listed, which is what I've been talking about the entire time. Not sure why you think this is some kind of slam dunk
>I do not think this
Then why are you so upset about people talking about this? It really seems like your head contains a half-assed operation that goes "care about restricted books = woke = BAD"
>I think it's a complete non-issue
Why? I think it's bad when the government tells someone what they can or can't read, regardless of what form that takes -- whether it's as dramatic as completely outright illegal to own a copy or as local as a book no longer being taught in one school. Censorship of any kind starts with small, tiny actions like the latter (>>25469453 look here) and should be opposed
>you ignored an example that was directed at someone else
Sorry? I think Bongland should not imprison people for owning a book. That was easy

>>25469473
>Yeah, if I had kids I would let them read that. I would let them read The Turner Diaries, Siege, Camp of the Saints, Mein Kampf, or whatever.
>Sorry? I think Bongland should not imprison people for owning a book. That was easy
Congrats on you for being ideologically consistent. Most can't say the same.
>Why? I think it's bad when the government tells someone what they can or can't read, regardless of what form that takes -- whether it's as dramatic as completely outright illegal to own a copy or as local as a book no longer being taught in one school.
I think it's reasonable for obscene material to not be provided to the public by the government, as long as it is still generally legal. That's why I think this is a non-issue.
>where do you draw the line, slippery slope, etc.
A reasonable concern, but allow me to quote a Supreme Court justice.
>I know it when I see it.

>>25469426
>Okay, we can go with this, that's fine.
You write like an NPC.

File: turner1.jpg (1.89 MB, 2000x3500)

1.89 MB JPG

>>25469151
this 1 is a winner

File: turner2.jpg (3.85 MB, 3900x9300)

3.85 MB JPG

>>25469752
and a review

>>25469209
"banned" here means it was challenged by a school board at literally any point
so the only books here are those already taught to 9th graders

>>25469328
State entities aren't limiting what people can read, retard. Should taxpayer money be spent on adding a porn section to every public library's DVD catalogue?
>Erm, that's different because...
It isn't. You're just falling for a marketing gimmick that makes normie NPCs feel like rebels for reading The Handmaid's Tale, lol. It has a multimillion dollar Emmy/Golden Globe/Peabody ("Entertainment, Children's and Youth Honoree", lol?) Award winning television series based on it and was also made into a movie over 35 years ago? There's a sequel series and a graphic novel version? Wow, so heckin' banned!!!!

>>25469767
>State entities aren't limiting what people can read, retard
Yes, they are. I don't want to rehash an argument I've already had with another anon. Just scroll up and read our exchange, I think it'll address most of what you're thinking
>Should taxpayer money be spent on adding a porn section to every public library's DVD catalogue?
What?
>>25469739
Sorry, I guess
>>25469507
>ideologically consistent, most can't say the same
Most can't, and it's frustrating. The people who are usually "on my side" act shocked and appalled when I say it also applies to Mein Kampf/Siege/etc, which annoys me to no fucking end -- do you believe in freedom or not?
>obscenity shouldn't be govt-provided to the public... I know it when I see it
I don't know if "I know it when I see it" is a good approach here -- probably better to use the Miller test
>whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
>whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law; and
>whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
and that way we don't have to be beholden to some midwit judge who still thinks Ulysses is obscene because Bloom notices his penis floating in the bath

>>25469993
>Yes, they are.
They're not. Public libraries are state funded institutions and that means the state has the ability to discriminate what goes into them and what doesn't. Public schools are state institutions and that means the state has the ability to discriminate what goes into them and what doesn't. If you don't like it you have avenues available to advocate for the inclusion of certain materials just as much as others have avenues available to advocate for their exclusion. You also have the ability to purchase materials for yourself and others so stop pretending something is banned simply because taxpayers don't want to fund it and parents want to have a say over that to which their children are exposed. Stop being an authoritarian retard while somehow imagining you're fighting authoritarianism. Retards like you are dangerous.

>>25470013
>they're not limiting what people can read, they're just limiting what people can read
lol
>You also have the ability to purchase materials for yourself and others so stop pretending something is banned
Scroll up >>25469159
>parents want to have a say over that to which their children are exposed
Which they can by better means -- say, a permission slip, or opt-in opt-out stuff. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is Mr and Mrs Smith deciding that nobody in the town/school can read a book because Smith Jr might stumble across it
>If you don't like it you have avenues available to advocate for the inclusion of certain materials just as much as others have avenues available to advocate for their exclusion
This is a legitimate point, you're right it goes both ways in principle. But the going-both-ways-ness of it is mostly formal and not actually practical. One complaint can trigger a removal that affects everybody and getting a book reinstated requires organizing around institutional risk aversion. A few states have created fast-track challenge procedures that don't have a corresponding inclusion mechanism, and a few attach liability to librarians themselves, which forces preemptive over-removal of anything that could possibly run afoul of the law or open librarians up to lawsuits. So yes, on paper it's in both directions, but in practice it's far easier to exclude than include
>Stop being an authoritarian retard
How is "the government or state entities should not have the power to tell people what they can and cannot read" authoritarian? What?

In Canada you used to be able to look up illegal materials that were confiscated at the border. It was mostly Japanese pornography but there were a handful of books with titles like "101 Nigger Jokes" as well as books that deny/question the holocaust. I'm pretty sure The Turner Diaries is illegal in Canada but I don't recall seeing it in the confiscation lists I looked through (but the lists weren't well kept and were pretty difficult/awkward to parse through).

>>25469159
>state entities
You mean "local school jurisdictions"?
>citizens
You mean "elementary school students"?

>>25470049
>state entities? You mean state entities?
Yes?
>citizens? You mean citizens?
Yes?

>>25470033
>they're not limiting what people can read, they're just limiting what people can read
They're not limiting what people can read. As I said, you have the ability to advocate for inclusion and you can purchase and distribute the materials yourself. What you're arguing is that others of different sensibilities and beliefs shouldn't have the same democratic abilities as yourself when it comes to how institutions they fund and live under discriminate.
>Scroll up
I don't need to scroll up. The fact the materials are available means they aren't banned. Simple as. Modern censorship is the denial of platforms and selective amplification/deamplificaiton of the information shared on them. It has nothing to do with people not wanting the institutions through which they're represented, that they themselves fund, to distribute certain materials. It has nothing to do with parents advocating for how their children are educated in public schools which they, again, are supposed to be represented by and fund.
>Which they can by better means -- say, a permission slip, or opt-in opt-out stuff.
No. Parents have the right to freely advocate for the inclusion or exclusion of materials to which their children are exposed. You don't have the right to pretend your beliefs are the status quo and especially when the obvious consequence of such is to otherize those with values and beliefs in opposition to yourself by making them jump through hoops. You pat yourself on the back for taking rights away from others while imagining you're somehow fighting the good fight. The reality is you're elevating yourself above others and running roughshod over institutional norms all while advocating the creation of more bureaucracy to justify your wrongdoings. Like I said, you're a retarded authoritarian who doesn't recognize his own authoritarianism. Quite the opposite of recognition actually--you think you're somehow doing the right thing and that's what makes retards like yourself dangerous.
>But the going-both-ways-ness of it is mostly formal and not actually practical.
Respecting the rights of others when you want to impose your will is never practical, retard. That's why you want to slant the field in your favor by assuming you have the right to dictate what qualifies as the status quo. The irony is you don't actually respect the institutional status quo and will wantonly inhibit or outright destroy whatever avenues don't seem to flow in your favor at the present time regardless of how hard won they are and how impossible it is to restore them once you've poisoned them.

1/2

>>25470033
>>25470084
>How is "the government or state entities should not have the power to tell people what they can and cannot read" authoritarian? What?
They're not doing so in the way you describe as per the reasons above.

Your delusions here constitute the big blind spot of the left/libtard coalition. You're asserting that people shouldn't have the ability to influence institutions if they don't hold the beliefs which you, in your endless wisdom and supposed fairness, see no fault in. Thereby, the rights of citizens who want their values reflected in institutions like public libraries and public schools are meaningless because you wholeheartedly believe you're the arbiter of what constitutes an honorable value and what qualifies as a valid belief. You're not censoring others at all--you're the good guy arguing against censorship! Avenues by which to influence institutions might not favor you in this battle so the problem must be with having such avenues in the first place. Institutions might restrain your will so it's better to just upend them when need be and worry about it later--we can always expand bureaucratic methods and if such are more awkward and have unintended consequences who cares as long as we're getting what we want. We're the good guys here!

2/end

>>25470084
>they're not limiting what people can read
>>25470013
>Public libraries are state funded institutions and that means the state has the ability to discriminate what goes into them and what doesn't. Public schools are state institutions and that means the state has the ability to discriminate what goes into them and what doesn't.
"the state has the ability to discriminate what goes into them and what doesn't" is describing limiting what people can read, anon. Weird thing to fight me on. You've essentially said "that's not happening, what's happening is that it's happening but it's fine, so it's not happening"
>Materials are available so they're not banned
Ok, I'll repeat it; the issue at hand is not "is it possible to access the book in any form," it's "do state entities have the right to restrict what their citizens can read." That's the question being debated, not lawyer-tier sophistry over the definition of "banned." Like I said to the other anon, we can say "restricted books" if that makes you feel better, I'm not super concerned with terminology here
>Parents have the right to freely advocate for inclusion/exclusion
For sure. I don't deny that they have the right. They have the right to do whatever they want without explanation, up until the point where it affects me, because the right to read what you want and the right to advocate for complete school exclusion are mutually contradictory, and then we need to hash something out and come to a compromise -- parental permission slips seem completely reasonable to me. Mr and Mrs Smith's kid, Smith Jr, won't have to read a dangerous bad bad book, and my hypothetical kid won't be at the mercy of what Mr and Mrs Smith decide everyone else should and should not read. This seems fine, not sure why you're angry about this
>something about how being against book restrictions is authoritarianism, again
I don't really know how to respond to this because it's incoherent
>you want to impose your will
How is "citizens should be able to read what they want without interference from state entities" imposing my will? That's the exact opposite of imposing my will. Imposing my will would sound something like "citizens aren't allowed to read these 20 books I think are dangerous and bad"
>you're a left libtard and
What the fuck is going on in this thread where anons think that "govt in any form shouldn't tell people what to read in any form" is heckin woke cringe? You don't have to be a bluehaired transsexual to distrust someone telling you what you can and can't read, or distrust someone who claims they know better than you what your kids can and can't read. Everything I'm saying applies to The Turner Diaries. Just pretend I'm talking about The Turner Diaries lmfao, you've got to stop this kneejerk oppositional defiant disorder nonsense where "omg if the wokes are talking about it then it must be wrong because woke bad so it bad bad!" It's retarded when you do it, it's retarded when wokes do it

>>25470084
>>25470086
>You're asserting that people shouldn't have the ability to influence institutions
No? People can influence institutions all they want, but that doesn't mean they have complete free rein. You seem really hung up on "against book bans/restrictions = WOKE WOKE BAD MUST OPPOSE" thing, so pretend just for a moment that the fictional organization Woke Moms United pressured the fictional state of Anonistan to remove any "patriotic book" and replace them all with "How To Trans Your Gender 101." Would you oppose that? Yes, obviously. But why? People should have the ability to influence institutions even if you, in your endless wisdom and supposed fairness, see harm in them. Do you see how this makes you sound kind of retarded?
>you wholeheartedly believe you're the arbiter of what constitutes an honorable value and what qualifies as a valid belief
No? I don't believe this? This is why I keep on pointing at the parental permission slip idea, if Smith Jr's parents think that the teacher isn't conferring honorable values and valid beliefs through assigned reading they can opt out, or they can prevent their kid from getting their hands on bad dangerous books if they want. If anything, blanket restrictions are actually doing what you accuse me of doing -- making a choice for everyone, on everyone's behalf
>you want to destroy institutions and
No? Libraries and schools are good, we should keep them around
>unintended consequences
Oh no, someone might read a book, how terrible

>>25469159
The state has EVERY right to decide what should or shouldn't be present in public libraries or school curriculums. Wanna read your your copy of "how to have gay butt sex" to your five year old children? Go buy it

>>25470181
>"the state has the ability to discriminate what goes into them and what doesn't" is describing limiting what people can read, anon.
No it isn't. The state is not limiting what you CAN read because the fact remains that you can advocate for the inclusion of materials. The state is not limiting what you MAY read because you may purchase and distribute materials yourself. What you're actually advocating is that the state does exactly what you want on your terms while discriminating against those that oppose you despite the fact they are owed an equal say and shouldn't be made to fund something that acts against their interests and values. So, you're pretty much advocating for a system that eliminates democratic checks and balances while institutionalizing what you yourself assert should be taken as normative. The fact you're blind to this is what makes you dangerously authoritarian. You imagine you don't need to be checked and that those that hold different values don't count without recognizing this is itself a strong imposition of censorship. You externalize all negative connotation of censorship to those that oppose your will and this is why you're a blind authoritarian and I say people like you are dangerous. Institutions have been established and built up over centuries to impede the instincts you're expressing and you're completely ignorant of that fact.

1/

>>25470181
>>25470252
>Ok, I'll repeat it; the issue at hand is not "is it possible to access the book in any form," it's "do state entities have the right to restrict what their citizens can read."
Again, the state isn't restricting what you can read. You have the ability to advocate for inclusion and you have the ability to purchase and distribute materials. You're actually arguing that certain things should not only be normalized but actually advocated via state funds. So you're not actually talking about any real censorship that exists but if you want to talk about censorship in general we can.

In general, the state needs the ability to censor materials based on established laws. Mechanisms exist to change these laws so they in no way necessarily impose undue limits on freedom of conscience and expression. An example of this would be something like hardcore pornography being purchased, thereby indirectly produced, with taxpayer funds and distributed at public libraries. The state not doing this is in accordance with established laws, which when it comes to pornographic material used to exist in the US and still exist in many countries, as well as the prevailing will of the public. The will of the majority may sometimes discriminate and impose hardship on a minority and, although this may not always be undue as is the case for the pornographers, this is the main reason to oppose democratic avenues. What you want to do is enshrine your will as institutional in itself and discriminate against anyone who holds different values and sensibilities. In so doing, you poison existing institutions as far as they're free and open while destroying existing checks and balances be they democratic or otherwise.

So, there's a big difference between having a say in what the state should or shouldn't distribute/the state not limiting your ability to purchase/distribute material and the state imposing censorship. Further, state censorship isn't necessarily a bad thing in general as long as the public has the ability to advocate for inclusion or exclusion for that matter which you do.
>They have the right to do whatever they want without explanation, up until the point where it affects me
No, they still have the right as far as it affects you because your right to advocacy affects them. Sorry, but the world isn't as simple as that and pretending so is how you end up with authoritarian governments.
>I don't really know how to respond to this because it's incoherent
You're just filtered.

2/

>>25470181
>>25470258
>How is "citizens should be able to read what they want without interference from state entities" imposing my will? That's the exact opposite of imposing my will.
This has been explained to you. You want public institutions and public funds to operate according to your values, which you frame as normative, while acting against the values and sensibilities of those with whom you disagree. Again, it isn't censorship if you can and may access and even distribute materials. It isn't censorship if you have the ability to advocate for inclusion and happen to lose the fight.
>What the fuck is going on in this thread where anons think that "govt in any form shouldn't tell people what to read in any form" is heckin woke cringe?
Because some people can see through your arguments better than you yourself can, anon. You're not advocating what you think you're advocating because you're an ignorant person.
>No? People can influence institutions all they want, but that doesn't mean they have complete free rein.
I never argued they did.
>No? I don't believe this?
You do.
>No? Libraries and schools are good, we should keep them around
As long as they're promoting what you want them to promote and indirectly funding what you want to be funded, lol.
>Oh no, someone might read a book, how terrible
Oh no, someone will have to pay for a book or tell someone about it if they want them to read it. How terrible.

/end

File: 1783603179848343.jpg (60 KB, 1024x998)

60 KB JPG

>>25470013
no one, least of all you, believes this.

you lefties spent the 60s getting beat up by cops for sucking off HOT GUYS in the bus terminal, and you seethed and infiltrated, and now you're the ones calling the shots.

the wheel turns.

>>25470266
>no one, least of all you, believes this.
I believe it and the fact people don't understand this is why we've seen a totalitarian slide in the West.
>you lefties spent the 60s getting beat up by cops
Nothing of what I said is leftwing, retard.
>the wheel turns
Exactly.

>>25469151
Chuds have made this thread 99999 times and they still cant suggest "real" banned books..Theyll just say Race War in High School and Turner Diaries (neither of them are banned).

>>25470278
>Turner Diaries
Is illegal in my country.

>>25470278
Holocaust denial books are effectively censored by being banned from sale through distribution chains like Amazon. Chuds could point to that.

>>25470278
nah man, that book is totally banned! cause it was challenged in some elementary school in like 2011, which pretty much makes it banned and hunted by the government bro

>>25470278
See >>25469403.
>In Bongland, having a banned book on your shelf gets you FIVE AND A HALF YEARS IN JAIL. What were you complaining about again?

>>25469240
>Book isn't allowed to be read to literal toddlers because it's probably violent
>Psuedo intellectual thinks this is a grand scheme by the government to ban the book (most of these books have film adaptations)

The worst part is how intelligent you think you sound making such a dogshit point

>>25470278
If you too agree that real banned books are incredibly rare and certainly not to be found anywhere in a "banned books" bookstore section, then why are you taking offense when people ridicule bookstores for their cringy attempt to capitalize on the leftist persecution complex by marketing worldwide best selling novels as banned books?

Someone post that YouTuber with the beard who makes videos about books that are actually banned. The guy who sits at a desk in his study and there's a ticking clock in the room. The books he talks about are likely banned in most countries and the only reason he has access to them is he knows what he's hunting for and lives in the US.

File: evil books.jpg (3.54 MB, 10000x6604)

3.54 MB JPG

>>25469151
some anon posted this earlier

File: IMG_1666.jpg (33 KB, 327x499)

33 KB JPG

>>25469151

Pussies

>>25469409
>t. Can't handle level 2 irony posting
we often have 6 levels here, you need to shape up

File: Seriously.gif (1.05 MB, 498x280)

1.05 MB GIF

>>25470630
>the most vile and forbidden nonfiction writings
>My Twisted World
Someone actually believes that. MTW is a goldmine of comedy.

>>25470252
>Institutions have been established and built up over centuries to impede the instincts you're expressing and you're completely ignorant of that fact
This is hilarious because you've got it the wrong way around. You're right, there is an instinct that hundreds of years of institutional development were built to work against, and it's "I've found a book that offends me and I want it gone." That's the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, that's Comstock, that's Hicklin narrowing to Roth narrowing to Miller. This is the entire body of library collection that every public library in American runs on -- it exists for the explicit purpose of making the remover state a reason for removing a book. You're the thing that centuries of accumulated wisdom is standing against but you don't realize it
>>25470258
>Again, the state isn't restricting what you can read. You have the ability to advocate for inclusion and you have the ability to purchase and distribute materials.
Ok, fine. Let's grant this frame completely for a moment. Watch what it does to your earlier post:
>>25470084
>Modern censorship is the denial of platforms and selective amplification/deamplificaiton of the information shared on them.
This concedes that censorship doesn't require illegality. If you're deplatformed, you can still make a website, self-publish pamphlets, create a newsletter, etc. Every single "you can still access it by other means!" move applies with much stronger force to deplatforming, and you (correctly) identify deplatforming as censorship. Think about this for a second. A library shelf is a platform and pulling a book off of it on the govt's say-so is a denial of a platform. It's actually worse than that, because in the deplatforming case the actor is a private company and in the book restrictions case the actor is a state entity bound by the 1st Amendment. You can't hold "deplatforming is censorship" and "denial of a platform isn't censorship because you can buy your own" at the same time coherently, you have to pick one or the other
>An example of this would be something like hardcore pornography being purchased, thereby indirectly produced, with taxpayer funds and distributed at public libraries.
Nobody in this thread, not me or the most bluehaired tranny woke lib in Portland, thinks that libraries must stock constitutionally unprotected material. Obscenity is an unprotected category with the Miller test I mentioned above in a reply to another anon. Something that meets that test can be excluded, that's fine, which means this absurd porn hypothetical does nothing, because if the books actually being pulled met Miller you'd be citing Miller instead of inventing a doctrine out of thin air. Also, obscenity is determined by a court applying a test and not by a school board taking a voice vote, so the scenario you recruit to argue that local majorities should govern content is the exact scenario where we've decided that local majorities don't get to govern content lol

>>25470258
>>25470775
>the will of the majority may sometimes discriminate and impose hardship on a minority and, although this may not always be undue as is the case for the pornographers, this is the main reason to oppose democratic avenues
Let's go with this rule. Where do you say "alright, that's too far?"
1. a majority Baptist county removes everything that contradicts scripture
2. a majority atheist county removes everything Christian
3. a majority woke county removes everything patriotic
4. the Confederacy bans Uncle Tom's Cabin
Every one of these is the exact scenario you say you support: taxpayer funded institution where citizens express their values in accordance with the local sensibility and the books are still able to be purchased. If you think any one of these is wrong, then you don't actually believe "they fund it so majority preference can govern content," you believe that majority preference governs content within reasonable limits. That's exactly what I've been arguing. The whole argument is about where we draw the limits, and the second you admit that, "you're imposing your values as normative" collapses in on itself because you're also imposing your limits but you just haven't audited them
>No, they still have the right as far as it affects you because your right to advocacy affects them.
Like I showed above, symmetric in form, wildly lopsided in weight. My advocacy affects you by leaving a book on the shelf that you're free to never open. Your advocacy affects me by removing the book from the shelf, which removes my ability to read it at all. See the difference? When the burdens are that lopsided, the sane move is to put the burden on the narrower preference -- you want to govern what your kid reads, which affects them, and I want to not have your kid's reading list apply to everyone, which affects everyone. This is why I'm completely fine with opt-in opt-out mechanisms, which came into existence because of religious conservatives who wanted their own kids exempted without dictating the whole curriculum, and that worked fine for decades
>>25470262
>You want public institutions and public funds to operate according to your values, which you frame as normative, while acting against the values and sensibilities of those with whom you disagree.
Read this slowly: I'm not proposing a content baseline, I'm proposing a procedural baseline -- the state shouldn't be able to remove books from a public shelf because officials object to the ideas in them. This is viewpoint neutral. It applies to How To Trans Your Gender 101 and RACE WAR NOW KILL ALL JEWS equally. I don't get to invoke it against books I like or withhold it from books I hate. Your rule (local preference determines majority content) produces a different library in every town depending on whose values are locally dominant, mine produces the same protection everywhere regardless of who's winning. My rule also binds me, your rule only binds you in the areas where you lose

>>25469151
Yeah this shelf is literally just ‘were not on the list for public education curriculums for some amount of time now or in the past’ and they act like Great Gatsby is revolutionary literature when the fact is some school systems didn’t teach it in middle school because every male character is a drunk-driving woman-beater often doing so on page

Every book they don’t teach you in school is banned. When they taught Scarlet Letter they meant I was forbidden from reading Maus

>>25470804
Case I support (the one at hand)
>school systems keeping their libraries age-appropriate and limiting certain forms of political extremism, encouragement of crime, and pornography
Case I don’t support (wildly hypothetical and the last imagined bastion where one would be able to properly make that point)
>Everything you said

>>25470258
>>25470262
Also; the acquisition/removal distinction you keep handwaving away is the actual line that US law drew in Pico 1982, school boards have broad discretion over acqs but can't take a book off shelves because they dislike their ideas and want to prescribe an orthodoxy. (The orthodoxy language comes from Barnette 1943, which was Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to salute the flag, which should make you realize that this principle originally supported the anti-wokes of yesteryear.)

As I see it you have two responses to this and neither of them really work
1. "Pico was a plurality and lower courts have split" which is true, and I'm not pretending it's ironclad doctrine, but "the courts have split so who knows how far this reaches" is very very different from what you've been arguing, which is "the distinction is an incoherent marketing invention."
2. "Library curation = govt speech, so no viewpoint neutrality" which is what you should say, because it's the strongest objection and it's the one the 5th Circuit took -- but it has crazy high costs. If a library's collection is the govt's own message, then there's nothing stopping a woke town from tossing every white author, every religious text, every straight author, and any book that criticizes the sitting govt, and there's no way to fix it because that's just the govt speaking. If you want this doctrine you have to take the whole thing, and nobody seriously believes that a library's speaking when it stocks both The Communist Manifesto and The Wealth of Nations, because we all understand that the expressive act is providing range and not endorsing every item in the collection
>>25470262
>As long as they're promoting what you want them to promote and indirectly funding what you want to be funded, lol.
Then address what I've offered and what you keep stepping around. Woke Moms United gets the Anonistan school board to pull every "patriotic" book. You'd probably object to this, but on what grounds? Every ground you could take is one that I've already used in this thread, and every ground I could take is what you've already said -- citizens, they fund it, you can still buy it, nothing is really banned, advocate for reinstatement if you want
>Oh no, someone will have to pay for a book or tell someone about it if they want them to read it. How terrible.
The entire reason we have libraries is so nobody has to pay to read. "You can always just buy it" in practice means "as long as you have money and permissive parents" which doesn't sound like an anti-elitist position to me

>>25470775
>>25470804
>>25470822
Last thought: You're clearly a smart guy but you've conditioned yourself to go into a rage whenever you see something you think is vaguely woke, and too much rage makes a man retarded. Like I keep on stressing, literally everything I'm saying applies to The Turner Diaries, Mein Kampf, the made-up RACE WAR NOW KILL ALL JEWS, etc. The book-removal mechanism has no fixed politics and never has. The Confederates did it to Uncle Tom. Nazis did it to All Quiet on the Western Front. Jim Crow Alabama did it to a picture book about rabbits. Progressives did it to Huck Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird. Some TX districts did it to the Bible. Etc etc etc. The script never changes either: "we're not restricting anything, we're simply protecting children by declining to promote it." Comstock said this, Tipper Gore said this, the Hays Office said this, the Satanic Panic craze said it about Dungeons and Dragons, and now you're saying it. The only thing that changes is what book's on the chopping block that day, which is why the sane, reasonable position is procedural, because you won't always be the one making the decision on what to restrict.

>>25469363
>So how's that copy of Anarchist's cookbook looking?
35 dollars on Amazon, you should find better example

You know what FUCK the government I need to be able to buy Naked Lunch in the Scholastic catalogue

World of Warcraft has bones censored in the Chinese version so guess what faggots?
You guessed right- banned game.

File: 1766773148001372.png (20 KB, 587x378)

20 KB PNG

>>25469151
There is only one type of book that would get you banned and put in prison if you wrote it and you know what that is.

>>25470294
>>25470466
I was speaking about AMERICA. I know in Europe even AC's are banned. Europe is not a serious country.

>>25470775
>You're right, there is an instinct that hundreds of years of institutional development were built to work against, and it's "I've found a book that offends me and I want it gone."
No. Again, you're imposing your will on institutions as if it's normative while dismissing the equal opportunity of others when it comes to advocating in favor of their own values. Institutions aren't teleological--they emerge from historical contingencies, power struggles, and coordination problems. They acquire functions and values only through ongoing human use and adaptation and you're attempting to subvert this process according to your own standard. This is a much more dangerous form of censorship than having to access materials on your own instead of having the state procure them which, again, doesn't even really qualify as censorship (you can procure them and you may read them).
>This concedes that censorship doesn't require illegality
I never argued that it does. I referenced the law as a means to demonstrate certain types of actual censorship are perfectly natural and widely accepted. I then pointed out that such don't necessarily impose undue restraint on freedom of conscience or expression because the way you are framing censorship is naive. I then made reference to the tyranny of the majority as a valid criticism against democratic processes while pointing out that, in some cases, the disenfranchisement of a specific minority can be in the public interest. It's a complicated subject and imagining it's as clear cut as "the state should buy the books I want them to... (thereby funding them and affirming the values they represent)...or else it's censorship" reeks of authoritarianism and represents a fundamental subversion of institutions and norms.

1/

>>25470775
>>25471068
>A library shelf is a platform
It's a platform but a localized one wherein members of the public have the interest as well as the right to advocate for the inclusion or exclusion of materials. Again, it's the public's money and the institution is representative of the public. Also, it's nowhere near the extent of social media platforms in that it's localized--this itself plays into the fact that it's representative of a specific public reflective of their interests. Modern censorship isn't the public freely advocating for or against the inclusion of materials according to their own values in localized public libraries. Modern censorship is the selective amplification/deamplificaiton or outright shadowbanning of speech acts and/or materials (videos, written articles, etc) on wide reaching platforms (i.e. social media). Governments have been shown to be actively involved in such outside the avenues of public advocacy we've discussed above. We could also get into the elimination of materials from distribution chains according to the whims of corporate actors (you could advocate for the inclusion of materials in a library on the basis of such) and the advent of advertisers being able to influence the demonetisation and thereby disincentivize the production of specific materials. These are examples of actual censorship.
>Nobody in this thread, not me or the most bluehaired tranny woke lib in Portland, thinks that libraries must stock constitutionally unprotected material
That's not what I was arguing. See above. I was giving an example of widely accepted censorship that falls within the public interest. You have to be able to draw the line, my example was according to law, and the way you naively frame the idea of censorship subverts this process because you're defining the value of institutions according to whether or not they're in line with your particular interests and values.

/2

Grinds my gears when people conflate "removing a book from the curriculum" with "book ban"

>>25470804
>Where do you say "alright, that's too far?"
As long as it's a localized public library and free and open debate towards the inclusion or exclusion of materials is maintained I don't argue against their right to make such decisions.
>Every one of these is the exact scenario you say you support
Yes. As long as materials are procured via public funding and institutions are representative of the values of those which they have the pretense of representing I'm perfectly fine with those scenarios. However, if any one of those groups attempt to negate the process by which members of the public may advocate for the inclusion or exclusion of materials I'm against them. Also, national entities like The Library of Congress in the United States don't fall within the above scenario.
>My advocacy affects you by leaving a book on the shelf that you're free to never open. Your advocacy affects me by removing the book from the shelf, which removes my ability to read it at all.
No. Your advocacy is such that I don't have the right to freely debate for the inclusion or exclusion of materials. You're also saying that my money should go toward the procurement and dissemination of materials which are against my values. This is forcing me to advocate on behalf of values I do not possess while taking away my right to appeal to institutions that are supposed to be representative of all members of the public. Again, you can still procure materials and disseminate them according to your own will--just not mine.
>the state shouldn't be able to remove books from a public shelf because officials object to the ideas in them
As long as the state actors that do so are accountable to the public and the opportunity for the free and open debate as to the inclusion or exclusion of materials exists: they should be able to do so.
>This is viewpoint neutral
It's not and that's why I've keep repeating your major fault is that you assume your point of view is normative. It isn't and you're actually advocating for destruction of institutions and the diminishment of norms be they democratic or otherwise. This is why you're dangerous.
>Your rule (local preference determines majority content) produces a different library in every town depending on whose values are locally dominant
Yes. Diversity that respects the will of a community is a good thing and such should be protected.
>mine produces the same protection everywhere regardless of who's winning
No. You're denying that a given community should have a local library reflective of that community's interests, subverting the process by which individuals within the community may advocate on behalf of their particular values, and imposing your will on a national scale.

>>25470822
>Also; the acquisition/removal distinction you keep handwaving away
I'm not handwaving anything away. Public education is a slightly different monster than public libraries in that a cohesive curriculum need exist and this implies standardization. Parents can take an active role in their children's education via school boards but this doesn't necessarily mean they may exclude materials according to their own interests.
>Pico
Not familiar with it but seeing as it was a 5-4 decision the ruling is hardly something that can't be debated. I'd have to read the majority/plurality/concurring opinion(s) as well as the dissenting opinion(s) in order to give you my take on it and I'm unlikely to do that today.

Sorry, I'm tapping out for now. Thanks for responding and I will read the rest of your posts later.

My county library doesn't have the Anarchist's Cookbook and this is a travesty.

>>25469387
>Private isntitutions and the community as a whole have also collectively pulled these books from availability and choose to reprimand those that they catch reading them
when has this ever happened?

>>25469162
Where was the fucking Hunger Games banned?

>>25471013
i don't, bro. stop vagueposting.

I'm fairly certain that the whole "banned books" nonsense is just so that leftists can live out their fantasies of being a revolutionary fighter living in an oppressive state

>>25471558
easily

File: _91408619_55df76d5-2245-4(...).jpg (54 KB, 976x850)

54 KB JPG

Being against the government in your library and school is woke now? What?