As attempted book bans continue to surge in schools and public libraries across the U.S, a new study reveals the unintended consequences of the effort: an increase in readership for the titles in question.
@Andii but they aren't bans at all.
To take your analogy, it's not that people are being banned from the bar, but that the bar is choosing not to carry a certain brand of beer.
They're not banning the beer. They're just not supplying it.
And you're right, you can go get that beer in another pub, but that's neither here nor there.
@volkris @axios
all my life people, newspapers, tv, have talked about banning books from libraries or schools. Admittedly, it's not a "blanket ban" but it is meaningful if an authority tells those within its purview not to carry a book (or a beer) to use the word 'ban'. We understand what that means. It's not an "outright ban" or a "countrywide ban" but it is a "partial" ban: all terms used about the scope of a ban. While I take the point, the living language is going it's own sweet way.
There's a very important reason why this is no meer semantic distinction: it's not that the authority is telling those within its purview not to carry a book, it's that carrying the book is an option of the authority.
And that's exactly why we should push for independent libraries that are separate from the authority altogether.
So long as the authority gets to decide what books are and aren't carried, well, we are relying on the authority to make those editorial decisions for the public. I don't think that's healthy.
So let's be clear that this is not a book ban. This is us giving that authority to a political structure and then trusting the structure to do the right thing, complaining when it doesn't.
We should stop doing that. Since it's not a book ban that means we don't have to. We can instead look to other parts of civil society to provide these resources.
@volkris @axios
I don't disagree about the point you just made.
And you can't ban me or anyone else from using the word 'ban' to designate the use of power to make something unavailable.
I agree there are often workarounds and in a case like this I am glad that people are acting to circumvent those bans. It'd be better if those with those powers just got out of the way, of course.
@volkris
Well, yes, and then no: they are bans from a particular domain. That they aren't banned in other domains doesn't mean they're not banned somewhere.
You can be banned from a pub and go for a drink in another.
It's not all or nothing.
@axios