Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet, when things like school shootings happen, the "experts" go on TV and town hall meetings and tell people that they should monitor what music their children are listening to, what TV and movies they're watching, what video games they're playing, and what books they're reading.
Clearly, not all things are beneficial.
What is the harm in asking school libraries to carry the books that most people agree are beneficial, while leaving it up to individual families to chose whether or not to expose their families to the controversial ones?
ACK!!! Someone quick rep Blueberry to get her off that number "it" won't let me!
I wonder how many untold millions were turned in into witches and warlocks and gays watching 220 something episodes of Bewitched over the last 45 years?
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,203 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
To get back on topic, and I'm sorry for that diversion but since the OP in this case rarely participates in threads they start, I couldn't resist.
I, for one, enjoyed the diversion. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read a couple of posts!
Quote:
Anyway, I find this whole issue with movies, books, etc to be a little...I don't know...maybe intimidating in a sense.
It intimidates my parenting a bit.
I mean, if I say my kids watch it, a certain judgmental group finds fault.
If I say, my kids can't watch it, another judgmental group finds fault.
Ultimately, I have to make these decisions based on my rights as a parent to control what my kids can and can't watch and/or read and just let the chips fall where they may.
And, having said that, I also need to not judge others for their respective convictions.
Very well stated! It goes with what I said in another post about how people are obsessed with micromanaging others' lives. Sad, isn't it?
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,203 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by satanoid
Who decides what is beneficial?
Beneficial is subjective. However, when any one books raises a ruckus (not just one or two parents complaining), I believe it is best to keep it out of the schools and let families find it through other sources if they so desire.
Quote:
And since when do books have *anything* to do with school shootings?
Everything a person puts in his mind affects him in one way or another.
I lived in a town that had one of the first school shootings. My ears perked up when I heard the list of things that should be "monitored." The "experts" then went on to say that parents should expunge things they feel aren't beneficial. "Interesting," I said. "What's the difference between monitoring and censoring/banning?" Yes, books were one of the things to be monitored. Since then, I've paid attention to press coverage of other such incidents, and I've often heard the same list of items to monitor.
Yet, when things like school shootings happen, the "experts" go on TV and town hall meetings and tell people that they should monitor what music their children are listening to, what TV and movies they're watching, what video games they're playing, and what books they're reading.
Clearly, not all things are beneficial.
What is the harm in asking school libraries to carry the books that most people agree are beneficial, while leaving it up to individual families to chose whether or not to expose their families to the controversial ones?
Yes, but there is a difference in encouraging parents to "censor", if you will, what their children watch, listen to, play, or read, and demanding that, for example, a tax-paid library clear their shelves of controversial materials. Even the Bible can be controversial, (ever read some of the stories in it?!).
If you demand a tax-paid library to only carry those materials that most people agree with, (presuming you can get a group to agree in the first place You know, who chooses what?), you are now marginalizing those individuals who may not have the same ideas, but they also pay taxes for that same library, (actually most libraries do monitor to a point. I'm not aware of any that allow pornography, for example). If you are in the Bible Belt, (I am), it does not make it right to clear the shelves of Harry Potter, let us say, because a large group of fundamentalist Christians are afraid their children may read it. It is up to the parent to monitor their child's choice of reading material, not John Q. Public. It is called personal responsibility. John may want to read Harry Potter, and allow his child to read it. The whole point of libraries is to open up the world to people. To fill them with knowledge, dreams, and ideas. If the library only carries those items that would be "approved" of by the majority, how is that of any benefit to anyone? Yet, left up to many people, many books would never be allowed on the shelves, including those that many of us would consider classic, that we grew up reading, ("To Kill a Mockingbird", "Huck Finn", etc. The list is endless).
I wonder how many untold millions were turned in into witches and warlocks and gays watching 220 something episodes of Bewitched over the last 45 years?
Yes, but there is a difference in encouraging parents to "censor", if you will, what their children watch, listen to, play, or read, and demanding that, for example, a tax-paid library clear their shelves of controversial materials. Even the Bible can be controversial, (ever read some of the stories in it?!).
If you demand a tax-paid library to only carry those materials that most people agree with, (presuming you can get a group to agree in the first place You know, who chooses what?), you are now marginalizing those individuals who may not have the same ideas, but they also pay taxes for that same library, (actually most libraries do monitor to a point. I'm not aware of any that allow pornography, for example). If you are in the Bible Belt, (I am), it does not make it right to clear the shelves of Harry Potter, let us say, because a large group of fundamentalist Christians are afraid their children may read it. It is up to the parent to monitor their child's choice of reading material, not John Q. Public. It is called personal responsibility. John may want to read Harry Potter, and allow his child to read it. The whole point of libraries is to open up the world to people. To fill them with knowledge, dreams, and ideas. If the library only carries those items that would be "approved" of by the majority, how is that of any benefit to anyone? Yet, left up to many people, many books would never be allowed on the shelves, including those that many of us would consider classic, that we grew up reading, ("To Kill a Mockingbird", "Huck Finn", etc. The list is endless).
You all know I'm a public librarian, right?? Now that I've reminded you of that, NO public state-funded library will support censorship... because if we start bowing to one group that demands a book removed, where do we stop? What if the Atheists are offended by the Bible (which we do carry), Jews offended by the Koran, Black people offended by books on the Civil War, and so forth?
Sorry, but no matter who is paying the taxes, the American Library Association has a FIRM stance against censorship and book-banning... each individual library is ultimately in charge of book ordering and selection, usually based on the specific needs of their community. But if any librarian was found to be censoring based on personal beliefs or public pressure, they would (hopefully) promptly be dismissed. Does that clear things up at all? It's a complicated issue, but one that our profession is rather clear on... the word "controversial" simply isn't in our vocabulary, since it's way too dubious of a term - and the root of censorship.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone quick rep Blueberry to get her off that number "it" won't let me!
You know, who chooses what?), you are now marginalizing those individuals who may not have the same ideas, but they also pay taxes for that same library, (actually most libraries do monitor to a point. I'm not aware of any that allow pornography, for example). If you are in the Bible Belt, (I am), it does not make it right to clear the shelves of Harry Potter, let us say, because a large group of fundamentalist Christians are afraid their children may read it. It is up to the parent to monitor their child's choice of reading material, not John Q. Public. It is called personal responsibility. John may want to read Harry Potter, and allow his child to read it. The whole point of libraries is to open up the world to people. To fill them with knowledge, dreams, and ideas. If the library only carries those items that would be "approved" of by the majority, how is that of any benefit to anyone? Yet, left up to many people, many books would never be allowed on the shelves, including those that many of us would consider classic, that we grew up reading, ("To Kill a Mockingbird", "Huck Finn", etc. The list is endless).
