Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

No one would bat an eye at banning films or websites from schools that have the content that some of these books have. But because, for some reason, anything that is in text on paper form appears to be more "intellectual" and culturally valuable, it's viewed as a form of oppression.

I am not saying I support it, I just don't understand why books are put on a pedestal compared to all other forms of media.

I think there's a pretty big difference between seeing something recorded or reproduced on screen in HD with audio and having that same thing be described in text.

You can explore this yourself by reading something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire and then seeking out video of the event, seeing the bodies and hearing the screams.

> No one would bat an eye at banning films or websites from schools that have the content that some of these books have.

Only some of these books? It's already hard to defend censorship with saying "it deserved to be censored", but it's even harder if you walk it back to "well, at least some of it deserved to be censored".

Out of 10,000 books, I expect that there is at least one that can fairly be labeled as "no really, that's inappropriate for children".

Out of 10,000 books, I expect that there is at least one that can fairly be labeled as "what reactionary weirdo wanted that banned?"

Not everything is appropriate for children. That's just the reality of what children are.

Not everything that someone protests (or even a bunch of people protest) is inappropriate. That's just the reality of what grownups are.

So, yes, it's really easy to defend (some) censorship for children. It's hard to defend all censorship that claims to be "for children".

Another example of the same phenomenon, perhaps, is the respect given to people who have written a novel compared to the respect given to people who have done journalism. Since I like novels I am not particularly annoyed by this phenomenon, but it does seem strange.

These are public, tax-funded schools we're talking about here. Parents who really want their 10 year old to learn about BDSM practices or breast removal surgeries can still get them those books on their own dime.

> Parents who really want their 10 year old to learn about BDSM practices or breast removal surgeries can still get them those books on their own dime.

In your option was Roots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots:_The_Saga_of_an_American...) teaching 10 years olds about BDSM practices or breast removal surgeries? That book was banned.

The article says they banned "more than" 10000 books, and you mentioned one.

Thus the rest of 9999 books could easily have many on the subject.

The vast majority of those 9999 books could just as easily (and far more likely than not) contain zero mention of those two subjects entirely. No, somedude895 was just using extreme examples without evidence or context to justify the banning of more than 10,000 books as though even if one or two out of the more than 10,000 books did somehow happen to mention those topics that it would justify such ridiculous censorship.

Never read it and not familiar with it. From the Wikipedia link:

> The toubob humiliate Kunta and the other captives by stripping them naked, examining them in every orifice and burning them with hot irons.

It's not remarkable. The vocal ones are mostly right-wingers who vote in the people who initiate and support these bans.

When I was in high school, I always found the problem to be teachers who were ... lacking in education (due to the compensation available for such jobs). There were at least a few, including the school principal, who were working against this, but against a large majority of teachers bringing in their ideology it worked, at best, only to prevent the worst.

Always remarkable that the "we don't want to groom your kids" crowd complains when people try to stop them from giving children pornography.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com