Who Controls What Books You Can Read?
Welcome to Reason's summer banned books issue.

Someone gave Margaret Atwood a flamethrower.
The gray-haired author has become a patron saint for a certain kind of dystopian apocalypticism. No protest is complete these days without at least a few women in the red robes and white bonnets of The Handmaid's Tale, her clouded portrait of an authoritarian society built around controlling conscience and fertility. "The Handmaid's Tale has been banned many times—sometimes by whole countries, such as Portugal and Spain in the days of Salazar and the Francoists," Atwood notes, "sometimes by school boards, sometimes by libraries."
All of which made her the perfect subject for a stunt to raise money for PEN America, a nonprofit that fights literary censorship: She took a blowtorch to a custom-made fireproof edition of her most famous work, which would later be put up for auction by Sotheby's.
Book burnings have long been popular with those who would seize and hold power, from the Catholic Church to Josef Stalin. Kings, fascists, and communists alike have warmed their hands over literary bonfires. But rarely in 2022 America do book bans take the incendiary form of our Ray Bradbury–fueled fever dreams.
Yet controversy over book bans has flared up nonetheless, with local and state elections won or lost over which books will be stocked in libraries or taught in schools—a newly invigorated front in a long-running culture war.
The American Library Association (ALA), another anti-censorship organization, keeps lists of what it calls "challenged books"—books that a person or group has tried to remove from or restrict access to in schools or libraries. A "banned book" is one where that removal is successful.
By the ALA's reckoning, challenges and bans are way up, setting a 20-year record. The organization recorded 729 challenges to library, school, and university materials in 2021, targeting more than 1,500 different titles. The list is far from exhaustive, assembled as it is from media reports and from folks who contact the organization directly. This produces an odd chicken-and-egg problem, where the more politically agitated people are about book bannings, the more incidents they will report as book bannings, and the more there will appear to be.
The books that make the ALA annual top 10 list vary from year to year, but they comprise a consistent mix: classics that deal with mature themes—Beloved and the Bible—books that contain slurs or other now-contentious words or depictions of race—Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird—books that touch on sex or gender from what is intended to be an age-appropriate perspective—I Am Jazz and anything by Raina Telgemeier—books that smack of the occult—the Harry Potter series and Bridge to Terabithia—and books that are very clearly by and for adults—Fifty Shades of Grey.
The ALA list suggests book banners lean right—with an increasing emphasis on books with queer themes or characters, for example—though book challenges come from across the spectrum of political opinion and aesthetic preference. It's debatable whether the list's bias is an artifact of the collectors' concerns or simply a reflection of an underlying reality.
"Banned books" is a vague category, like "cancel culture" or "obscenity." At the terrifying top of the hierarchy are true book bans, enforced by the state—the kind that inspire the government-sponsored conflagrations described above, especially those designed to suppress political dissent or erase inconvenient histories.
The removal of books from public libraries or public school libraries is a step below those, though it is also government censorship of a kind, since the books are removed by public employees, often at the behest of politicians. So too with curriculum battles: These fall far short of a state-ordered book burning, but they are too often driven by the same censorial impulse and smallness of mind. They are less troubling than outright bans, since they tend to be localized, applied primarily to children, and publicized in ways that make it possible for parents to hedge against them. But that does not mean they are unobjectionable.
There are always new fronts in the book wars. The end of May saw a bizarre extension of the school library book ban into the private sector, one that was clearly unconstitutional, politically motivated, and ultimately pointless. Two Virginia Republicans (a congressional candidate and a member of the House of Delegates) asked a court to place a restraining order on the sale of two books, requiring that purchasers be carded: Gender Queer, a graphic novel about nonbinary identity, and—somewhat inexplicably—the second book in a series that can best be described as faerie porn, A Court of Mist and Fury. The books have very little in common other than the fact that both deal with sex. But as anyone who has ever stood agog in the romance aisle of a Barnes & Noble knows, they are hardly the only two books to do so. Nor is Barnes & Noble the only venue where one might acquire such books, though the school board of the Virginia Beach City Public Schools already voted to remove Gender Queer from school libraries as well.
Nearly all of the books mentioned in this issue are, in fact, available to motivated American readers. "Let's hope we don't reach the stage of wholesale book burnings, as in Fahrenheit 451," said Atwood, her blowtorch still smoking. "But if we do, let's hope some books will prove unburnable—that they will travel underground, as prohibited books did in the Soviet Union."
But there are more ways for governments to control what people can read than immediately identifiable book bans. Adults may still struggle to get access to books for all kinds of reasons related to government, from intellectual property fights to local zoning to incarceration.
There are also private entities who practice a form of book banning. While this form is the least worrying from a legal point of view—companies and individuals should have the right to do business with whomever they like—it is still troubling from a cultural perspective, and it seems to be on the rise. It includes self-censorship by authors and publishers as well as gatekeeping by booksellers.
All of these less blatant barriers are explored in the pages that follow, along with their more traditional counterparts. It's worth noting that the one book we were unable to obtain in our research for this issue is a memoir that remains unpublished due to a gag order by the Securities and Exchange Commission, a final reminder not to be too distracted by the blowtorch while other books are being quietly snuffed out.
We hope this issue of Reason will serve as both a cautionary tale and a fun summer reading list, because in many cases a "banned" book is also a popular book. A mere whiff of the censor's smoke can send hordes of curious novelty seekers off to acquire copies. Not all will stand the literary test of time, but the Holy Bible and faerie porn each have their place. Perhaps that place is poolside?
Romeo and Juliet
William Shakespeare
Sarah Skwire
Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes
Stephanie Slade
Lady Chatterley's Lover
D.H. Lawrence
Ronald Bailey
And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street
Dr. Seuss
Nick Gillespie
Fahrenheit 451
Ray Bradbury
Peter Suderman
Howl and Other Poems
Allen Ginsberg
Fiona Harrigan
To Kill a Mockingbird
Harper Lee
Jason Russell
The Master and Margarita
Mikhail Bulgakov
Jesse Walker
Slaughterhouse-Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Eric Boehm
Maus
Art Spiegelman
Brian Doherty
Wiseguy
Nicholas Pileggi
Nancy Rommelmann
Beloved
Toni Morrison
Robby Soave
The Satanic Verses
Salman Rushdie
Liz Wolfe
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
J.K. Rowling
Natalie Dowzicky
The Adventures of Ook and Gluk: Kung-Fu Cavemen from the Future
Dav Pilkey
Katherine Mangu-Ward
I Am Jazz
Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings
Scott Shackford
Blood in the Water
Heather Ann Thompson
C.J. Ciaramella
When Harry Became Sally
Ryan T. Anderson
Elizabeth Nolan Brown
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Christian Britschgi
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Who Controls What Books You Can Read?."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Ala has gone full Marxist. (their words not mine) using them as a source shows you will use this article to torturously skew everything to the left.
I also really really enjoyed how not having groomer books in kindergarten libraries is "horrible because goverment" while Amazon and other companies nonentity books that go against the narrative (ie anything about detransitioning)
Lastly Scott has gone full on groomer.
Yes, I noticed this -- "books that are very clearly by and for adults—Fifty Shades of Grey" -- immediately followed by "The ALA list suggests book banners lean right—with an increasing emphasis on books with queer themes or characters, for example", carefully dodging the idea that teaching kindergartners about the proper kinds of genital mutilation is somehow OK.
Couple points:
1) This article does distinguish between actual book bans and removing books from public and school libraries. I do think the author should be careful to distinguish between public libraries and school libraries. The main purpose of public libraries, as shitty as they are, is to make sure the public can access content. Removing books from a public library is taking a shot at that library's main purpose.
On the other hand, School Libraries' primary purpose is to supplement the curriculum of kids. Parents have every right to define the curriculum their kids will consume in a school, through influencing their school board, PTA and politicians. Treating the removal of books from a school to public bans, or even public library bans is not appropriate.
2) The author is rather underwhelming in their suggestion that ALA's list might be the source of bias. It obviously is.
“Parents have every right to define the curriculum their kids will consume in a school, through influencing their school board, PTA and politicians.”
Nuh uh.
— Lefty Jeffy
We can and have successfully argued for specific curriculum that was needed in our kid's schools and against such.
We, The Tax Paying Parents, have far more "right" than The State to determine what our children need.
Different parents will disagree on what is appropriate. If you want to have control over your child’s education, homeschool. If you wont make the sacrifices needed to do that, your kids just aren't worth it to you. You sell them out for money or convenience.
Did the ALA forget Eliot and Pounds work , or are they banned from the banned list?
Banned? Like with rubber?
I mean, not adding to a curated collection funded by the taxpayers is not banning. Burning the books, the printed plates and destroying the digital files is. Putting a hit out on the author is a nice touch.
Not providing easy access to age inappropriate material is not banning. I mean, we used to put paper wrappers on girlie magazines. We age restrict a number of things (driving, alcohol, and such), doing the same with some printed material isn't wrong.
Having the Swiss guard chase down heresies and confiscation manuscripts is bad. What is happening in the US is not,
Please read the actual words of the article.
The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t about a society that values fetuses as individual human beings.
The Handmaid’s Tale is about a society that assumes social ownership of the uterus: the ultimate means of production.
The Handmaid’s Tale is about a society that takes communism to its logical conclusion.
Ponder that, little Marxists.
The Handmaid Tale is not about society taking control of the uterus, of a group of men taking control for their own benefit. You are simply trying too hard to make the story fit your own narrative.
Communist nations are often led by groups of men.”, to their own benefit, ostensibly on behalf of society.
No True Communism!!!!
True Communism hasn't been tried!!
Have the Scotsmen tried?
If'n they did, it would get to where they din'ae have any haggis or plaid for kilts!
Communists with guns don't lead. They make you walk in front.
The book is about a rigidly constructed communist society.
Parody.
The Handmaid's Tale isn't about any of that. It actually is an insight into the world view of a shallow Canadian author holding her finger into the wind and writing what her equally shallow audience wants to read.
A lot of her current interpretation is that, for certain.
When she wrote it it was Iranian Revolution times and, as very often happens during a revolution, kids think they're fighting for freedom and when they're done someone they didn't want or expect filled the power vacuum and things got way worse. In Iran, it was the Ayatollah and suddenly women were under social restrictions that they had long won freedom from.
She transpose that inspiration into a dystopic post apocalypse America and replaced the hardline Islamists with Christian fundamentalists to sell to an english speaking audience. And, yes, because of the aforementioned world view.
Atwood just keeps changing her tune about what inspired the book because it keeps her relevant, and keeps the property valuable. If it weren't for that book and generations of "oh, here's a good sci-fi by a female author" lists nobody would know who she is. So pretending it wasn't inspired by Islamic fundamentalism (which it obviously was) is just good business.
In Iran, it was the Ayatollah and suddenly women were under social restrictions that they had long won freedom from.
"Being a liberal in Tehran in 1978 was a pretty good deal. By 1979, it was a nightmare."
Let's hope this quote applies to america soon ...
I lived in Tehran when there were miniskirts in north Tehran and chadors in south Tehran. It was a big cause of the revolution
On the surface the Handmaid’s Tale appears to be a woke circle jerk about a Protestant theocracy, but when you look deeper you see that it’s actually aimed at Islam.
In the first place the Republic of Gilead’s doctrines are nowhere to be found in actual Charismatic, Fundamentalist or Evangelical theology, but they are present in all Islamic sects (even “liberal” offshoots like Isma’ilism or the Dervish).
And actual historical Protestant theocracies like the Evangelical Dutch Republic (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën) and the Puritan Commonwealth of England were nothing like Gilead at all, but Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan certainly are.
So rather than being a fantasy persecution/big daddy wank for rich, white feminists, perhaps it’s a stalking-horse to secretly promote anti brown-man sentiments amongst the Wine Moms and Vodka Aunts.
And that's why she set it it a New England, populated by white supremacists? Nonsense.
Atwood may have been inspired by the Islamic revolution, but she clearly is attacking American conservatism with the usual progressive tropes, implying that it wants to subjugate women, destroy the environment, and impose a patriarchy.
And even though she was also inspired by the abuse of power by Canadian politicians, she couldn't even bring herself to set the novel in Canada; Canada in her novel is still the place the new underground railroad goes while evil Americans subjugate women and institute the patriarchy. Yet, this creep actually supports Justin Trudeau.
"And that's why she set it it a New England, populated by white supremacists? Nonsense"
Allegory
I don't think it is allegory. It is just that, like most leftists blinded by their hatred of American conservatism, she doesn't realize that everything she created in the hyper-conservative world had already been done by the Islamists. Because unless they are victims of American assholery, Islamists actually don't exist in their myopic little bubbles.
It was inspired by. Very specifically inspired by the Iranian revolution. This much used to be very well known, but Atwood pretends otherwise now because we don't speak of such things in progressive society in the 21st century.
But she really believes that the fringiest of regressive Christianity in 1980 was like that, and that it was mainstream.
Coupled with the 1970s cold war apocalypse worship, where they were still convinced that sooner or later everyone would fire off all the missles or the neutron bombs or the chemical weapons, just because, and you get the scene. A place where swaths of the country have been destroyed and left uninhabitable by some war that was never explained, and somehow there was a coalition of extremist regressive Christians with enough power to fill the vacuum and hold it.
It's easy for her ilk to believe that such a coalition exists. They're the type who think Westboro Baptist is representative of your average church goer or that white supremacist groups have some sort of power. (for the record, Westboro Baptist might have 50 or 75 members total, almost all family members of the pastor, and the KKK might have 5000 members total, worldwide. And everyone thinks all of these folks are dicks.)
It's a foul and xenophobic world view, but that's fine. It feeds the fears of the people who pay for TV shows so she gets to pretend it was all about Trump and collect another huge paycheck on her best selling book property.
"the 1970s cold war apocalypse worship, where they were still convinced that sooner or later everyone would fire off all the missles or the neutron bombs or the chemical weapons, just because"
Hey, that's now a legitimate concern again...
New England Puritans were the original American Taliban.
Now New Englanders have embraced a new form of Puritanism. Women can get abortions and marry each other, but people still do not dare criticize the clergy, or deviate from the doctrine.
Ackshuyally, the Sufi Dervish aren't "liberal." * IIRC, Yassir Arafat was a Sufi and it certainly didn't curb his genocidal impulses.
The Western label of "liberal" really has no application to any sect of Islam, nor does Islam need a "Reformation," since it is already without a central head and already is based on the authority of a supposed "holy" book. What Islam needs is a nut-cutting version of The Renaissance and The Enlightenment. Bringing Western-style "Liberalism" to the Islamic world would mean death for Islam as a worldview...and that can't happen fast enough. 🙂
And ackshuyally, Calvin's Geneva was a pretty brutal theocracy that murdered Michael Sevetus for denying The Trinity.
In the end, regardless of the content of the absurdity, believing in absurdities ultimately means committing atrocities.
* (I suspect the big hats of those Dervishes are to throw up in after all that spinning.). 😉
"The Western label of "liberal" really has no application to any sect of Islam"
Hence why I put "liberal" in quotes.
"Calvin's Geneva was a pretty brutal theocracy that murdered Michael Sevetus for denying The Trinity."
It wasn't particularly brutal. That implies it was worse than most others at the time. One horrible internecine witchburning doesn't make it worse than any other country in Europe at the time; and Geneva was still more liberal in the actual sense of the word than any other canton.
If it occurred in the 21st century, then yes, but in the 16th, no.
No, but all the other crap they did did make it worse.
One wonders what the priests of ancient Egypt might have done if one of the cool kids had disrespected their church?
No Handmaid's Tale is fetish porn for bored housewifes just like 50 Shades of Grey.
More like 50 Shades of Gay, amirite?
It isnt a communist society. In the book, only the wealthy get the privilege of handmaids. The society is authoritarian but not communist. It is controlled by the wealthy and the Puritan Christians. A communist society would not be based on religion, and it would give a handmaid to every family, not just the wealthy.
I am Jazz is a book about a boy who socially transitioned in Kidnergarten because he liked pink, fairies, and unicorns instead of boy toys. It's not something we want our children to learn about-that if you're not adhering to cultural norms, you therefore must not be a male. But the only terms you could use with young kids to explain about transexual people are such simplified terms, which absolutely is the wrong message.
Also, "Jazz" may be a case of Munchausen-by-Proxy syndrome. Mom really wants attention, and she attention by proving just how accepting she is by having her boy transition to being a girl. And it's tough for a kid to reverse course on that later on when you've identified yourself as "the one kid who has transitioned" for years and years-you end up defining yourself on those terms and don't have the stable ground needed to actually question it when you're more mature. Pushing kids to transition risks locking them into a track they'll have a difficult time getting out of when it comes to making permanent decisions.
What you say may or may not be true but banning the book has only brought it attention. A book that might well have gotten little attention now get more that it may deserve. Banning the book was not for the public good but to get some political group attention. The price we pay for their getting to say something in public is to give the book itself more attention.
People CRYING about the book being banned brought attention to it. If there had just been universal acceptance that this isn't appropriate material for a 5-9 kid age group, it gets out of the library, then there's no issue that makes it outside of that local schoolboard.
Yes, it's groomers like Katherine and mod who obsess about turning 5 year olds into sexual objects.
Sane, normal people don't expect books like that to be in elementary school libraries.
The book isn't banned.
To a Democrat, unless the government buys and hands it to you they are denying you rights and freedoms.
Access=free
Buys it, hands it to you (at home on your sofa, since requiring any effort is oppression), and silences any people who might question your desires--that's how we do "rights" in 21st century America.
The book hasn't been "banned". You can order it on Amazon if you like, even at a discount.
Isn't the dude having serious mental issues now?
She's having serious depression and some health/weight issues. She claims it has nothing to do with her trans status, but that flies in the face of the extreme correlation between gender dysphoria and mental issues like depression.
Good article. I like the part about gatekeepers, and it should remind us that any number of books may be keep from us because some publisher doesn't like the subject. Likewise, a company or institute may pull funding from a research project that isn't going the way it liked.
A do wonder if the problem of censorship is being dwarfed by the fact that people read less? I have heard that Ray Bradbury's concern was not so much state censorship as people moving from books to TV. Now we have so many more media options does this make us even less likely to read?
Good morning Peanuts! Today is the 3rd, and if you're like me you usually get your monthly financial statement by now. So check yours and verify things are going much better in this fantastic Biden economy than they ever did under Trump. And if that's not the case, your advisor must be a Republican who's sabotaging your investments to make Biden look bad. Which is probably illegal.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
There are pro-Trump children's books advertised on TV. Probably no school or public library is buying them, and probably none are putting donated copies on the shelves. David Duke wrote as well. Try finding copies of his works at the local High School.
Apparently banning books - not buying and placing them in public libraries - is bad only if those books represent views Progressives like.
Nailed it.
"Resistance" vs "sedition".
Righteous revolutionaries have always hyped the fears of counter-revolution.
Funny, in all those words there is nothing at all about what books I can or cannot read.
Just a bunch of drivel about schools and politics, which just proves there should not be any government involvement in education.
Calling b.s. on your having read the article.
Nobody cares.
"books that a person or group has tried to remove from or restrict access to in schools or libraries"
No, removing a book from schools/school libraries is not a ban.
Even getting it removed from public libraries, which have adult patrons, is not quite a ban, though it comes closer.
A ban would be prohibiting local book stores from selling it.
You are misquoting the article’s quote of the ALA’s definition of a “challenged book”. Did any of the conservatives whining about the article actually read it.
"Who Controls What Books You Can Read?"
Nobody.
State and local authorities control what books I can access for free from public and school libraries. All those books are available to read. If they were banned, everyone who participated in making this list would be in jail.
Now do, "Who Controls What Content Gets Published On The Internet."
You suggest a second type of ban: when those who buy or read proscribed material suffer official sanctions.
That can provide more clever censorship. "See, all those seditious texts are right there on the shelf. But if you check them out, we may have to call you in for questioning."
We already have that. Download a copy of The Turner Diaries and then see how many watchlists you end up on.
A lie by j6 committee witness and hearsay teller Hutchinson may have led to an illegal raid on attor ey Jeff Davis based on her confusion of Jeff Davis vs Justin Davis. She apparently saw J Davis on access lists and incorrectly pointed the finger at Jeff Davis.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2022/07/02/another-cassidy-blasey-ford-claim-appears-headed-to-the-january-6-committee-dumpster-n1609864
Jeff, before you prove yourself an idiot again, read through the story before commenting.
Jeff and Justin Clark* not Davis.
Didn't Jeff Davis get a pardon from President Johnson? Why arrest him again?
I thought we were about to link Trump to the Confederacy.
Cassidy Blasey Ford tote board.
• Hutchinson sicced the feds on the wrong guy. Jeff Davis will probably want some answers.
• "Trump lunged over the seat of the presidential SUV and tried to grab the wheel to steer the vehicle to the Capitol Building. In so doing, he assaulted two Secret Service agents (who said it didn’t happen)." Hutchinson also got the vehicle wrong, according to the unassaulted Secret Service agents, who volunteered to testify as much to the committee.
• She testified (under oath, Jeffy) and verified she’d written notes about a passage for a presidential speech, but a White House lawyer said he was the person who wrote it and testified as much to the committee.
• She claimed people were parading with AR-15s at the president’s speech and near the Capitol surroundings. And not only that, she claimed (sort of) that the president knew about it and was fine with it because he knew they wouldn’t be shooting at him. What was the the only reason she knew there were armed people? Because the Secret Service didn’t want to take down magnetometers to check for them. As former White House Secret Service agent-turned-talk host Dan Bongino told his audience, every president wants to remove magnetometers, because they slow the crowd getting into position for photo ops. If you doubt it, read First Family Detail by Ron Kessler for verification. But only if you can stand reading about Joe Biden swimming nude in front of female agents.
*from the article
You forgot one;
Cassidy Hutchinson had the courage to give testimony under oath before the select committee. Those criticizing her have been unwilling to do the same. Ms. Blasey Ford was questioned by a former prosecutor, but when the time came for that same prosecutor to question Brett Kavanaugh the Republicans pulled her off. So, women have the courage, and the men not so much.
Telling fibs always takes a certain type of courage, right?
She had some balls, that's for sure.
But she was rewarded with a wonderful hug by Liz Cheney.
"Cassidy Hutchinson had the courage to give testimony under oath before the select committee."
You do type the most amazing bullshit.
When a "witness" goes before an extremely sympathetic kangaroo court and is rewarded with hugs and plaudits from the judges for obviously lying her ass off, courage is probably the last thing involved.
In fact quite the opposite. It was cowardly and sinister.
Well, but those contradicting her testimony not only have been willing to testify under oath, several of them have. Their testimony simply didn't fit the narrative.
Women use lies and manipulation to get what they want and to take revenge, men not so much.
Does that include womyn with penises?
Has anyone confirmed Liz Chaney has a vagina?
There are too few of them, and too many different pathologies, to make statistically meaningful generalizations.
So telling a group what they want to hear regardless of the truth is courageous? Kill yourself
Cancer like mod don't have the integrity to be allowed a choice in the matter anymore
It takes a brave woman to lie for the establishment oligarchy.
Other Moderation4ever portraits in courage:
• A witness for the prosecution at Stalin's Doctors Trial.
• The guy who applauded all the speeches at the 1934 Congress in Nuremberg.
• Demonstrating with the Sindicato Vertical in Francoist Spain
• The guy who ratified the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election
Does the buyer of the book get to choose the book?
What do I win?
As long as you have government libraries, you have government control of the books in them.
Why is Reason echoing talking-points by government groups like the ALA instead of arguing for ending government libraries?
Probably because Reason stopped believing in liberty a long time ago.
Because Reason authors have apparently forgotten that bit of history where Ben Franklin created lending libraries in 1731, without government support. Or perhaps it is just an inconvenient truth.
Government libraries are just like government sports stadiums: taxing people to pay for entertainment. It’s not legitimate because it’s not necessary.
People who like the library can hold a fundraiser and leave the government out of it.
Reason, of course, only cares about culture war talking points.
Government libraries have one important edge over private libraries -- copyright. 30-40 years ago, same time as Jack Valenti was head of the MPAA, the head of a different copyright advocacy agency gave a widely-publicized speech shitting on libraries for violating intellectual property by loaning out copies of books without getting explicit permission from copyright holders.
Imagine if that had gotten any serious traction instead of the derision it deserved. The government could carve out a nice exception for itself and private schools, then claim that showed how public libraries were a natural government function. Thundering at corporate libraries would have been right up that not-Jack Valenti's alley. Wish I could remember her name.
It's more subtle than that: Reason authors do believe in "liberty", but it is the communist kind of liberty of maximum individual choice and ability to act, with little concern for the consequences and a good deal of the "concentrated benefits diffuse costs" error.
So, to Reason, a change in policy that increases your ability to do stuff is "good" even if it imposes more costs or risks on other people as long as those costs/risks are small enough not to be easily noticeable.
Reason will soon talk about "doing the work"
Because it's far too simplistic to declare "there should be no government libraries" and stomp off to our self-imposed "We're the smartest in the room" corner, ignoring the reality that is. We Libertarians do that far too often ("We don't want to legalize gay marriage because there shouldn't be any government marriage at all!") and fail to realize that being the purest of the pure of Libertarians may get you brownie points at your next meeting, but won't do anything to convince anyone else that we're deserving of being elected to anything.
Gun control shouldn't be enacted because it doesn't work.
Vaccine mandates, lockdowns and perma-masking shouldn't be implemented, because the science isn't clear on it!
TeenReason Take:
"Not providing a book for free using government funds is 'banning'".
Now that's some cutting edge neo-libertarianisming
Strange that the ALA hasn't reserved any of its crocodile tears for actual bannings where they refuse to even publish the tomes, as happened to some Dr. Seuss books.
And what's the ALA's opinion on woke librarians holding book burnings? Tintin and Asterix books are pretty horrific stuff.
Man, you can't get more progressive than that, can you?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/nyc-election-sites-had-no-republican-ballots-primary-election
Last week's primary voting in New York City was a complete debacle - as the city's Board of Elections botched everything from polling locations opening late because of 'lost keys,' to missing equipment, to unannounced relocations of voting sites, to a lack of Republican ballots across at least three Big Apple election sites.
I’m starting to sense a pattern.
Method #1 for November's electoral fortification.
They'll be pulling out all the stops.
"Let's do all voting online!"
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/are-you-willing-to-suffer-through-a-recession-for-the-good-of-the-liberal-world-order/
How much are you willing to sacrifice for “the future of the liberal world order”? As you will see below, the Biden administration is trying to convince us that supporting the “liberal world order” is far more important than any short-term economic pain that we are experiencing right now. So are you willing to pay ridiculously high gas prices for the foreseeable future and suffer through a very serious economic downturn in order to put pressure on Vladimir Putin and Russia? Some Americans would be willing to do that, but most would not.
Of course the liberal world order will be as liberal as all those communist countries with "Democratic" in their name were democratic.
I suppose neo-fascist world order didn't test as positive.
And neo-feudal invokes thoughts of white males.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/30/uk-knew-terrorists-would-gain-from-toppling-gaddafi/
Britain’s military knew that fighters from an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist organization were benefiting from the overthrow of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, but continued to support NATO airstrikes in Libya for another two months.
https://twitter.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1543566055456514048?t=-Ee9wDFkfm9pCzPd0ldsvg&s=19
Neither clinical trials nor real-world data showed that “vaccinated people don’t carry the virus.”
Vaccine manufacturers convinced the FDA to give them EUA based on trials that were designed specifically to avoid testing whether vaccines prevent people from carrying SARS-CoV2.
But that didn’t stop people like the CDC director, Dr Fauci, and Joe Biden, from saying that “vaccinated people don’t carry the virus.”
This was a completely unscientific fabrication to try and get as many people as possible to take the jabs, and to rationalize immoral mandates.
When their fabrication was proven false, they told another lie: “The reason vaccinated people DO carry the virus NOW is because the virus mutated.”
If that were true, the vaccine manufacturers would have developed a vaccine responsive to the newer strains by now. They have not.
Bonus lie: “the virus mutated because of the unvaccinated.”
Anyone who’s learned to properly use fungicides, pesticides, or antibiotics, knows strains resistant to (<100% efficacious) treatment evolve in treated populations because that’s where selective pressure is greatest.
When their web of lies got too thick and tangled, there was really only one place left for them to go. They took a page straight from Orwell’s novel and modified our language: [link]
In fact, the virus mutated due to vaccinations and masking in predictable ways: it mutated to evade the vaccine, and it mutated to become more easily transmissible.
By the way, I was just reading an article in some mainstream publication which breezily suggested that and I was frankly blown away. That was the talk back in 2021 that would get you banned from Youtube.
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1543262704240058371?t=xUKFOikgp_qPW6Ldk9tqoQ&s=19
How ESG started. How ESG's going.
[Pic]
Everything that's being done in Canada, Netherlands, Sri Lanka, Australia and the even places like Yemen are dry runs for what they're planning for the US.
Americans need to be paying a lot more attention to what's going on in those places than you usually do.
And for goodness sake stop saying "the constitution will protect us". It won't.
As soon as they can get away with it they will treat the constitution like used toilet paper. Canada is a good example of what's coming as it has strong constitutional protections which are simply being ignored right now.
Correct
The only thing the constitution does is define the terms of a contract and defines moral authority for overthrowing the government. It doesn’t do anything if the people are too cowardly to enforce what is owed them by contractual obligation.
Also correct
Yep.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/for-a-glimpse-of-the-future-look
Think back over the last, say, 20 years. Did you protest against the Iraq war? How about protesting at Occupy Wall Street? Were you a member of the Tea Party? A member of #TheResistance? Did you disagree with the government’s covid response? It’s nearly certain that everybody with a political pulse has crossed the government at one time or another. How comfortable are you with the idea that the person you’re protesting against can shut off your bank account?
Because now, it seems, those perfectly legal actions at least have the potential to come with harsh monetary consequences, as well as the ensuing chaos caused by financial ruin. And this is happening all without a single shred of oversight or due process. It’s just some asshole in an expensive suit giving a list of ‘subversives’ to another asshole in an expensive suit. The no-fly list but with the very real potential to ruin your life.
So even as the world’s eyes move onto the newest crisis, we must closely watch the actions of the ‘leaders’, for the tools used against ‘those people’ today are likely to be the tools used against us tomorrow.
And that, of course, is the crisis.
https://twitter.com/minds/status/1543438742396059650?t=gtGt8jRp9LqukxRsilohAQ&s=19
Twitter is brazenly playing chicken with Jordan Peterson & The Babylon Bee in the midst of closing a deal with @elonmusk.
Their game is about coercing users into admitting guilt in the same way authorities manipulate innocent people into confessing to crimes they didn't commit.
https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1543615131254489089?t=yRQJjy8G3lwHPfwYi7p_HA&s=19
i assumed “gas stations and grocery stores are simply charging more money because they’re greedy” was just a dumb thing a few dumb democrats stumbled on. surely this wouldn’t be their actual response to government-induced inflation.
no. this is the official party position.
The irony is that Chen's Tweet is probably meant as sarcasm.
The CCP understands markets better than Biden and his team, given that China has been actively trying to transition to a more market-oriented economy.
You can't control the drilling, shipping, storing, refining, buying, selling, trading and taxing of oil and then claim that it's the gas stations fault.
Kulaks and wreckers. It's always kulaks and wreckers.
Democracy! dies if we have too much truth and freedom.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. -- Edward Bernays
Removing books from public libraries or school curricula is not “censorship”, it is a choice of how tax dollars are spent. The best thing to do at this point would be to cancel public and school libraries altogether; they serve no purpose.
Margaret Atwood is a pompous propagandist for a shallow, ignorant progressive world view with a typical Canadian smug superiority. She mainly knows how to appeal to a certain kind of intellectual and the educated suburban housewife.
I found little of value in her books, other than perhaps that The Handmaid’s Tale was so laughably bad that it was part of my journey away from progressivism.
https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-100-year-old-wwii-vet-cries-says-america-today-not-what-they-died-for
"Nobody will have the opportunity I had. It's just not the same. That's not what our boys, that's not what they died for."
I'd like to see a list of the books "banned" by school and public librarians. Relatively popular books that are removed over progressive political or cultural objections or for "safety".
That's an easy question - Amazon.
https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1543627144298991617?t=fYtccH0TRnfoTzb3Xxi6ag&s=19
This is women’s healthcare.
Raise your daughters to be strong with a mindset to take care of their bodies.
Not a mindset of self destruction.
[Video]
Raise your children to be tough, resilient, and independent. And don't be afraid to tell them "no".
Mind your own fucking business.
*barf*
Yeah, well maybe she meant "take care of their bodies" in a different way.
QAnon Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene ‘openly cheated on husband of 25 years with polyamorous tantric sex guru & gym manager’
https://www.the-sun.com/news/2317992/marjorie-taylor-greene-cheated-husband-polyamorous-sex-gym/
Why is this not a list of every book ever printed - because libraries have failed to stock a copy of every book they're basically banning them, right?
Same thing, right?
Just another 'story' that when Reason tweets it out will get ratioed again.
books that smack of the occult—the Harry Potter series and Bridge to Terabithia
Uh, not quite. Bridge was a target for banning because the Burkes were atheist, and were written to be (presumably) communist.
And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street
Dr. Seuss
Nick Gillespie
Did ENB help with the big words?
Pop Quiz: in Fahrenheit 451, what, specifically, does The Hound inject into criminals?
procaine.
At grade school the library carried "Seduction of the Innocent." To my horror it portrayed the ads for the much-coveted bicycle-handlebar-mounted crank-driven rapid-fire BB-shooting machine guns like they were a bad thing. Yet nobody bans THAT book on Second Amendment grounds. Her Majesty's Customs actually banned the importation of "horror comics" in 1968.
So if I were to utilize an online curator to help me identify books that I deem appropriate for my young bookworms to read and that curator that I chose freely said one of these books is inappropriate, would they be the target of all this ire on censorship?
I can’t tell what is ACTUAL book banning vs curating. Those aren’t the same things. And all the ALA did is provide their own curated list of contested and controversial books.
I have a right to select what my kids read based on whatever criteria I deem fit. And I have a right to seek curators that share my values to help me in that endeavor.
Curating is what free speech "maximalist" Elon Musk does with your twitter account.
Banning is what your school board does when is says "no" to drag queen story hour.
"With inflation at 7.5%, you lose half your money in 9 years. The only way to outperform that consistently, that I have found, is crypto. Just this year I’ve already lost half my money."
The ALA list is misleading. It lists books that someone else wants removed, but which the librarians object to. This means that if the librarians themselves want to remove a book, or just never order one, and do so on their own initiative, the book never gets listed. That's why it seems like it's usually right-wingers who challenge the books; if librarians are leftist and remove books, or don't order them in the first place, that doesn't show up in the list as "challenged by left-wingers".
11-D Chess, Russia has taken control of Lysychansk, but Ukraine vows to retake it. This proves Ukraine is winning.
This is the same artillery, aircraft and manpower that up to 3.5 minutes ago was "stalled out on the road to Kyiffffffuh!"
Hey, at least totally-not-nazi Ukraine paramilitaries managed to bomb some random houses in Russia.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/kremlin-says-4-dead-after-deliberate-ukrainian-missile-attack-russian-border-city
mobile-logohamburger-menu
print-icon
print-icon
Kremlin Says 4 Dead After "Deliberate" Ukrainian Missile Attack On Russian Border City
Tyler Durden's Photo
BY TYLER DURDEN
SUNDAY, JUL 03, 2022 - 01:22 PM
Russian authorities are saying that a series of strikes rocked one of its cities near the border with Ukraine. Russia is calling it a "deliberate" Ukrainian attack on its territory in the early hours of Sunday morning, which reportedly killed at least four people in the city of Belgorod.
"The regional governor said the blasts hit dozens of residential buildings and air defenses had been activated," BBC reports. "The Kremlin said that Sunday's attack had been a deliberate attempt by Ukrainian forces to target civilians."
Map source: CNN
However, as BBC also notes, "Ukraine dismissed the claim, saying the Russians had lied about similar incidents in the past."
Belgorod is near Ukraine's large northern city of Kharkiv. Lying just 25 miles north across the Ukrainian border, the major city in Russia's south has 370,000 residents.
It's not the first time potentially 'errant' missiles have struck Russian territory - or also it's not the first time Russia has accused Ukraine of a deliberate cross-border attack, but the damage and death toll is the most significant and extensive thus far, with a major emergency response at the scenes of impact ongoing.
An Al Jazeera war reporter inside Ukraine said of the alleged incident: "We are trying to piece together exactly what happened through social media reports. Al Jazeera cannot confirm anything that either side is saying at this point."
Correspondent Alan Fisher added: "What appears is that somewhere around 25 missiles were fired towards the airport which is a Russian base in Belgorod. It appears that some of those missiles may have hit a residential area. That’s certainly what the media is saying …"
If this figure of a volley of more than two dozen rockets proves accurate, it would indeed strongly suggest the Russian city was deliberately targeted, and wasn't merely an incident with a few errant missiles.
Meanwhile, some observers are speculating that Ukraine could possibly have used recently provided US long-range rockets to hit deep within Russia's borders, which if true would signal massive escalation in the war.
Starting a week ago, Ukraine began touting that its US-suppled M142 HIMARS, a high mobility artillery rocket system with a range of 40-50 miles (the range of the version of the system Washington transferred last month), is having success against Russian forces on the battlefield.
"Reports today that Ukraine is using US missile systems to strike *inside* Russia (Belgorod) -- which would be exactly the thing that the Biden Administration claimed it received "assurances" that Ukraine would not do if it received the missile systems. Gee, who could've predicted"
Shoot, wasn't trying to post all of that, just the last 3 paragraphs
The only books really being banned are those not being sold by Amazon and/or other major bookstores
Public or school libraries are essentially socialized book libraries. If the government doesn't provide a copy for you to read, it's not banned. It's just not subsidized
https://twitter.com/juliacarriew/status/1543580695792173056?t=Yy51rDzMEgJp5JJKQrukXg&s=19
Hard to express how deeply disturbing it is to see the UK media status quo of transphobia being an acceptable bigotry creep into the American press.
I think that we’re entering a period when the most meaningful political distinction will be fascist and anti-fascist. It’s really important to understand that transphobia is one of the most potent entry points to fascism today - and act accordingly.
I don’t have a lot of wins to point to when it comes to fighting this at a publication , but I will say that I think it’s imperative to fight it.
If you want to learn about the nexus of transphobia to fascism, this is a good place to start.
[Link]
Well, luckily, totalitarian theocracies like Iran are embracing transsexuality.
They are so accepting of transsexuality that they even force homosexuals to undergo gender reassignment surgery.
Julia Wong must be so happy!
schools & public libraries are under no obligation to provide any specific books. in fact these facilities have limited capacity so they must choose which books to buy. making those decisions about which books to provide is not banning. anyone who wants any of these "banned" books can order them on amazon or go to their local brick & mortar book store. if the parents of children want their children to read books "banned" by their school then they can buy the books for their children. bottom line, no one is preventing people from reading the books they want.
"no one is preventing people from reading the books they want."
Except the first people readers ask for them: public librarians
ok that sentence contains english words but it makes no sense.
I don’t know if this has already been noted but Margaret Atwood’s claim that The Handmaid’s Tale was banned in Franco’s Spain and Salazar’s Portugal is impossible. The book was published in 1985. Salazar died in 1968, Franco in 1975. Both countries were fully functioning western style democracies by 1985.
Fact-checking is not that difficult if you choose to do it!
Wow, she actually said that; the woman is even more delusional than I thought:
https://www.lbbonline.com/news/margaret-atwood-and-penguin-random-house-fight-censorship-with-unburnable-edition-of-the-handmaids-tale
I even have created $30,030 merely in five weeks foursquare running part-time from my apartment. directly while I’ve misplaced my final business, I became exhausted and fortuitously I placed this pinnacle on line task & with this i'm in (eby-06) a operate to reap tons immediately through my home.
Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & will profit bigger usd on-line going this article.
.
>>>> http://getjobs49.tk