Banning books

This goes for all media & any form of published censorship. Not Freedom of Speech but of Press (US language).

I'm a librarian & damn proud to give patrons the information they are looking for, even when I personally disagree with their choice.

I understand how much the language on TV & the ratings for movies is state mandated & controlled but published works are not; books & music & art are targeted by parents in the US as well as by librarians & teachers.

Thoughts? Musings? Solutions?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1414308

This article prompted this & my interest to see what you folks think

Well I agree with you ... but I am a running dog lackey of the Western imperialists. :D
Waiting for the Stalinists to give their opinion of press freedom. Should be amusing.

I dont quite understand what is your question, can you rephrase it?
Thanks!

It's more of people's thoughts. I'm a librarian & have major issues with restriction to media (as a whole but primarily published)

Just looking for others thoughts about what is a seemingly endless issue in the States

It really depends. Moralistically banning books with swear words or sex in them should be opposed by all socialists. Censoring reactionary propaganda in times of revolution is a more complex issue. Personally, I'm against tolerating outlets for people who explicitly advocate organising against the state after the seizure of power by the working class.

I think the biggest problem we have right now is not state control of the information but its commodification trought market relations.

Someone that i know is in University right now recently told me she had access to some verry importants statistics and paper about various topics, stuff that you will not be able to find without being a university studient or a high paying suscriber of these privatised publications.

Obviously state censorship is pretty bad but markets right now do way more harm to the workers.

You touch on some of what I personally have issue with. My profession is really all about unfettered access; my personal thoughts are more on publications from hate groups.
I can be ok with Lolita but propaganda published by a pedophilia group would be a no-no (personally). Or Mein Kampf should be available but pro Stormfront (or Neo-Nazi or any white supremacist group) shouldn't be.

It's almost a "what line is drawn & where?" Say there is seizure by the working class, where does the worker's state end up being allowed to say "that's against us, so no-go"? It's a conundrum

In the states music, TV, & movies are controlled by the state. Explicit lyrics or dialogue determine what sticker & what "rating" is given (ok for kids/not ok/your child will kill you in your sleep... Ok, the last one isn't a rating).

Books & archives are very different & it depends on the repository (housing institution. I get archivist-y without realizing I'm using terms people may not know). I have access, as a researcher, to tons of Union documents. TONS. As does everyone who wants the access to that library.

But for some reason, the folks in the states aren't keen on access to all books. They restrict & ban them. And librarians fight for them not to be.

I don't WANT to be "hey, your book espouses rape, racism, & fascism. It needs to be available" but we can make other hate available. It's my new personal conflict because I love what my profession stands for.

ratings are OK has long has it dosnt stop something to be published, i dont see anything especially statist in that.

Or has i said, it depend of who own the repository. Has i demonstrated earlier, some publications are effectively blocked from the public beccause of the cost associated with consulting the damn thing, let alone using it to do something productive.

Yeah banning book and other media is in general pretty dumb, but i can see why shit like pedophile porn would be restricted.

What do you mean by other hate?

Well, i can understand why a publication saying shit like: ''lets kill all the gays!'' should be banned, and its beccause it actively make the lives of gays at risk.

Pretty much Mein Kampf is available but should some book with White Supremist rhetoric also be? What about ephemera from the KKK? Should the stuff from the 40's be archived but the newsletters from now tossed?

It depend a lot on both the context and the intent of the publications.
Has i said earlier, if there are serious risks that some peoples might be harmed or killed has a result of these publication, it should be restricted.

There must never be any restrictions on literature. The elitists are essentially saying "we are the all knowing vanguard that will shield the ignorant workers from bourgeois propaganda". I am personally insulted by these notions.

Its not the only argument around for the restricting of certain publications.
Has i said earlier, depending of both the context and the intent , it might be necessary to restrict a publication in order to prevent peoples to be harmed or even killed.

See, that's where it's iffy. Not speaking out against whatever government is going on but advocation of racism & sexism. Do we censor them? Is that correct? So much of me says no because MY opinion is mine & others must reach their own but when it's racism or sexism, how is one to tolerate?

No. You defeat them with the demonstrable superiority of your ideas.

No one has even mentioned the vanguard. Perhaps you should stop idealising the working class and look at the effect media (propaganda, advertising, fiction etc.) can have on the population in general. Why should the working class respect the "right" of bourgeois ideologues to call for action against it?

Let the sexists and the racists spew their garbage.
It is like the bourgeois governments war on drugs, it doesn't make it go away, it just forces it under ground. Our goal ought to be educate people, not ban everything we disagree with.

Why should the bourgeoisie respect our rights to call for action against them?