What is Digg?16 Comments
- eir574, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8So a public library can only contain books that are appropriate for children of all ages? My public library has a children's section that has only books that are appropriate for children. If I remember correctly, children were not allowed to check out books from the adult section on their own without permission from a parent.
Which person would you like to appoint to decide for the rest of us what books libraries are allowed to have on their shelves? Do you really want the government deciding what's appropriate for you to read or telling you that you're incapable of monitoring what your children read? What happens when the person appointed to be your nanny decides to expand his/her power and starts censoring books that you actually wanted to read? - eir574, on 09/09/2008, -0/+6"The public schools exist to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, period."
How do you reconcile that with your statement awhile back that you think prayer in school is acceptable and perhaps even desirable? You can't have it both ways. - Squidwalk, on 09/09/2008, -0/+6Eir574 brings up a good point. Another example of having it both ways is popular puritanical sentiment that it's the parent's job to keep their kids from being sexually active, or otherwise involved in activities said parents find objectionable. It's a big bad world full of libraries and Barnes & Nobles out there. Don't you think the responsibility falls on the parents to keep their kids from reading trashy literature, and not the state?
- eir574, on 09/09/2008, -0/+6@Squidwalk,
I love the people who keep saying that liberals want a nanny state, and then they turn around and tell you what things the government should outlaw for your own spiritual protection. Pornography, as you alluded to, is a big one. It's easy to call for pornography to be outlawed. It's harder to think about who gets to decide what's appropriate for us to view, let alone the more general question of whether it makes sense to give up the power to make those decisions for ourselves in favor of giving the state more power. I've seen people say that they don't care who gets to decide what should be censored so long as that person shares their own moral values. Then, they join a different thread on digg and call for smaller government. After that, they say that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution and hence has no legal bearing on the interpretation of the first amendment, but then they quote the founding fathers on other issues and tell us that in those cases, we must abide by what they had to say even if they decided not to say it in the constitution itself. How is any of those pairs of positions consistent? Yet, people hold them simultaneously. - eir574, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6You spoke about young adults/children. The article did not.
- eir574, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6To clarify, you started off by saying that you're sick and tired of the left complaining about censorship, and then the rest of your post defended censorship on the basis of keeping certain books away from children. It's not necessary to remove those books from the library entirely in order to do that, so was your post was one giant non-sequitur? What does your first sentence mean if it bears no relation to the rest of your post?
- Troika37, on 09/07/2008, -0/+5From the article: "Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed."
What's all the panic about? NOTHING was banned. Not a single book. - eir574, on 09/09/2008, -0/+4The part where you assumed that we're necessarily talking about books in the children's section. Do you have any sources that say that's what Palin wanted to censor, or are you just assuming that there's absolutely no way she would attempt to tell you what's appropriate for you to read?
- Squidwalk, on 09/08/2008, -1/+5Nannybell,
You wrote, "I realize you liberals see nothing wrong with kids reading this trash, because you no longer recognize immorality when you see it, nor do you any longer understand the boundaries between adults and children. It is going to be up to those of us who still recognize these things to do something about these issues."
So what is it up to you to do? Establish policy that usurps that which is in place? You phrase things with terms such as "no longer" which implies that we once supported literature that meets your approval. Is there a recent change in the national selection criteria that makes you so upset about the content in libraries?
Even if there is, why do you mention it here? This article is more about the evidence of Palin's abuse of office that has been recently unearthed. - inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4Buried as lies.
- izackcarson, on 09/09/2008, -0/+3"The home and the church -- not the public schools -- are where kids are to learn *messages* concerning life. "
Have you read the bible? My son is not allowed to read such a murderous, horrible book until he gets much older.
I find the logic of theists interesting - Toni Morrison is out because she writes thoughtfully about the abuse of sexual power, but the bible wherein Lot offers up his daughter for gang rape, Noah's daughters rape him, murder is exalted, etc. is required reading. My evangelical sister bans Harry Potter for magic and violence but loves Narnia. I find Narnia to be much more violent, just as full of magic, and devoid of the lessons in critical thinking (how consequences arise) in Harry Potter. Just because A is christian based and B is not does not make A more appropriate than A. - digalibert, on 09/09/2008, -0/+0@Troika37
Haha, so you think just because she was unsuccessful at censorship, that makes it ok??
Its better that she tried and failed (thanks to community outrage) than to have succeeded, but freedom of speech is important in the U.S.A., and censorship is directly opposed to this great aspect of our nation. - Nannybell, on 09/08/2008, -4/+2Yes, I narrowed the focus to decadent books put in the hands of children by libraries.
Let me break it down for you:
First, I addressed the issue of whether or not censorship is ever called for or is it always wrong. That's the intent of my first sentence.
Next, I narrowed the focus: "What we are talking about are decadent novels routinely provided to kids ..."
Then I expanded upon that.
Which part confuses you? - Nannybell, on 09/08/2008, -4/+1I mention it here because the specific issue is whether or not she attempted to have books removed from the public library. The librarian raised the issue of censorship, using the usual liberal mantra that censorship is a blasphemous sacrilege. And generally these days, this issue comes up regarding objectionable novels placed in the youth section of libraries and assigned to public school kids to read.
My comment above explains the objectionable content. Do you not see anything objectionable about kids reading novels that contain explicit sex, including homosexuality and bisexuality, and also every imaginable profanity and vulgarity? I realize that liberals these days excuse such novels on the grounds that the message is important; thus they approve of kids reading Toni Morrisson novels and others. But I don't buy into that. The home and the church -- not the public schools -- are where kids are to learn *messages* concerning life. The public schools exist to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, period. They can keep their *message* to themselves and butt out of the private business of families and churches. - Nannybell, on 09/08/2008, -5/+2"So a public library can only contain books that are appropriate for children of all ages? "
No one said the library can only contain books appropriate for children. The books of which I speak are in the YOUNG ADULT section, which oddly enough is actually a KIDS' section -- generally ages 11 through high school. Figure out for yourself why an 11 yr old is a *young adult.* No one under 18 is an adult, so certainly they are not literally *young adults.* Just more attempts to blur the lines between adults and children.
Since no one was addressing censoring all the books in the library, the rest of your post falls on its face. - Nannybell, on 09/08/2008, -7/+3I'm sick and tired of this garbage about censoring books being some sort of sacrilege to the Left. Listen up, folks. What we are talking about are decadent novels routinely provided to kids at the behest of the perverted American Library Association and their little worker bees in America's libraries and literature classrooms of public schools. The novels in question contain every imaginable type of profanity and vulgarity and sexual explicitness of all kinds including homosexuality and bisexuality. There are hundreds of these novels assigned to public school kids to read as early as middle school years. The majority of the novels are being written specifically for kids, the so-called Young Adult market. Of course, they are not adults at all, but they are referred to that way in order to blur the boundaries.
I realize you liberals see nothing wrong with kids reading this trash, because you no longer recognize immorality when you see it, nor do you any longer understand the boundaries between adults and children. It is going to be up to those of us who still recognize these things to do something about these issues. For those of you who do object to schools assigning trash novels to kids, stop being intimidated by outcries of Censorship! from the Left. You better just believe we're seeking the censorship of decadent trash novels in the hands of kids in public school classrooms. And even more, we want an explanation of why the pervert American Library Association is doing this to the children of America. It's something deeper and darker than they just want to protect children's liberties. Since when have children had all the same liberties as adults? And furthermore, it is for parents to make those decisions, not the American Library Association.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is