tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post2267418777865325128..comments2024-03-28T04:49:07.788-04:00Comments on SafeLibraries®: The Parent Trap: ALA Uses Banned Books Week to Ridicule Patrons Complying with ALA Materials Reconsideration PoliciesSafeLibraries®http://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-68097707244926179812011-05-18T18:42:41.072-04:002011-05-18T18:42:41.072-04:00Anonymous librarian, thank you for commenting here...Anonymous librarian, thank you for commenting here. Please consider subscribing to this blog as you can surely see it is different.<br /><br />How I define banning is irrelevant.<br /><br />The last book banned in the USA was <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_hill" rel="nofollow">Fanny Hill</a></i>, and see Wikipedia were it says, "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books#F" rel="nofollow">Banned in the U.S.A. in 1821 for obscenity, then again in 1963. This was the last book ever banned in the U.S.A.[9]</a>."<br /><br />"[9] Grannis, Chandler B.; Haight, Anne (Lyon) (1978). <i>Banned [B]ooks, 387 B. C. to 1978 A. D.</i> New York: R. R. Bowker. p. 80. ISBN 0-8352-1078-2."<br /><br />2011 - 1963 = 48. So the last book banned in the USA was banned about half a century ago, decades before "Banned Books Week" was created.<br /><br />Thank you so much for writing here. Please visit and perhaps comment again. Feel like <a href="http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/p/guest-posts.html" rel="nofollow">guest blogging on SafeLibraries</a>?SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-88404683084700554142011-05-18T16:32:59.042-04:002011-05-18T16:32:59.042-04:00As a librarian, I've always been slightly unco...As a librarian, I've always been slightly uncomfortable with banned books week. Now I know why. But I do have a question. You didn't cite any sources to show that no books have been banned since 1963. Which begs the question--how do you define banning? So tell us what your definition is and the story of the last banning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-5931919645545162722010-10-26T09:49:25.077-04:002010-10-26T09:49:25.077-04:00I am happy to see some library school teachers/stu...I am happy to see some library school teachers/students are not fooled by the ALA propaganda:<br /><br />"<a href="http://lis661.blogspot.com/2010/10/censor-censor.html" rel="nofollow">[T]he act of challenging is extremely Democratic itself. How can we possibly state that libraries and what they stand for is the very foundation of our Democracy at the same time we curse those who challenge us</a>?"SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-88227572911503485182010-10-12T16:01:22.343-04:002010-10-12T16:01:22.343-04:00Anonymous, you are using ridicule, obviously. But...Anonymous, you are using ridicule, obviously. But you have to understand it is not a joke to the hundreds of people the ALA ridicules/maligns. It is not a joke when people are afraid to legally protect children for fear of the expected ALA and ALA acolyte ridicule.<br /><br />That's where I step in. I try to educate people about the inevitable ALA propaganda wave so they can be prepared for the ridicule ahead of time and continue to advocate on behalf of their own local community.<br /><br />It is the ALA itself that exposes it will ridicule everyone, as this blog post illustrates. It's not just me saying it's so. It is what it is, and the ALA's latest use of BBW makes it easier for me to illustrate one more way the ALA attempts to control local communities.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-69292030968777303502010-10-12T15:37:43.668-04:002010-10-12T15:37:43.668-04:00The Obana joker pic is what convinced me
Obviousl...The Obana joker pic is what convinced me<br /><br />Obviously nobody should be able to ridicule anybody<br /><br />it is TOO POWERFUL A WEAPONAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-54693374750925328932010-10-09T23:42:39.324-04:002010-10-09T23:42:39.324-04:00Thank you, Mark, for perfectly illustrating Alinsk...Thank you, Mark, for perfectly illustrating Alinsky Rule #5 in action which I showed in this very blog post is what the ALA does. Attack the person and ignore the issue. Onward <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-peterson/10/35/929" rel="nofollow">Marxist soldier</a>!SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-60148925628932340112010-10-08T23:01:18.661-04:002010-10-08T23:01:18.661-04:00Dan, another brilliantly crafted exposé of America...Dan, another brilliantly crafted exposé of America’s number one purveyor of pornography! How dare they publicize BBW when a book hasn’t been banned in 47 years (“…when the last book ban occurred in 1963?”)? Gail Sweet, when she ordered Revolutionary Voices be “removed from circulation,” didn’t “ban” it, she simply “removed it from circulation.” Banned, removed, potato, potTAHto. The end result is the same - my children have access only to material you deem appropriate and aligns with your particular worldview. While I appreciate your concern, perhaps each of us can go to the library with our children and help them select material that we feel is appropriate for our respective households? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Onward Christian soldier!<br /><br />MarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-24268882274612263342010-10-05T14:51:33.181-04:002010-10-05T14:51:33.181-04:00Anonymous, good question.
"When one asks for...Anonymous, good question.<br /><br />"When one asks for material to be removed from a library, aren't they asking that no other library patron read the specified book?"<br /><br />You are assuming the person is guilty before being proven innocent. Further, why have a materials reconsideration policy in the first place if every claim filed thereunder automatically indicates guilt. <br /><br />It would be fair to have a policy that says no book will ever be removed for any reason whatsoever. Not a great policy, but it would be fair. That way people who file claims under materials reconsideration policies would <i>not</i> become guilty by default. It's literally a trap that snaps shut every time, and the ALA video I discussed proves it in the ALA's own words.<br /><br />If a library has such a materials reconsideration policy, however, would it not be fair to allow the policy to work its magic <i>before</i> finding people guilty?<br /><br />Now you, Anonymous, finding people instantly guilty is one thing. It is totally different when the means for ridiculing people is a system set up by the lead organization with national influence that makes hay out of ridiculing people who try to comply with the constraints that that organization set up in the first place. It even has a "Banned Books Week" to drive home the ridicule in an effort to intimidate people into not bringing challenges in the first place.<br /><br />You explain to me, Anonymous, what is fair or honest about that?SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-55183105823090654752010-10-05T13:58:21.787-04:002010-10-05T13:58:21.787-04:00When one asks for material to be removed from a li...When one asks for material to be removed from a library, aren't they asking that no other library patron read the specified book?<br /><br />How can one say that by exposing books that are frequently challenged that the ALA is "deciding what others could read"?<br /><br />It seems as if you have gotten the complainers and the ALA mixed up. I look forward to your edit correcting the issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-78415433121316868172010-10-05T01:18:07.187-04:002010-10-05T01:18:07.187-04:00The previous post was removed as it was ad hominem...The previous post was removed as it was <i>ad hominem</i> argument, thereby failing to address the issues raised in any way.SafeLibraries®https://www.blogger.com/profile/06756725065032196698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5060593324936581367.post-17702755535656226062010-10-05T00:31:59.422-04:002010-10-05T00:31:59.422-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.DB Timmsnoreply@blogger.com