Comments on: “Censorship” and False Courage

By: NadineG

NadineG — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:55:04 +0000

I read the original article about the Kuwati school, yes, the AL is correct that librarians in the USA have little to brag about regarding making banned books available, however, the Banned Books Week focuses attention upon the concept of censorship in its various forms (self censorship, censorship by not writing, censorship by not buying, censorship by keeping on a high shelf etc) as well as censorship by imprisoning the writer, publisher, artist, censorship by the writer/thinker who chooses to avoid problems by not submitting their creation to public view. I own a t-shirt I wear regularly in my library which states “I read banned books” those books, I inform my clients include “The Bible”, “The Koran”, books which mention “unacceptable behaviour”- for someone. Even now, “Animal Farm” imagine in Kuwait, trying to explain that the pigs on the farm decide that 2 legs are good and 4 legs are bad! Sorry, I can’t stop smiling, boy I would love to have that argument, it would be worth being deported, and wouldn’t George Orwell love the irony of a society embodying some of his “1984″ strategies banning Animal Farm!
However, the AL was also writing about Baned Book Week, which I must admit I haven’t heard of, but must involve the promotion of books on or about Bands, school bands, brass bands, marching bands, rock bands, I finish this comment with the tune “Trouble in River City” in my mind.

By: Libraryman

Libraryman — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:47:31 +0000

The freedombuts DON’T run America? Whew, ok. I was worried there for a second.

By: You Can't Read That! | Paul's Thing

You Can't Read That! | Paul's Thing — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:45:59 +0000

[...] Another annoyed librarian slams Banned Books Week [...]

By: I Like Books

I Like Books — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 21:07:19 +0000

Well, we sure got sidetracked by that Wall Street thing, didn’t we? A company that owns a newspaper can decide not to cover the protest (if, in fact, that’s what they’re doing) because it’s their newspaper, so it’s reasonable for them to give direction to it. But in Kuwait, Iran, China, many parts of the world, a newspaper might decide not to cover an event because they know the outfit would be shut down and the reporters and editors responsible arrested. Some countries make no pretenses about political prisoners, like China’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning Liu Xiaobo, who was jailed for co-authoring a petition for political reform. And in Iran they not only arrest the activists, but the lawyers that represent them!

People here in the US don’t know what censorship is. The ALA doesn’t know what censorship is. To our shame we have people that do their best at censorship within the limits of the law, but thankfully they don’t have much to work with.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:26:43 +0000

Wow, do we seriously object to “solidarity with librarians in intellectually unfree countries”? Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction because the AL said it?

1. The mainstream media’s coverage (or apparently lack thereof, though I’ve heard loads about it) of Occupy Wall Street is not censorship. Individual media outlets are not required to cover *all* the stories, or cover them in the way you might like. Come on now.

2. It is important to talk about the fact that there are people – even here in the U.S. – who would prefer that certain books not be available (usually to teenagers). Display those challenged books! Promote them! I love that.
But stuff like that publicity stunt where the library director got “arrested” by the police? That kind of posturing is ridiculous, and it makes light of of the *real* risks that librarians in other parts of the world face. I don’t dislike BBW as much as AL does, but she’s right about this.

By: Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries

Dan Kleinman of SafeLibraries — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 02:01:11 +0000

I’ve been noticing people are more and more saying what I’m saying about Banned Books Week. I know, however, the Annoyed Librarian has been speaking about it long before I was even on the scene. Thank you, AL, for your leadership on this issue.

But do you all notice how the ALA just plows ahead, even after decades of criticism, and even ramps up the propaganda to higher and higher levels? I plan to write soon on the ALA’s tacitly admitted plagiarism and ALA Code of Ethics violation to promote BBW. Was the OIF thinking plagiarism was acceptable because there is never any consequences for “the ALA and its minions … going on about nonexistent censorship in America”?

By: teetop

teetop — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:53:35 +0000

Again? The Annoyed Library makes the Ramones look eclectic.

By: librarian a

librarian a — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:48:19 +0000

I saw articles on Yahoo news and Time as early as last weekend. I don’t know if that fits your definition of “conventional” but it sure fits mine.

It’s not necessarily censorship if a story doesn’t hit the mainstream media. It’s usually media companies deciding a story isn’t interesting or sticky enough to devote air time to it.

By: Baxter

Baxter — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:42:58 +0000

The media also didn’t cover my birthday party. That’s censorship.

By: VaLibrarian

VaLibrarian — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:27:55 +0000

Yes, the Occupy Wall Street protests are being covered by the mainstream media, but the reporting tends to portray Occupy Wall Street as some sort of circus act, focusing on the odd and unusual nature of the protesters while trying to avoid or dismiss a real discussion of the issues that OWS is bringing to the table. When they do deal with the issues, the stock line is “they are unfocused and don’t seem to have a message.” Sometimes an article will give a cursory nod to the issues and stick it deep in the story – not in the first several paragraphs. It’s bad journalism – if this many people are making this much noise, and it’s spreading across the country, the real story is “what is motivating these people to do this,” not, “gee, aren’t they a weird bunch of people who seem unfocused.”