All. the. books. Always. For everyone.
That's the purpose of a free exchange of ideas, and it's the ideal upon which libraries are based. Allowing any person to limit that exchange is ALWAYS dangerous and backwards.
Slate offered an article this week that claims Banned Books Weeks is a "crock" because there's no such thing as banned books anymore. (http://www.donotlink.com/framed?785241)
"It's not as bad as it used to be."
As if that's a good stopping point in any fight against bad things.
There ARE still banned books, and many attempts to ban them, and we must continue the fight to keep all books available to those who want to read them. That's especially true for libraries because they often serve those who could not otherwise access them.
It's a shame Slate writer Ruth Graham doesn't recognize or appreciate that.
It's a sign of being out of touch with the reality that not everyone has digital access and brick-and-mortar stores are disappearing. Many cannot afford to buy a book, and many cannot drive to the next town. And they certainly shouldn't have to just because self-righteous people want to impose their values and beliefs on everyone.
It's a sign of elitism. It's a sign of complacency despite glaring evidence that unless we maintain vigilance against censorship, it will gain ground--because there are still people who WANT books banned, even if they're the extremist minority. It's a sign of the gross tendency for people who have a right or privilege to ignore those who don't and not be willing to fight for them. "I got mine--screw you."
#BannedBooksWeek is a thing because it needs to be. Because even one banned book is too many. Because, sadly, it's one fight that will never be "over."
That's the purpose of a free exchange of ideas, and it's the ideal upon which libraries are based. Allowing any person to limit that exchange is ALWAYS dangerous and backwards.
Slate offered an article this week that claims Banned Books Weeks is a "crock" because there's no such thing as banned books anymore. (http://www.donotlink.com/framed?785241)
"It's not as bad as it used to be."
As if that's a good stopping point in any fight against bad things.
There ARE still banned books, and many attempts to ban them, and we must continue the fight to keep all books available to those who want to read them. That's especially true for libraries because they often serve those who could not otherwise access them.
It's a shame Slate writer Ruth Graham doesn't recognize or appreciate that.
It's a sign of being out of touch with the reality that not everyone has digital access and brick-and-mortar stores are disappearing. Many cannot afford to buy a book, and many cannot drive to the next town. And they certainly shouldn't have to just because self-righteous people want to impose their values and beliefs on everyone.
It's a sign of elitism. It's a sign of complacency despite glaring evidence that unless we maintain vigilance against censorship, it will gain ground--because there are still people who WANT books banned, even if they're the extremist minority. It's a sign of the gross tendency for people who have a right or privilege to ignore those who don't and not be willing to fight for them. "I got mine--screw you."
#BannedBooksWeek is a thing because it needs to be. Because even one banned book is too many. Because, sadly, it's one fight that will never be "over."
Very good :D
ReplyDelete