Banned Book Week is A-Comin'

For Banned Books Week, which will be held September 24-October 1 this year, readers, booksellers and librarians around the world can participate by posting videos of themselves reading from their favorite banned books on a special YouTube channel. Excerpts may be up to two minutes long, and people who talk about battles defending banned or challenged books make speak for up to three minutes.

The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression is encouraging booksellers to film their customers as part of this effort and will provide instruction on how to create the videos. Booksellers can send the videos to ABBFE, which will edit them, add store names and logos and post them. The videos will be tagged so that stores can put them on their websites, blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts.

ABFFE is also helping booksellers participate in more traditional ways: its Banned Books Week handbook offers tips on promotions, including making displays, as well as listing posters that can be downloaded and reproduced at copy shops. The American Library Association has promotional information, too.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

National Hogwash Week is A-Comin'

No book has been banned in the USA for about half a century. Fanny Hill got that honor a long time ago. Challenged books in schools that are removed is different from banning. Setting aside that Banned Books Week is propaganda, the creator of BBW said:

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."

Did any of you here know Judith Krug said that? Is Judith Krug a book banner?

See: "Banned Books Week Propaganda Exposed by Progressive Librarian Rory Litwin; ALA Censors Out Criticism of Its Own Actions in a Manner Dishonest to the Core."

There you go again...

The full Judith Krug quotation, since Dan tends to cherry pick his quotes.

"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there. But materials that adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available."

You need to update your stockpile of copy/paste comments, Dan. At least be honest about the full quotation so when you accuse others of being engage in propaganda you don't look like you are doing it yourself.

Because you are.

But

"But" makes the difference. I've cherry picked nothing. Your OIF does that, not me. Your OIF doesn't even advise communities of that quote; it's not even on your ala.org, except where I put it, speaking of cherry picking.

I present in Judith Krug's own words that removing books from schools is perfectly acceptable in the right circumstances. What she said after the "but" applies when circumstances are not correct. Besides, it is obvious. The real eye opener to the library community is that Krug said its okay to remove books in the right circumstances. For example, Will Manley recently expressed surprise that Krug said that.

Come to think of it, your attempt at wordplay has just made me realize something else. If she said "But materials that adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available," that means "[M]aterials that [do not] adhere to the material selection statement that every school has, and that have been duly selected, we would [not] fight alongside every librarian and every teacher to keep the books available." You are going against the teachings of your own former boss. Besides, she did say, "it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."

I find your lack of reasoning.... disturbing

You can't inverse the statement to get the opposite conclusion. That's just nutty. Would you say that the opposite of the opening of the Declaration of Independence is "We [do not] hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are [not] created equal, that they are [not] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

No, because that's stupid.

Her entire quote talks about keeping out material that doesn't meet collection development criterion AND defending those that do. You like to forget this last part since you want to make it sound like she is in favor of any book removal from a collection. And then when someone points out the rest of the quote, you cling onto the first part like it's going to override the full quote in its context. That's just intellectually dishonest.

But that's why you are SafeLibraries, not IntectuallyHonestLibraries. You can't win your argument on its merits so you turn to other shady and low tactics. You accuse everyone of using 'radical' tactics while engaging in them yourself. The destination of circular logic is that you end up right where you were... so, keep up the good work!

Post your comment below. Now fortified with cuddly kittens!

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <img> <b> <strike> <del> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Syndicate content