This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
FatalHeaven
#23: Should libraries be allowed to have a list of banned books?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think it's alright, as long as there are strict guidelines on what qualifies a book on being banned. Like books about how to build a bomb, for example, or the "How to get away with Paedophilia" book I would classify as presenting a immediate threat to the community, and are appropriate to ban. There have also been books published with nutritional/diet information that is inaccurate and could cause health problems if someone believe it, and I'd be ok with banning those too. Anything that contributes to immediate harm of someone.
Post by
Squishalot
Unions don't prevent striking workers from being fired, after all - it's just illegal.
Not quite right. If you read the definition of the protected industrial action, the employees must be represented. A single employee has no rights to strike and remain protected from being fired. This leads us back to this:
But in that case your beef isn't with unions, it's with employment law.
Indeed, which is what I've said from the outset:
They have a place, but they shouldn't be afforded additional privileges above and beyond what a non-unioned worker would have.
What I have an issue with is when a government prescribes unions with the power to hold a strike action that prohibits the employer from bringing in people to make up a functioning workforce or restrict an employer from sanctioning an employee who participates in a strike action.
I never said I had anything against unions generally. However, I'm completely against the idea of them being anything more than a collective bargaining group. I don't think that they should be entitled to undertake any sort of industrial action that affords a unionised member greater levels of protection than any other person who would take that sort of industrial action. That being said, I don't think that any employee inherently deserves the right to strike (i.e. break the contractual terms of their employment, excluding any legislated terms relating to striking action that are currently under discussion) without penalty.
Post by
Squishalot
#23: Should libraries be allowed to have a list of banned books?
I don't see why not. Suppose someone started a Christian library - I'd feel comfortable in allowing them to ban certain items from reaching their shelves.
That being said, seeing as they provide the books, why would they need to ban anything?
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I certainly think a Library has the right to only select books that they deem of some value. They don't have infinite shelf space, and I'd much rather see more devoted to accurate historical, science, mathematical and how-to books, classic pieces of literature, philosphy, about religions, etc. than Hate propaganda, fringe books about weird theories and 100 tips on making the best facebook profile.
I don't know if that's what you mean by a list of banned books, though?
Post by
Atik
I see no problem in individual libraries banning books from their shelves.
Just as long as we don't get anyone trying to ban books nation-wide or something.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
#23: Should libraries be allowed to have a list of banned books?
Yes; since any and all decisions about individual libraries are up to the current head of that particular facility, as long as they have approval from the district they are within.
Worked at a library all through out high school.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#23: Should libraries be allowed to have a list of banned books?
Yes; since any and all decisions about individual libraries are up to the current head of that particular facility, as long as they have approval from the district they are within.
Worked at a library all through out high school.
The question isn't whether a library should be able to ban/ not carry books. Rather, if a library wants to publish a list of books that were
banned by the government
, should they be allowed to? Or should they get in trouble for it?
Another link containing books banned (currently or in the past)
in the United States.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#23: Should libraries be allowed to have a list of banned books?
They
shouldn't
have lists of banned books, certainly. But I don't know that I'd say they shouldn't
be allowed
, assuming that means legally. A library with a banned list should be ridiculed, but I don't know that it should be disallowed.
Why should they be ridiculed? I mean, How dare they tell people books that were banned. Just because a book is banned doesn't mean the topic of it can't/shouldn't be breached. They just can't rent/sell/loan you the book.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think its more a question of whether or not the government should have a list of banned books in the first place. As far as I saw on that list you linked, there was one book that was banned temporarily in the US for obscenity, and they lifted the band in like the late 50's. Generally, the US doesn't ban books and so whether or not a library here should enforce such a ban is a moot point.
I think that in other countries that do bad books, it's usually part of a larger program of limiting free speech and pushing a political or religious agenda, and then the debate is more about whether or not the government should ban books than whether the library should have to go along with it.
Post by
Squishalot
People don't need any special legal protection to collectively bargain.
Agreed.
You seem to be saying we shouldn't have unions at all - or that we should have things called "unions" which are just groups of like-minded people with no particular legal protections. Is that right?
The latter. As I said earlier - I have no issue with collective bargaining as a principle and see it as a healthy tool in the workplace, as opposed to the raft of laws that are typically associated with it these days.
Why should they be ridiculed? I mean, How DARE they tell people books that were banned. Just because a book is banned doesn't mean the topic of it can't/shouldn't be breached. They just can't rent/sell/loan you the book.
I think that there's a misunderstanding here. Fenomas and I both thought that you meant that the library itself would set up its own list of banned books, not that they would highlight what books have been banned by the government. You've only clarified that after we all replied. Relax.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Relax.
Here's a misunderstanding if any. I used one capitalized word to emphasize sarcasm. I was entirely relaxed the entire time.
Post by
Squishalot
My point is that the former and the latter are the same thing, in practice. A group that can do nothing but bargain without legal protection is what people would form if all unions laws and protections disappeared tomorrow. So saying unions shouldn't be able to do anything but bargain is functionally equivalent to saying we should abolish unions and leave people to bargain as they can. (Or more properly, leave them to be fired for attempting to collectively bargain, which is what would actually happen if union-style legal protections were removed.)
I disagree - with a strong union that represents a large workforce, you have sufficient clout that if members were to threaten, you can easily persuade an employer that they'd be worse off letting half or more of their staff go. There is a strength that comes with collective bargaining that are inherent to the collective process, that aren't reliant on legal protection.
If I consider it from first principles:
1) A single employee says to his boss that he wants a payrise or he's quitting. Boss laughs and tells him to go jump if he's dispensible.
2) Two employees say to their boss that they want a payrise or they're quitting. Boss thinks about whether he needs them, laughs, and tells them to both go jump if they're dispensible.
3) Half the workforce say to their boss that they want a payrise or they're quitting. Boss thinks about whether the cost of the payrise is greater / less than the cost of having to retrain half his staff, and makes an appropriate call on whether to grant it or to let them go.
When you've got more people, you've got more clout inherently, because there's a greater opportunity cost for the employer. It's much easier to replace one or two people than it is to replace everybody. That's completely unrelated from the other service that unions provide - to be a representative for employees who are unfairly dismissed / treated in the workplace. But you don't need any special legislative protection to take on that role either, because everything will be laid out in your employment contract.
That being said, I dislike collective bargaining, because I personally think that I'm worth more than the average person, and that the collective bargaining process will mean that my output is subsidising the people who don't work as hard as me but get the same benefits and privileges that I do.
Relax.
Here's a misunderstanding if any. I used one highlighted word to emphasize sarcasm. I was entirely relaxed the entire time.
No worries then.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Levarus
If a library bans knowledge, I will not go that library.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.