Am 21.09.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Snow: > On 9/21/2011 7:53 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen >> <cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, phoebe ayers<phoebe.w...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:> >>>> This seems like an over-hasty statement. There are many possible >>>> categorization schemes that are neutral; the ALA in fact makes that >>>> distinction itself, since libraries (obviously) use all kinds of labeling >>>> and categorization schemes all the time. The ALA and other library >>>> organizations have taken a stand against censorious and non-neutral >>>> labeling, not all labeling. If you keep reading the ALA page you linked, it >>>> says that the kind of labels that are not appropriate are when "the >>>> prejudicial label is used to warn, discourage or prohibit users or certain >>>> groups of users from accessing the material" -- e.g. a label that reads >>>> "not >>>> appropriate for children". That does not mean that picture books for kids, >>>> or mystery novels, or large-print books, aren't labeled as such in every >>>> public library in the country -- and that is the difference between >>>> informative and prejudicial labeling. >>> Would I be incorrect in pointing out that American public librarys routinely >>> exclude world famous childrens book author Astrid Lindgrens childrens >>> books, because to puritanical minds a man who can elevate himself >>> with a propeller beany, and look into childs rooms thereby, smacks too >>> much of pedophilia? >>> >> Uh... yes, you would be incorrect? I certainly checked out Astrid >> Lindgren books from the public library when I was a kid. I have never >> heard of them getting challenged in the US. Citation needed? >> >> The ALA maintains a list of books that do get routinely challenged in >> US libraries here: >> http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/index.cfm. >> Note, this just means someone *asked* for the book to be removed from >> the public or school library, not that it actually was; libraries >> generally stand up to such requests. >> >> Also note that challenges are typically asking for the book to be >> removed from the library altogether -- restricting access to it for >> everyone in the community -- as opposed to simply not looking at it >> yourself or allowing your own kids to check it out. It's the 'removal >> for everyone' part that is the problem; the issue here is freedom of >> choice: people should have the right to read, or not read, a >> particular book as they see fit. > I'm unable to find a source on this that doesn't appear to be relying on > the Wikipedia article in the first place. The supposed rationale seems > to be that Karlsson is sort of subversive, if you will, and the books > might undermine traditional concepts of authority (for people of a > certain era, maybe it also didn't help that the books were popular in > the USSR). It's possible that somebody somewhere did question its > inclusion once, which could be true of just about any book. Even if so, > nothing suggests that the concern had anything to do with encouraging or > catering to pedophiles. Were that the issue, I would have thought The > Brothers Lionheart a more obvious target, seeing as how it has young > boys bathing nude in a river (the scene is illustrated - child porn!), > and I've never heard of it being banned either. > > --Michael Snow There might be simple reason for that. Some nude boys bathing in a river has nothing to do with pornography and therefor nothing to do with child pornography. A simple fact that is widely ignored in many discussions, by fundamentalists. They claim that any depiction of a nude body is sexual and porn. Not even law agrees to this extreme point of view.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l