Now that I have more time to parse your statements thoroughly, here we go:
The list you provided has zero unavailability for actively published works.
That doesn't change the fact that they were
banned from school classrooms. How widely available they are elsewhere is irrelevant. The point I was making was that the copyright holders and publishers deciding to edit new editions of Dahl's books to make the language less anachronistic for current readership is
not a de-facto ban.
To bolster my point, I provided an example of what a book ban looks like. You can pretend it isn't a ban, if you like, but that doesn't change what it is.
Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books - PEN America
What is a Book Ban?
PEN America defines a school book ban as any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.
It is important to recognize that books available in schools, whether in a school or classroom library, or as part of a curriculum, were selected by librarians and educators as part of the educational offerings to students. Book bans occur when those choices are overridden by school boards, administrators, teachers, or even politicians, on the basis of a particular book’s content.
School book bans take varied forms, and can include prohibitions on books in libraries or classrooms, as well as a range of other restrictions, some of which may be temporary. Book removals that follow established processes may still improperly target books on the basis of content pertaining to race, gender, or sexual orientation, invoking concerns of equal protection in education.
Could you have obtained Hustler at your library? If no: is that because they banned it? Or do they curate their collection with the funds they are given to best benefit their constituency and you can get Hustler on your own elsewhere?
I'm not sure what this strawman has to do with Florida classrooms. If you aren't equating the list of banned books with pornography, you might want to clarify that.
It's quite clear that the aim is not to "curate their collection with the funds they are given to best benefit their constituency". It's a blatant effort to impede access to books discussing civil rights, same-sex couples, islam, indigenous people, etc. I mean they could have at least
attempted to make it look less partisan by banning 'The Art Of The Deal', but here we are.
Again this is liberal idiocy at work and I never again want to hear them whine about conservatives 'banning books'.
One can debate the wisdom of the editing of Dahl's books, but liberals certainly wouldn't be the idiots. This initiative would be coming from a mindset that resides on the left of the political spectrum. Liberals, which seem to be despised by the left and right in equal measure, are rather centrist and would usually be the adults in the room. Regardless, the Dahl books are a separate issue from book bans.
To be clear, when I searched for a reference to an actual book ban, I wasn't looking for a right-wing book ban, but the Florida situation was the first to come up. Must be flavour of the week, I guess. Calls for book bans come from the left and the right - for different reasons, obviously. But, the loudest voices with the widest sweep of books to be banned seem to be on the right.
Again you find me a single title that they've managed to disappear from publication. You can't say the same going forward for the Dahl books.
You are arguing against a claim that I haven't made. Who said they were trying to prevent publication of any books? Anyway, Dahl's books will be edited to update - not for the first time* - the language, not "disappear from publication".
*
Roald Dahl's books have been edited to stop calling people fat so much - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
[QUOTE
]In the first edition of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” published in 1964, the Oompa-Loompas helping Willy Wonka were originally described as African Pygmy people whom Wonka had “smuggled” out of Africa in crates to live and work in his factory. Facing pressure from Black actors and groups such as the NAACP after America’s Civil Rights era, the 1971 film made the Oompa-Loompas orange-skinned with green hair. In a 1973 revision of the book, Dahl recast the Oompa-Loompas as white and fantastical instead of Black and African. [/QUOTE]
I never said I was on board with the removal of 176 books that was linked to btw. For good or bad that is curation, not banning since you want to pick over the finer points when it comes to the definition of words like copyright and ban.
I never accused you of supporting the removal of these books. And, again, you can call it "curation" if you like, but a ban is a ban.
