Barnes and Noble's "Banned Books Section" FTW (Tweet)

[Pluvious]

More of this !

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

1. Boom!

Good on Barnes and Nobles!!!

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Separated but equal

Still has an element of unfairness

[Hekate]

7. Really? Every week of every year they feature special books, which requires setting up special sections...

…or, as you put it, “separating” them.

That’s how retail businesses operate. And since this is books we are discussing, it is also how Libraries operate. People who love books and purvey them to the public draw attention to them.

Probably you need to spend more time in book stores and Libraries. Lovely places, run by usually lovely people.

[Raven123]

12. I think they are hitting back at the book bans

By spotlighting “banned books” they draw attention to the issue while saying they won’t be intimidated. I can imagine someone not informed on the issue browsing the rack and hopefully agreeing how ill advised it is to ban books. I think I understand your point, however.

[EarnestPutz]

29. I prefer to think of it as "separate and therefore emphasized".

[Wonder Why]

3. Freedom of the press or an advertising gimmick on their part to sell more books because they were banned?

[Hekate]

4. A book store is a book store is a book store.

Good grief.

[BannonsLiver]

23. This place sometimes

🙄🙄🙄

[Hekate]

27. Seriously, doesn't anyone remember the USA PATRIOT ACT and other bits after 9-11? It's horrifying.

There was an honest-to-God movement from the BushCheney administration to monitor the reading of books by adults. To wit:

* They wanted Librarians to keep tabs on who checked out what, and be prepared to report it to the federal authorities upon request
* They wanted booksellers to do the same

We at DU were quite aware of this push at the time, and objected vehemently. Moms for Liberty is just the latest bastard offspring of the hysteria after 9-11, presented in new guise. “Won’t someone think of the children?”

I want to bang my head against the wall — it would hurt less.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Both. After all, who benefits more from freedom of speech than a bookstore?

[markodochartaigh]

14. Our money is what consumer focused corporations want.

Regardless of the personal feelings of their board members corporations, corporations generally answer the call of profitability. We saw how quickly after January 6 corporations who had sworn not to support seditious politicians abandoned their ethical positions and began giving money to "both sides". But as non-authoritarians lose our levers of power it is more important to use whatever we have left. And one of those levers of power is corporate power. It is disgusting that Target or Barnes and Noble care more about what non-authoritarian US citizens think than the supreme court does. But it is the truth. We have no control over the lever of power which is the supreme court. But when a corporation, even out of the desire for our money, acts in a positive way to support progressive ideals, I think that it is in our best interest to support their action.

[BannonsLiver]

22. Gee whiz it's almost as if....businesses are out to make money!111

🙄

[markodochartaigh]

25. And there is certainly a limit as to how much

we can expect from corporations. But beggars can't be choosers and I think that progressives need to take (almost) any help that we can get.

[Mr.Bill]

20. Why not both? n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Both. Eating while walking. Who'da thunk that was possible. . . . nt

[bdamomma]

6. Yes

thank you, Barnes and Noble.

[Brother Buzz]

8. My Podunk Carnegie Library has been doing banned book displays for years

I always smile when I see it parked, front and center, right next to the checkout counter.

[Hekate]

10. Same here. Libraries big and small where I live, book stores & The Book Den, a used-book store.

Of COURSE they do.

[gratuitous]

9. I read My Life as a Beach Boy by Mike Love

Before I realized it was a band book.

[Hekate]

11. That was a gratuitous pun, no doubt about it

[gratuitous]

16. Accept no substitutes!

Insist on gratuitous puns by name.

[Skittles]

13. *SNORT*

[PlutosHeart]

15. And this is why

I will continue to support them.

[Prairie Gates]

17. The argument from conservatives is that these books aren't banned

But rather that they're inappropriate for particular contexts/ages.

Having a "banned books" section at a major book retailer...plays into that argument, no?

When Ulysses was banned, it was literally unavailable. When people tried to import it, it would be confiscated by US Customs. If you were caught mailing it, you would be arrested by the postal police. If a bookseller tried to sell it, they would be raided, the copies confiscated, and the sellers arrested. People smuggled copies in from Canada.

[Hekate]

18. Those days will return to America unless we stand together & understand that is what the book-banners want

I amd absolutely serious about this — and make no mistake, so are they.

[mucifer]

19. Chicago Public Libraries and independent bookstores here are doing it, too.

It really is great.

Glad a big company like B and N is doing it, too.

[JimWis]

21. My daughter is manager at BAM - Books A Million.

Her and her employees have set up a similar display of banned books a while back.

[gulliver]

24. None of these books are banned, of course.

But I do like bookstores making money. I miss the age of bookstores.

The political issue is curation, and it's really limited to curation for minors. Parental judgment needs to be a primary factor here. There's going to be a constant tension between preventing "propaganda" and preventing "book banning." Why not, for example, keep all books behind the desk (like they used to do with the "illustrated anatomy" books, etc.)? A kid wants a book, they consult their tablet for what's available. The kid's parents decide what the tablet makes available. This is a solvable problem.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. Your hope is that it stays limited. If Dic Trump gets in again, find a graveyard to whistle by. . . . nt

[llmart]

32. I'm not sure I understand how the parent can decide what the tablet makes available.

If a kid is looking for what's available in the library, they would be searching on the library's catalogue. A parent doesn't have access to change what's in the online catalogue. Also, how on earth would a library put all things behind the desk that patrons deem inappropriate for their children when other parents don't find them to be inappropriate for their child? How much room do you think is behind a circulation desk?

The only thing a parent can do is to accompany their child to the library and not allow them in the adult section of the library or the teen/YA section - only the children's section. If they don't want to accompany their child to the library, then they really aren't that interested in keeping their kids' from reading books they deem inappropriate. A lot of the most vociferous complainers used the library for free babysitting. I was in public library administration and I had to occasionally deal with a parent's complaint about something in the library. We had standard language to use to explain to them the concept of free speech. Not once did we ever change how we ran our library because of a complaint about the collection.

[DoBW]

26. And nearby ...

you can pick up some Bud Light & M&Ms

[Timeflyer]

28. Good for B & N. The term "banned books" is shorthand for books that conservative culture warriors

want to make unavailable to all kids. It's not about protecting kids, it's about having power over other people. And banning materials from libraries is bad because library materials are available free of charge to patrons, school or public.

[Escurumbele]

33. Many local bookstores are also doing it, and have been for some time. I have already bought two that I

already had, but I figured I would get a fresh copy, not to replace the old ones (I love books), but to support the bookstore as well, make sure they keep doing it.