[Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[Tobias Oelgarte]

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
>> <cimonavaro at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, phoebe ayers<phoebe.wiki at 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.