You know the book is old enough to be in the public domain nowadays, and you can legally download a copy of it using the same device they use for watching those videos, right?
I understand, but my point is that it really doesn’t take any more effort or dedication than going to the library does. In fact, it’s certainly no more difficult than looking up videos of animal cruelty (at least I don’t exactly just see them being suggested to me randomly).
Animal cruelty maybe not, but I know a few friends who get randomly shown car crashed and combat recordings and the like. I agree with your sentiment for the most part, but I think the real point is that books that should be required reading for young minds are being banned, while the majority of young people are on sites that will show you all kinds of crazy shit to keep you scrolling
The proper reaction to finding out that librarians are legally barred from lending certain classic novels to children is not, “oh that’s okay, they can just download it.” Especially when we’re literally talking about a book dealing with suppressing speech.
On the contrary, I’d say that’s an instructive example demonstrating why the book continues to be relevant over 75 years after its release.
Also, if anything, banning it would likely only serve to increase interest in it since the best way to get a rebellious teenager to do anything is to tell them they aren’t allowed to do it.
It’s only instructive if the kids you think should download books that they can’t get at the library are taking your advice to do so. And I doubt they’re on Lemmy.
Furthermore, as the husband of a librarian who is (if she is still in Indiana when they pass the bill they intend to pass) at risk of imprisonment if she allows children to have access to books on a ban list, I have to tell you that this is about more than just kids having access to a specific book.
I mean, it’s literally the premise of this comic that the kid goes to a library that has already banned the book. How does he know it exists at all? And if he thinks he ought to be able to get it at the library, why wouldn’t he think of trying to find it on the Internet instead?
Kids these days were literally born after the iPhone was invented, they have never even known a time where you couldn’t access the Internet from almost anywhere in the world using a device small enough to fit in your pocket, and somehow you think they’d be too stupid to even try?
First of all, the kids in this comic are clearly not teenagers, so you need to decide whether or not you’re talking about the comic since you were one post ago.
Secondly, you have not even acknowledged that these book banning laws will end up imprisoning librarians. It’s all about how kids, if they are somehow magically aware of it, can bypass libraries to read certain specific books that are banned.
Cool, now how do they get access to Gender Queer or The Bluest Eye? Because those are banned too and will also put librarians in prison and they are not in the public domain. How about And Tango Makes Three, the often-banned picture book for children, which is a true story about two male penguins in a zoo that adopted a baby chick. A librarian letting a kid have access to a book about penguins could end up in prison for it.
Because as it is, you seem to be implying that the only banned book of any significance is 1984 and if librarians get imprisoned for letting someone under 18 read it, good.
First of all, the kids in this comic are clearly not teenagers, so you need to decide whether or not you’re talking about the comic since you were one post ago.
It’s kinda hard to tell tbh because not all kids reach their growth spurts at the same time, I’m just assuming that based on his interest in 1984, which contains rather mature themes that require a certain level of mental development to even appreciate. If these are preteens, I would question how they even heard about the book why they’d be interested in it, or whether they aren’t just being used as pawns by an adult trying to make a political statement.
Secondly, you have not even acknowledged that these book banning laws will end up imprisoning librarians. It’s all about how kids, if they are somehow magically aware of it, can bypass libraries to read certain specific books that are banned.
You said yourself that this law you mentioned is still under consideration, so everything concerning that is basically speculation until it has actually been passed.
Cool, now how do they get access to Gender Queer or The Bluest Eye? Because those are banned too and will also put librarians in prison and they are not in the public domain. How about And Tango Makes Three, the often-banned picture book for children, which is a true story about two male penguins in a zoo that adopted a baby chick. A librarian letting a kid have access to a book about penguins could end up in prison for it.
Because as it is, you seem to be implying that the only banned book of any significance is 1984 and if librarians get imprisoned for letting someone under 18 read it, good.
Well, all I’ll say is that there’s a reason the artist chose 1984 and not one of those other books (even though the one about penguins would probably have made an even better contrast to watching animal cruelty videos).
You know the book is old enough to be in the public domain nowadays, and you can legally download a copy of it using the same device they use for watching those videos, right?
I get where you’re coming from, but that isn’t the point
I can only surmise the point here is a fact-free circlejerk completely lacking in humor or self-awareness?
I completely believe that’s the only thing you can surmise
Do the kids know that?
There are several links to free, legal copies at the bottom of the book’s Wikipedia page.
Also, if you type “1984” into YouTube, the first result is this full audiobook recording. It’s really not difficult to find.
If you’re dedicated you can find anything. That’s not the point though.
I understand, but my point is that it really doesn’t take any more effort or dedication than going to the library does. In fact, it’s certainly no more difficult than looking up videos of animal cruelty (at least I don’t exactly just see them being suggested to me randomly).
Animal cruelty maybe not, but I know a few friends who get randomly shown car crashed and combat recordings and the like. I agree with your sentiment for the most part, but I think the real point is that books that should be required reading for young minds are being banned, while the majority of young people are on sites that will show you all kinds of crazy shit to keep you scrolling
The proper reaction to finding out that librarians are legally barred from lending certain classic novels to children is not, “oh that’s okay, they can just download it.” Especially when we’re literally talking about a book dealing with suppressing speech.
On the contrary, I’d say that’s an instructive example demonstrating why the book continues to be relevant over 75 years after its release.
Also, if anything, banning it would likely only serve to increase interest in it since the best way to get a rebellious teenager to do anything is to tell them they aren’t allowed to do it.
It’s only instructive if the kids you think should download books that they can’t get at the library are taking your advice to do so. And I doubt they’re on Lemmy.
Furthermore, as the husband of a librarian who is (if she is still in Indiana when they pass the bill they intend to pass) at risk of imprisonment if she allows children to have access to books on a ban list, I have to tell you that this is about more than just kids having access to a specific book.
I mean, it’s literally the premise of this comic that the kid goes to a library that has already banned the book. How does he know it exists at all? And if he thinks he ought to be able to get it at the library, why wouldn’t he think of trying to find it on the Internet instead?
Kids these days were literally born after the iPhone was invented, they have never even known a time where you couldn’t access the Internet from almost anywhere in the world using a device small enough to fit in your pocket, and somehow you think they’d be too stupid to even try?
Believe it or not, comics are not reality.
Where is this hypothetical child’s parents?
Probably at work I’d assume. Were you never a teenager?
First of all, the kids in this comic are clearly not teenagers, so you need to decide whether or not you’re talking about the comic since you were one post ago.
Secondly, you have not even acknowledged that these book banning laws will end up imprisoning librarians. It’s all about how kids, if they are somehow magically aware of it, can bypass libraries to read certain specific books that are banned.
Cool, now how do they get access to Gender Queer or The Bluest Eye? Because those are banned too and will also put librarians in prison and they are not in the public domain. How about And Tango Makes Three, the often-banned picture book for children, which is a true story about two male penguins in a zoo that adopted a baby chick. A librarian letting a kid have access to a book about penguins could end up in prison for it.
Because as it is, you seem to be implying that the only banned book of any significance is 1984 and if librarians get imprisoned for letting someone under 18 read it, good.
It’s kinda hard to tell tbh because not all kids reach their growth spurts at the same time, I’m just assuming that based on his interest in 1984, which contains rather mature themes that require a certain level of mental development to even appreciate. If these are preteens, I would question how they even heard about the book why they’d be interested in it, or whether they aren’t just being used as pawns by an adult trying to make a political statement.
You said yourself that this law you mentioned is still under consideration, so everything concerning that is basically speculation until it has actually been passed.
Well, all I’ll say is that there’s a reason the artist chose 1984 and not one of those other books (even though the one about penguins would probably have made an even better contrast to watching animal cruelty videos).