Libraries are tax-funded public spaces where people can read books, watch movies, play video games, borrow instruments, use the internet, attend lectures, conduct research, and otherwise use public services without paying a cent.
They’re about as typical of a socialist-type service as you can get. Having a Marxist in charge isn’t going to reduce profits of libraries or anything.
Eh, that’s an understandable fear, but one that assumes a great amount of authority in the ALA. It’s not a governmental body, it’s an organization that advocates for librarianship.
And I don’t often speak in absolutes, but if the American Library Association starts advocating for the banning of legal material in any way, I will eat something gross. Librarianship as a field is on the freedom-side of every censorship fight I can think of, and even whether or not they should allow public access to pornography as a form of protected speech remains still a somewhat contentious issue in library academia.
I understand. Like I said, the ALA doesn’t really have authority to do anything to a library, and they are annoyingly consistent in being anti-censorship.
And that is despite the fact that librarianship doesn’t really attract capitalists and never has. Libraries are “Marxist” institutions. They are tax-funded service providers that do not operate at a profit.
If they didn’t already exist, I suspect little chance that most fiscal conservatives would be supporting their implementation.
What does this change?
Libraries are tax-funded public spaces where people can read books, watch movies, play video games, borrow instruments, use the internet, attend lectures, conduct research, and otherwise use public services without paying a cent.
They’re about as typical of a socialist-type service as you can get. Having a Marxist in charge isn’t going to reduce profits of libraries or anything.
This is a reasonable question. The thing I can think of is censorship and surveillance.
Now featuring more tranny!
Eh, that’s an understandable fear, but one that assumes a great amount of authority in the ALA. It’s not a governmental body, it’s an organization that advocates for librarianship.
And I don’t often speak in absolutes, but if the American Library Association starts advocating for the banning of legal material in any way, I will eat something gross. Librarianship as a field is on the freedom-side of every censorship fight I can think of, and even whether or not they should allow public access to pornography as a form of protected speech remains still a somewhat contentious issue in library academia.
https://lawreviewdrake.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/laughlin.pdf
Perhaps that's why it matters who is in charge now. We are in an information war, the cabal won't leave a sector uncensored if they can help it.
I understand. Like I said, the ALA doesn’t really have authority to do anything to a library, and they are annoyingly consistent in being anti-censorship.
And that is despite the fact that librarianship doesn’t really attract capitalists and never has. Libraries are “Marxist” institutions. They are tax-funded service providers that do not operate at a profit.
If they didn’t already exist, I suspect little chance that most fiscal conservatives would be supporting their implementation.