> Removing books from libraries shape what information those children can access.
So does blocking websites. Should school computers also provide unrestricted internet access? Or provide safer filtered access blocking a wide range of the most 'harmful' sites?
'Banned books' sounds dramatic, but is it any worse than blocking social media, porn, and gambling sites on the school network?
This is a small group of busybodies trying to declare that their "boundary of appropriateness" should apply to all students. That's just a pleasant form of thoughtcrime.
A simple solution would be a third category between "appropriate" and "inappropriate " - call it "borderline" - and have an opt in policy for children for these books.
Letting each parent decide for their own child what is appropriate is fine.
What's happening here is not.
Source: Texas school parent, weirded out by casual fascism
If internet filters in schools are 'casual fascism', then 'fascism' has no meaning any more.
If you genuinely care about child suicide, you'd want to keep children well away from social media for as long as humanly possible. It's harmful enough even to adults!
Why not? You can have rules about what is appropriate in schools without banning websites. This of course requires an open dialogue with the students. Banning is definitely easier if you don’t care about banning too much.
So does blocking websites. Should school computers also provide unrestricted internet access? Or provide safer filtered access blocking a wide range of the most 'harmful' sites?
'Banned books' sounds dramatic, but is it any worse than blocking social media, porn, and gambling sites on the school network?