Bradbury warned us. Fahrenheit 451 is here!

What a dumb application of the law. Obviously, the law needs to be modified.

Write your Congressperson.

Another example of a well intentioned idea being taken to the point of lunacy. When I first heard about the law, all I could think of was the forty-year old copy of The Velveteen Rabbit that I was fortunate enough to find last year. The thought of it being destroyed hurts my heart.

According to the article, only items being sold fall under the scope of the law--I'll research it further--so it's not the case that all old children's books are in danger. After all, this would wipe out the libraries of most schools in the country, along with the children's sections of public libraries.

And if this is what government protection of our kids means, shouldn’t we be thinking instead about protecting our kids from the government?

Click to expand...

It's catchin' on, I tell ya!

robeiae said:

According to the article, only items being sold fall under the scope of the law--I'll research it further--so it's not the case that all old children's books are in danger. After all, this would wipe out the libraries of most schools in the country, along with the children's sections of public libraries.

Click to expand...

The article had quite a bit of info about that. It looks like the library issue is very much up in the air.

A further question is what to do about public libraries, which daily expose children under 12 to pre-1985 editions of Anne of Green Gables, Beatrix Potter, Baden-Powell’s scouting guides, and other deadly hazards. The blogger Design Loft carefully examines some of the costs of CPSIA-proofing pre-1985 library holdings; they are, not surprisingly, utterly prohibitive. The American Library Association spent months warning about the law’s implications, but its concerns fell on deaf ears in Congress (which, in this week’s stimulus bill, refused to consider an amendment by Republican senator Jim DeMint to reform CPSIA). The ALA now apparently intends to take the position that the law does not apply to libraries unless it hears otherwise. One can hardly blame it for this stance, but it’s far from clear that it will prevail. For one thing, the law bans the “distribution” of forbidden items, whether or not for profit. In addition, most libraries regularly raise money through book sales, and will now need to consider excluding older children’s titles from those sales. One CPSC commissioner, Thomas Moore, has already called for libraries to “sequester” some undefinedly large fraction of pre-1985 books until more is known about their risks.

Click to expand...

Don said:

The article had quite a bit of info about that. It looks like the library issue is very much up in the air.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Obviously, I didn't read far enough...

Probably too much lead in the type.

ETA: So, I'll reiterate my previous statement: write your congressperson.

Its one of those laws...

"Hey, lets try and make things better...then go absurdly over the top so that we really ruin the lives of everyone."

Jeeze. Great intentions guys, but I really doubt trace amounts of lead are going to be equal to the damage you're causing by getting rid of classic books.

<sighs>



Though, really, this is not quite F451. In F451, they're getting rid of books maliciously, to destroy knowledge. This is just a stupid law, blindly carried out by morons.

What's worse? Competent maliciousness, or good intentions so blundered that they do the same thing?

This is thoroughly stupid, but it's useful to keep some perspective. The Bradbury analogy falls apart quickly when we recognize that these books are being trashed not for their intellectual content but for their physical content. Second, as dumb as the law is in this application, it didn't arise out of some idea generated in Congress; it arose out of lobbying by some of the more goonball "consumer advocate" groups putting pressure on Representatives to "protect children". In other words, it got generated the way most laws get generated, out of hardball politics with veiled threats behind them. Most of the idiotic deregulation of our financial industry came about in a similar manner.

Congress rarely generates ideas on its own. Representatives are too busy trying to jockey for position to get re-elected, and accordingly are susceptible to influence-peddling and pressure from lobbying and advocacy groups of every stripe. That doesn't absolve them from responsibility, of course. But just calling them stupid and cowardly and demanding they all be replaced doesn't address the systemic problem very effectively.

But we can't have limits on campaign contributions, can we, because that violates "freedom of speech".

caw

Contributions are not speech. Contributions are money.

We should have limits on contributions, if only so that our reps are not in the pockets of those who are paying them.

Or am I just talking out of my very cute ass?

Zoombie said:

Contributions are not speech. Contributions are money.

We should have limits on contributions, if only so that our reps are not in the pockets of those who are paying them.

Or am I just talking out of my very cute ass?

Click to expand...

No, but you're going to bump up right quicklike against some of the very people here now excoriating Congress in this very thread.

caw

Well, on one level, I can't blame them...money is a huge motivator.

On another level, I can absolutely blame them! They should be listening to the voters, not to lobbiests.

And this is why I'm a Rad-Mod.

I'd like to see the Cost/Benefit Analysis the CPSC did on this regulation. The possible increase in safety does not seem worth the disruption -- it's like banning all pencils because they can have sharp tips that sometimes injure children.

I recall a year or two a story of one used book dealer burning books he couldn't sell for even 25 cents each, and thought this might be another case of that (there were many booklovers who stepped up to 'rescue' those books).

From the article:

Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing—at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.

Click to expand...

That explains a really odd notice that went up over the children's books at the local (not part of a chain) thrift store:

"Childrens books before 1985 can only be bought by adults as collectibles. They cannot be sold for use by children."

I don't know if they went through the books, but there's no sign that "collectible" books have been separated out. They're all still on the bottom shelf where children have easy access.

Whatever the future of new media may hold, ours will be a poorer world if we begin to lose (or “sequester” from children) the millions of books published before our own era.

Click to expand...

I was thinking fascimiles could be made for use by children, but that would violate copyright on more recent books.

I recently got a copy of "Sprockets A Robot" by Alexander Key from the 1960's. It's hardback and was in the "regular" adult book section of a thrift store for a couple dollars. I was delighted to find it - I had read the sequel, "Rivets and Sprockets" in the 1960's when I was about eight or ten years old. Both of these books have been out of print since the '60's, and used copies sell for high prices ($20 to over $100!) on the usual online used book sites. I don't have a problem with these being "kept away from children" in an overabundance of safety, but if it prompts people and organizations to destroy them only because they're made before 1985 and "might end up in the hands of children" then it's an awful law.

Mr. Chuckletrousers said:

I'd like to see the Cost/Benefit Analysis the CPSC did on this regulation.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt their analysis went no further than stating THIS emotionally laden and thought-stopping sentence:

Think of the children!

benbradley said:

I have no doubt their analysis went no further than stating THIS emotionally laden and thought-stopping sentence:

Think of the children!

Click to expand...

As a child I once stabbed myself in the knee with a pencil*. Clearly this is all the proof necessary to ban pencils, or at very least pencil sharpeners -- and if it's not sufficient proof for the Federal authorities then I'm sure it will be enough for the NJ authorities.

*On that day I learned a painful lesson -- never do cartwheels while holding a recently sharpened pencil.

benbradley said:

I was thinking fascimiles could be made for use by children, but that would violate copyright on more recent books.

Click to expand...

Especially when you consider that, in the U.S., "more recent" means anything published since 1922. But that generates a whole other unrelated thread.

caw

benbradley said:

I don't have a problem with these being "kept away from children" in an overabundance of safety, but if it prompts people and organizations to destroy them only because they're made before 1985 and "might end up in the hands of children" then it's an awful law.

Click to expand...

Actually, this brings up another nuance to this story. I don't think the thrift store was required to destroy these books. They only decided they couldn't sell them (relative to the law), and as such, they became worthless and merely were taking up space. So they took up space in the dumpster instead. I very much doubt we'll see book police snooping around demanding destruction of older books.

It's still a stupid application of a questionable law.

caw

Gods. How DID any of us who grew up before the Nanny State took over reach the age of majority with any brains left at all?

See now, if I was of the "conspiracy" mind, I'd wonder if this wasn't the result of some clever lobbying to sell new copies of old stuff.

"You can't play with THAT Barbie. Here. Buy this one."

"Old Man and the Sea? Not that old copy. Here, here's one that was printed from safe trees and this year's chemically enhanced ink."

It's all a conspiracy to make people buy Kindles.

And if this is what government protection of our kids means, shouldn’t we be thinking instead about protecting our kids from the government?

Click to expand...

You mean you haven't been? I have. I grew up during Vietnam. I don't trust those jokers one inch. Not. One. Inch.

Some of you are being generous as in this is one of those 'unintended consequences'. I'm not that generous.

Williebee said:

See now, if I was of the "conspiracy" mind, I'd wonder if this wasn't the result of some clever lobbying to sell new copies of old stuff.

Click to expand...

I wish. That would mean they were actually going to make new copies of the old stuff. I get books either new or used; guess which ones make me feel like washing my hands after reading them. At least you know no one's taken a book fresh from Borders into the bathroom yet.

Unique said:

You mean you haven't been? I have. I grew up during Vietnam. I don't trust those jokers one inch. Not. One. Inch.

Some of you are being generous as in this is one of those 'unintended consequences'. I'm not that generous.

Click to expand...

I'm a flat out conspiracy theorist, and I see this as an affront to free thinking. if the government wants to protect our kids from something, let them start with the garbage they let be sold as food.