| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: Congress effectively bans old books |
 |
|
http://city-journal.org/2009/eon0212wo.html
| Quote: |
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. 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.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.
...
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is one of those things where public reaction can go either way, depending on the eventual outcome...
If Congress passes the law...
"Christ, what a bunch of paranoid old nellies, outlawing old books because of some miniscule risk. Sheesh."
If Congress doesn't pass the law, and some two-year old gets sick from chewing on the paper in a book his mother gave him...
"Holy cow, all this publicity about lead poisoning, and those idiot politicians actually voted against protecting kids?!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Exactly, On the Other Hand: prime hunting ground for anyone so inclined. I think of Thucydides's references to Athens's "clever speakers." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Books are sacred.
But it sure is a good way to facilitate historical revisionism.
What a phony issue! The cases of lead poisoning in children have come from paint in their homes. How many cases have been due to eating old books? None. Zero.
It is an extraordinary price to pay for a minute increase in imaginary security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Books are sacred. |
No. Some books are worthy. Others are absolute junk. I do not advocate destroying the junk. But let us not pretend that it is not junk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Books are sacred. |
No. Some books are worthy. Others are absolute junk. I do not advocate destroying the junk. But let us not pretend that it is not junk. |
I'm sure bacasper meant that in a more abstract sense.
Doesn't anyone remember when Congress tried to bowdlerize the Internet about 15 years ago?
That went nowhere and so will this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Books are sacred. |
No. Some books are worthy. Others are absolute junk. I do not advocate destroying the junk. But let us not pretend that it is not junk. |
I'm sure bacasper meant that in a more abstract sense. |
Yes, cw, thanks.
While I am sure Gopher is correct, the problem is who decides.
One man's "junk" may be another's sacred jewels. (  Did I actually just type that? You know what I mean!  Some of you have such filthy minds!  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
