Book banning is so quaint in today’s internet age (Opinion)

A government solution to stem the tide? I don’t think there is one. Governments that try authoritarian approaches more often than not fail, as banning something just drives it underground. Rating systems seem useful but are certainly not foolproof. At least they warn you with what might be found in the media being rated. Today’s R rating on a movie was an X rating back in the day when they first started that. 

Let professionals assess a book or film for all manner of content, classify the book and place it on the shelf according to age appropriateness in that particular local community. It’s a leaf blowing in the wind, but really it’s about all that can be done. Individual media providers, parents, children and adults will self-select and create a de facto but ever-changing definition of appropriateness without government assistance.

Walt Lind, Nassau Bay

Rep. Shawn Thierry (D-Houston) said, “You would never sit at your kitchen table and read some of the content to your own children.” That’s fine. Anyone who doesn’t want to read any particular book doesn’t have to. The mere existence of a book in a school library does not make it required reading for anyone. If no one checks the book out, the library will take it off the shelves to make room for a more popular selection. 

While Rep. Thierry can be in charge of what her family reads, she does not have the right to dictate what other families read. Parental rights seem to be a hot topic these days, but no one is admitting that these book bans are taking away parents’ rights to choose what their children are allowed to read. If I have a problem with a book, that’s something to be handled between my children and me. I would never dream of forcing my views on someone else’s child, and those in the Texas House and Senate should do the same. All parents should have rights, not just a select few.

Jean Tanner, Houston

Fox settlement

Regarding “Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims,” (April 18): Rupert Murdoch, the purveyor of scandal sheet newspapers in London and New York City before founding Fox Corp. and the Fox News network, admitted that he knew the 2020 election was fair but looked the other way when his newscasters spread lies about a stolen election. Ethical journalism took a backseat to playing to its audience of pro-Trump, ultra-conservative followers in the Republican Party. Your article belonged on the front page of your newspaper.

H. Clay Moore, Dickinson

Space X rocket failure

Regarding “SpaceX Starship soars, then explodes over Gulf in Texas debut of world’s most powerful rocket,” (April 20): Reading Andrea Leinfelder’s article about the explosion of the SpaceX rocket, headlined “An explosive success” in print, convinced me that the Houston Chronicle must reevaluate itself to determine what it represents and report this honestly to the public. Is it a trusty journalistic source of information or a sensationalist news rag?

When did failure become success? Just think what would have occurred if astronauts had been in that SpaceX rocket! The Chronicle has dipped down in my esteem with this one article.

Brandt Mannchen, Houston

While the aerospace entities and NASA proclaim a success of the launch, the fact is that the launch vehicle had to be destroyed because it did not separate from the booster. Stage separation is not new stuff; it should be a given unless there is a real lack of expertise and competence in this field.  NASA had a related failure during the Shuttle Program. NASA had just changed contractors, and lo and behold, the separation system for a satellite launched from the shuttle payload bay did not work as planned. It seems that the new contractor did not keep the key intellectual infrastructure (i.e., older engineers and workers) and the result was very predictable.  

James A. Babb, Friendswood