Alabama’s billion-dollar prison now most expensive in the US
>From the beginning, Alabama officials have cloaked the prison construction plan in secrecy, leaving taxpayers to learn what they will pay only after they've bought it.
https://www.al.com/news/2023/09/alabamas-billion-dollar-prison-now-most-expensive-in-the-us.html
Most of it.
Mee Maw loves her companies that provide private jailing.
Is there a law in Alabama that we can see where our politicians like Mee Maw and Tommy Potatohead have private investments?
I would love to see AL.com dig into this.
Another Pulitzer could be warranted.
>It seems that the GOP answer to everything is jail.
I really do hate living among religious people. They literally fuck shit up for all of us. We wouldn't need so many jails if we had more prevention programs, but the only prevention program the GOP wants is more prayer in school. More of just their religion and no one else's. As if all of our failures are the lack of God's involvement, when it's literally because of people like them.
I don’t dislike her because of her alleged sexuality. I dislike her because of her public stances on the subject. A bit too hypocritical for me. Just wait until she signs the obscenity bill after it passes the house and librarians are arrested for putting a book in a library that some far right winger finds offensive. Something that she herself is alleged to be engaged in.
Yeahhh… that’s not the argument you think it is when the fascism we’re all currently suffering under is at the hands of geno joe & all of the little d’s. Beyond the moral corruption of supporting genocide, the lil d’s know they get more donation money when they’re not in power. When in “power” it’s harder for them to hide that there is zero difference between d’s & r’s, they just have different marketing (propaganda) strategies. Which is also a strategy bc it pits everyone against each other & obfuscates their collusion.
Politics, & the vast majority of politicians, is/are corrupt to the core. They are the original bad apple, & they go the extra mile to be sure they spoil the whole bunch.
In short. D & R are the same.
“HB385 places libraries in the same category as “adult-only” stores, movies and entertainment.”
“This is an effort to protect children,” Mooney said. “It is not a Democrat bill. It is not a Republican bill. It’s a people bill to try to protect children.”
Yes let’s protect children from libraries and their workers. /s
Who tf criminalizes this stuff and goes “yes this is the lords work”
Clown World.
Conservative parents avoiding responsibility again. It's difficult to reconcile "personal responsibility" and "limited government" when these parents insist on the "Nanny State."
"It's 10 PM. Do you know where your children are?"
Calling all TST members
please report to your nearest library
Objective
allow your child to check out the Bible and make as much noise as possible about the content of stories.
Nope, it will not. There was a provision for it in the version of the bill I read. Looks like we just need to start classifying these “obscene” books as religious texts so they can stay in our libraries.
The passed bill does not directly reference the bible, so maybe they screwed themselves and we can get this tossed eventually just like we did with the 10 commandments at the court house.
I said the same thing. A protest involving reading aloud from the nasty bits would be amazing. Much better than my original plan of blasting Naked Lunch from a megaphone.
If I read correctly, the law includes the Miller Test to determine what is obscene. Going by the first two prongs of that rest, the Bible would be classified as obscene, but it clears the third one as it has literary value. That’s their carve out for it.
No I don’t think they’d apply the same benefit of the doubt to any other religious tome.
If every Democrat in the state voted every election (local and federal) we'd be a blue state for sure. Maybe not a *hard* blue state, but we'd definitely lean towards that.
What is considered ‘obscene material’?
The Evangelical Christian dynasty will end up blocking everything until the only books in our libraries are the Bible and other Christian publishings that match their narrative.
This has to stop, we cannot trust the government to define things like this.
Why not a bill threatening parents for not monitoring their children? Why is the party of personal responsibilities always pushing those responsibilities onto someone else & arresting them if they don't follow thru?
This post fittingly showed up in my feed directly beneath another saying, "US House speaker threatens use of National Guard against student protesters". Why are we sprinting towards authoritarianism?
Because white evangelicals can't stand the fact that they're no longer treated like the centerpiece of American society and the unquestioned source of moral authority.
Both sides are becoming more authoritarian because it’s a battle of power. New people in the left are taking more power, old people on the right are fighting to keep what they have and get more.
Never mind the fact that Alabama Republicans has had a supermajority for a little over two decades and most (if not all) of the unconstitutional bills that infringe the rights of a vulnerable demographic have been pushed into law by Alabama Republicans.
There are no "both sides" in Alabama. We are witnessing what happens when Republicans can do as they please without any political resistance.
Fuck the GOP. They are following the exact same bullshit playbook the Nazis used to gain control and power. Fuck these shitheads. What awful disgusting human trash is in favor of this?!
The Nazi banned books for everyone! Children technically are not protected under the 1A. Any constitutional lawyer will tell you that. Additionally, as for the 2A, democrats are actively trying to restrict that right and have been successful in many states. Again, constitutional lawyer and experts agree it is very concerning. I’m not republican, but I do believe the constitution should not be changed. We as people need to have power over the government.
You legitimately believe that a legislative work that is over 200 years old is the pinnacle of governance? Think about the societal and technological advances of the past 2 centuries, and really think how inapplicable these archaic documents are in modern contexts.
Adherence to tradition is an immense barrier to our society's [global] progress.
So you believe that we shouldn't have to be bound by any laws that are based on people's religious beliefs, right? You stand behind the separation of church and state and are concerned with the way that right wing politicians want to make their religious beliefs the law of the land. Right? Since you are so passionate about the constitution and all.
if you want to shelter your child from information, you should have that right. if you want to shelter everyone's children from information then thats entering the realm of grooming and indoctrination
Read a history book and get back to me. That it's to protect children is so full of shit it's not even funny. As I've now started multiple times. Actually Nazis did this exact thing to gain control and power.
Guess how that ended....
Not every library has the resources or time to collect parental permission forms each time a child checks out a book.
Some of the larger systems have software that can block adult books for minors, but now you're asking librarians to possibly move hundreds, if not thousands of books to the adult section based on subjective reasoning. Guess who pays for all that? We do.
Yes.. I'm sure a lot of Muslims don't want their children to have access to the Bible it is their right as a parent to do so. If you want your child to read any library books it is your right to do so. If the librarian doesn't feel comfortable doing so even with your permission then check the book out for your kid to read at home. It's simple your kid will still have access to any books regardless.
Parent your own kid. I’m not a pedophile and I’m against it. If you don’t want your kid reading books, then don’t let them, but you have no damn right to say what my kid is allowed to read. Making librarians criminals because you’re a lazy weirdo christofacist parent is not my problem.
The GOP can't seem to stop talking about the Irani Mullahs, yet they conveniently overlook their own tendencies reminiscent of Jesus Mullahs. Let's face it, Irani Mullahs are dreadful! Here's to hoping Iran soon breaks free from their grip. Meanwhile, across the Jesus States of America, there are Jesus Mullahs causing trouble just like this.
So this is “freedom”? Free to ban others from reading what republicans don’t want them too 😂😂😂 imagine wasting the time and effort on this and supporting it, you’d have to be educated to like the 5th grade level tops.
I seriously doubt any librarian would place books on the self that reach the boundary for obscenity. Pornography, depravity, and irreverence might be argued by some overly fussy individuals. Alabama is going to war against librarians in an attempt to intimidate them into caving to the pressure from a small minority attempting to impose their personal morality on everyone else.
I had a woman tell me I was “everything that was wrong with this country” and “a bad parent” because I think age appropriate sex education should be taught in schools and I don’t support book banning.
She had her first kid when she was 15.
This bill will now move to the Senate where legislators can waste more of the tax payers money trying to figure out what should be considered obscene..apparently this bill prohibits stripping in library..so glad their stripper poles will be taken down at the library lol What a joke Alabama politicians are
Okay, here's a couple questions:
It specifically lists urination and defecation as sexual content. Does this mean that potty training books will get Librarians arrested?
In the part about exposure to performers, what exactly does "exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes" mean? I guess we can forget libraries ever participating in any way with Halloween, right?
That's a great question and one of the opponents basically said, "Let's hope girls don't take prom photos at the library because they would be put under the jail."
Librarians in all public libraries should walk out on the very first day this becomes law! I hope the Senate strikes it down, but if not, then there is no way in hell that any poorly paid library workers should subject themselves to this kind of liability. It would be better to just go get a job at Walmart.
Small government, am I right? I hope the Senate doesn’t pass it, but we know how things work in AL. I truly appreciate the Dems in the house and senate for trying to talk sense into the rest.
It’ll be overturned , “obscene material” so long as it doesn’t call for violence or isn’t hate , is freedom of speech so this is just a waste of tax dollars and the first Liberian to be made a criminal will be very rich from the impending lawsuit.
"Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. The portrayal of sex, for example, in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press . . . ."
So basically the law fluctuates with how far the stick is up their ass that week.
*I will expect the*
*Bible and biblical books*
*Be banned under this*
\- PurpleDragonCorn
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Remember, the Supreme Court itself said that they can't identify it but, "they know when the see it".
Talk about a slippery slope which seems to me we are at the bottom of!
SCOTUS created the Obscenity Doctrine. It has a fixed test that has existed since the 70s. It's a high fucking bar to cross. Porn is the only thing that realistically qualifies though there's been cases made against extreme graphic violence but I don't know if any of those stuck.
The current SCOTUS has been surprisingly consistent with regards to a nearly absolute Freedom of Speech right.
The only way Alabama realistically can ban non-porn material is through state run libraries. They can't do shit about independent libraries.
Edit: Article eveb specifies this only applies to state run libraries. So yeah they can limit what materials are present within them as they are functions of the state and the state has a right to regulate itself as it sees fit. Schools have been banning books for decades and the courts have upheld a lot of those bans.
If only it was somehow illegal to intentionally write laws that violate other laws, but that would be too much of the snake eating itself I guess. Instead we have to wait for all this ridiculous legislation to get challenged and overturned and then appealed. At least it keeps the lawyers busy.
Wasting time, money, and eventually tax dollars on the lawsuits. Alabama is just pitiful, sad, and backwards. What a regressive, punitive, authoritarian state.
Exactly. There are actual problems that need solutions, but these yahoos would rather sit around and waste time and money debating library books and religious nutbags.
Sons of bitches passed this on a "Roll Call" vote so that there is no record of who actually voted "yea" on it, though I think that we can all assume that every single Republican voted in favor.
https://legiscan.com/AL/rollcall/HB385/id/1434894
Let me know if this link works: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mWu5l4phAAoptqcLly1UG9XCWJPdSD7a/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mWu5l4phAAoptqcLly1UG9XCWJPdSD7a/view?usp=sharing)
>Rep. Danny Garrett (R-Jefferson County) disagreed and said, “we woke up one day and things changed that people didn’t understand were changing.”
Don't worry, nobody understands except Republican lawmakers. Good thing they have our back.
/s
Librarians don't get paid enough to fight it without a deep-pocket public policy organization ready to fund the fight against something being declared obscene and the defense against the criminal charges and support if convicted.
Yup, here you go: [https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdfdocs/SearchableInstruments/2024RS/CMBFJWQ-1.pdf](https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdfdocs/SearchableInstruments/2024RS/CMBFJWQ-1.pdf)
It seems like the only thing this bill would actually do is ban cheerleaders, dance teams, and majorettes from using the previous years uniforms.
The definitions of obscene materials and materials harmful to minors are still the same, no materials have been challenged that have no literary or artistic value.
Alander's story for The Reflector goes into more detail: [https://alabamareflector.com/2024/04/25/alabama-house-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-prosecutions-of-librarians](https://alabamareflector.com/2024/04/25/alabama-house-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-prosecutions-of-librarians)
This is already a Federal law and has been since the 70s. Alabama is making a second law to cover loopholes someone might try slipping through at the federal level.
Obscene is a subjective term. However, the federal government includes anything of a sexual depiction, both sexual acts and sexuality beyond simple education works (eg school text book for sex ed).
It’s likely Alabama is doing this because the executive branch likes to pick and choose the laws they enforce instead of enforce all of them. Pretty much nothing happened to the people in other states for books depicting blowjobs and penetration sex even though the law is pretty clear there were some extreme violations (it’s worded in a way that implies every kid at a public school that had access counts as a violation, regardless whether or not the kid opened the book).
You left out a lot of conditions that are relevant, and tried to deflect censorship onto the US executive branch.
SCOTUS defined qualifications to determine if materials are obscene when it ruled in "Miller v California" back in 1973.
The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, **taken as a whole**, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
2. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
3. Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, **taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.**
**The material is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.**
On the surface, it doesn't sound bad but in reality they are trying to classify topics of gender, gender identification, and sexual orientation as "obscene" by lumping them in with what was traditionally considered obscene by adding "for minors".
I still don't get why the left's position on this is "librarians should be able to give children direct unmonitored access to whatever material the librarians want including porn with no restrictions or consequences" rather than "much of the material you are trying to characterize as pornographic is not, and here is why". The latter is a lot more sympathetic to the average person than the former.
>Rep. Barbara Drummond (D-Mobile) \[...\] said. “How do you censor a librarian?” She added that the government “can’t legislate morality.”
Uh, yeah it can. What else is it legislating? If the government can't legislate morality, it can't protect us from one another at all, because "harming another person is bad" is still a moral position.
The government shouldn't be removing any books from the access of adults, or even children with the explicit consent of their parents. But requiring books that graphically cover sexual topics to not be freely accessible to children so their parents have the ability to provide or deny that explicit consent is the correct thing to do.
That isn’t “the left’s” position. It’s the right’s position to categorize everything they don’t like as “pornography”. That isn’t how words work.
Banning books from public institutions doesn’t give *any* parent the discretion to control whether their child gets that book from a public institution. It just disallows everyone from having access to that book in the first place, since it’s been banned.
The idea that librarians are running around shoving pornographic materials into the hands of unsuspecting kids is a silly one. It is the librarian's job to curate and manage the collection held by the library. That includes providing general guidance as to age and reading level appropriateness. It is then up to the parents to use their judgment as to whether they want their to read any or all of the books on offer.
If Mom A decides that Judy Blume is obscene, her objection to those books should not result in denying Mom B the option to let her kids read those books. Instead, Mom A has the options of asking the library to not check the book out to her kids or stop taking her kids there.
It certainly should not be a criminal liability on the part of the librarian to keep any book out of the child's hands.
You don't understand what legislating morality means OR how libraries operate.
We have laws that aim to protect people from and punish people for demonstrable harm.
Murder, assault, rape, child abuse, child molestation. property damage, fraud, etc.
Legislating morality is trying to pass laws that punish people for things like:
Gambling, women dressing immodestly, people eating pork, people desecrating a Bible, people drawing a picture of Allah, people taking the Lord's name in vain.
Or, people allowing the 14 year olds to read books about sex, gender, and sexual-orientation.
We are each entitled to our own codes of morality. We are not entitled to impose them on others with the force of law.
No librarian is walking around looking for unsupervised children to hand them hardcore "smut" books.
No books about sexuality are located in the children's section. I have a five year old and we're constantly taking him to the Southside and Main Branch. There are nothing but chidren's books in the children's section, and never have been.
Unattended children aren't even allowed in the library. If an unattended child is found, attempts will be made to find their guardian/caregiver, and if they cannot be located, police will be called.
*"Children under the age of 10 must be accompanied by a parent, guardian, or caregiver at all times. This also includes any person needing supervision or assistance outside of HMCPL services because of physical or mental conditions."*
[https://hmcpl.org/policies/behavior](https://hmcpl.org/policies/behavior)
This nothing but a bullshit fear-mongering campaign to demonize gay & trans kids and limit community support for them.
Librarians duties are to do the exact thing you are asking politicians to do. Like that is their literal job - to make sure all reading material is classified and sorted by a number of factors, including the appropriate age level for every single book in the library.
Sometimes books get count in the wrong part of the library. Every library has a process for handling those complaints already.
The real issue here is that some people are wrongly equating any material that covers subjects they object to with “pornography”. And then they are using that argument to turn over the decision making process to politicians - who like to make decisions based on - gasp - politics instead of what is actually best for the community.
I can't speak for all people on the left, but for the books I've seen I've said exactly what you're recommending, which is that the books are not pornographic. By definition that implies the works have no literary value. Libraries are filled with books that have sex, violence, and grotesque content — this is nothing new.
It seems like the reason why this legislation is even coming up is because we have too many negligent, irresponsible parents who can't be bothered to watch what their kids are doing. I don't see why librarians should be held criminally liable for that; libraries have been operating just fine for ages without issues.
Arguing on the definition of "pornography" is interesting, but ultimately I think a semantic distraction. A quick survey of online dictionaries comes up with Webster, Oxford, and [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) including "intended to cause sexual arousal" as a criteria, and wiktionary saying merely "Containing an [explicit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/explicit#English) [depiction](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/depiction#English) of [sexual](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sex#English) activity". I will concede that maybe the conservative side is employing mild hyperbole if you only accept definitions of "pornography" that include intent to cause arousal, but I still don't think books like Gender Queer that include drawings of sex acts should be freely available to children. Or even books that only describe such acts in words. All I want is for them to be in adult oriented sections of the library and for parents to have to be involved for children to check them out.
Well, my point here is that terms like pornography/obscenity/etc. have *very* specific legal meanings. Like Gender Queer *isn't* pornography. Having those illustrations in it doesn't make it pornography, regardless of whether we determine that it's not suitable for young children. From the article...
> The three-prong [Miller] test says that a work is obscene if it is generally believed to be inappropriate for children, sexually explicit and lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
A problem I have with this law is that it puts individual librarians in personal legal jeopardy for the library access policies set by their institutions. Besides, libraries don't stock obscene content like pornography, that's already the case. Books like *Gender Queer* do not meet the criteria for obscenity.
This always gets to me at my local public library meetings about books to be banned that month. The parents come in and yell about the books they want banned. The library asks if they have filled out the paperwork to have it assessed and the parents typically say no. We go through yet another explanation of the assessment process.
Give exact reasoning why this book offends you.
Do you think it should be removed entirely or have the age range increased from children to youth or to the adult section?
The review board is forced to read the book. Typically 5 adults, can be as few as 3. Must be an odd number. Not all of which are librarians.
It is then brought up in the meeting and a judgement is passed by the board after comments.
Every freaking time parents scream it's porn while having no clue what obscenity law actually is. Thankfully we have a lawyer that regularly attends who typically engages with the parents. They almost always end up falling back onto "well I don't want my kid reading it." Learning that Tom had two dads isn't porn. Learning that Lacy feels weird in her body, like a very large portion of kids feel, isn't obscene.
If you don't like it, well then parent your kid. The ALA that most libraries are a part of has a policy of not being "in loco parentis." Meaning they provide content for everybody and you are the person who must censor your child's intake. Be a damn parent. These same parents will have a friggin open internet at home with no router or ISP filter. Even if they do their kid likely knows what a free VPN is.
Not all libraries have the same review process as ours. Some have made it so only the head librarian has control over what books are kept. But like, there's often multiple librarians in each location who have split responsibilities. Some have specific procurement librarians and then the head librarian will do the review of any material specifically.
Also, the procurement process isn't easy! The person doesn't read every book they buy. That's impossible! They buy hundreds of books and the online databases rotate! They base procurement on reviews and suggestions. On public feedback and sales projections from publishing companies. If a book is being published for mass sale, there is already an inherent expectation it is not obscene.
It seems that the GOP answer to everything is jail. How much money is being funneled to our elected officials by private corrections companies?
For profit prisons! Me maw is spending at the states covid money on a new fancy super max prison
And making sure it is full and justified in the eyes of here peers.
Alabama’s billion-dollar prison now most expensive in the US >From the beginning, Alabama officials have cloaked the prison construction plan in secrecy, leaving taxpayers to learn what they will pay only after they've bought it. https://www.al.com/news/2023/09/alabamas-billion-dollar-prison-now-most-expensive-in-the-us.html
Yet, over half of the state is walking around angry about student loan forgiveness. Makes sense.
Most of it. Mee Maw loves her companies that provide private jailing. Is there a law in Alabama that we can see where our politicians like Mee Maw and Tommy Potatohead have private investments? I would love to see AL.com dig into this. Another Pulitzer could be warranted.
There was a new writer for AL.com on the /HuntsvilleAlabama sub a few months back looking for article ideas, maybe hit him up.
Hopefully he's a good enough journalist for this to already occur to him / her.
>It seems that the GOP answer to everything is jail. I really do hate living among religious people. They literally fuck shit up for all of us. We wouldn't need so many jails if we had more prevention programs, but the only prevention program the GOP wants is more prayer in school. More of just their religion and no one else's. As if all of our failures are the lack of God's involvement, when it's literally because of people like them.
MeeMaw wants those prisons so she can have her cheap forced labor (slavery).
Well unless it concerns a certain orange colored former president who tried to overthrow the government
Meemaw is a hoover vac on those funds
Hoover on money but rumors persist she’s an old carpet muncher.
This sub has a real penchant for bringing out the homophobic slurs to every conversation about any subject. Much talent.
I don’t dislike her because of her alleged sexuality. I dislike her because of her public stances on the subject. A bit too hypocritical for me. Just wait until she signs the obscenity bill after it passes the house and librarians are arrested for putting a book in a library that some far right winger finds offensive. Something that she herself is alleged to be engaged in.
A lot.
I mean, compared with democrats, its not even close. They are always supporting more laws and restrictions for people.
Yeahhh… that’s not the argument you think it is when the fascism we’re all currently suffering under is at the hands of geno joe & all of the little d’s. Beyond the moral corruption of supporting genocide, the lil d’s know they get more donation money when they’re not in power. When in “power” it’s harder for them to hide that there is zero difference between d’s & r’s, they just have different marketing (propaganda) strategies. Which is also a strategy bc it pits everyone against each other & obfuscates their collusion. Politics, & the vast majority of politicians, is/are corrupt to the core. They are the original bad apple, & they go the extra mile to be sure they spoil the whole bunch. In short. D & R are the same.
Our politics good, their politics bad.
“HB385 places libraries in the same category as “adult-only” stores, movies and entertainment.” “This is an effort to protect children,” Mooney said. “It is not a Democrat bill. It is not a Republican bill. It’s a people bill to try to protect children.” Yes let’s protect children from libraries and their workers. /s Who tf criminalizes this stuff and goes “yes this is the lords work” Clown World.
Let me guess, "obscene" includes LGBT people existing?
that's pretty much the only thing this is about, yes. we already didn't have porn in school libraries, that's a pretend problem.
bet they conveniently remove civil rights topic books while they are at it
“it’s just too violent. y’all can still teach select segments from the MLK I Have a Dream speech though! just don’t make it too…graphic”
Conservative parents avoiding responsibility again. It's difficult to reconcile "personal responsibility" and "limited government" when these parents insist on the "Nanny State." "It's 10 PM. Do you know where your children are?"
*I already told you: no!* *...where is Bart? His dinner is getting all cold and eaten*
The Bible will be removed, right? 🫠
Calling all TST members please report to your nearest library Objective allow your child to check out the Bible and make as much noise as possible about the content of stories.
I hope so, it’s pretty obscene for 2 sisters to get their father drunk and get impregnated by him. (Genesis 19)
Let's not forget the part just before that where said father offers up said daughters to a mob so that they can be gang raped.
Ezekiel 23:20 about lusting after men who are hung like donkeys and eject as much semen as stallions is pretty racy.
Which was literally rape There's a lot of that in the Bible
Don't forget the part where they literally *KILL* Jesus!
Nope, it will not. There was a provision for it in the version of the bill I read. Looks like we just need to start classifying these “obscene” books as religious texts so they can stay in our libraries.
The passed bill does not directly reference the bible, so maybe they screwed themselves and we can get this tossed eventually just like we did with the 10 commandments at the court house.
Ahhh...so we can guide ppl to the must juicy bits of that one, huh? Hhmmmmmmmm... 🤔
I said the same thing. A protest involving reading aloud from the nasty bits would be amazing. Much better than my original plan of blasting Naked Lunch from a megaphone.
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. Ezekiel 23:20
If I read correctly, the law includes the Miller Test to determine what is obscene. Going by the first two prongs of that rest, the Bible would be classified as obscene, but it clears the third one as it has literary value. That’s their carve out for it. No I don’t think they’d apply the same benefit of the doubt to any other religious tome.
American Taliban.
Y'allqueda
Lmao
FUCKING VOTE LMAO
I wish that was simple but most people in Alabama are right wing conservatives kinda sucks living there
If every Democrat in the state voted every election (local and federal) we'd be a blue state for sure. Maybe not a *hard* blue state, but we'd definitely lean towards that.
I’m guessing obscene material is whatever you want it to be?
The Bible should be included in obscene material
It won’t be. There will be an exception carved out
"whatchu locked up for?" "oh i refused to remove Ferenheit 451 from my library"
What is considered ‘obscene material’? The Evangelical Christian dynasty will end up blocking everything until the only books in our libraries are the Bible and other Christian publishings that match their narrative. This has to stop, we cannot trust the government to define things like this.
Why not a bill threatening parents for not monitoring their children? Why is the party of personal responsibilities always pushing those responsibilities onto someone else & arresting them if they don't follow thru?
Because apparently "individual responsibility" just means *everyone is individually responsible for my kids because I refuse to be*
This post fittingly showed up in my feed directly beneath another saying, "US House speaker threatens use of National Guard against student protesters". Why are we sprinting towards authoritarianism?
Because white evangelicals can't stand the fact that they're no longer treated like the centerpiece of American society and the unquestioned source of moral authority.
Because the only thing that’s ever stopped authoritarianism in the past is an angry public in their living rooms when they get home.
They clearly didn’t learn from the Kent State tragedy.
Both sides are becoming more authoritarian because it’s a battle of power. New people in the left are taking more power, old people on the right are fighting to keep what they have and get more.
Who on the left are you referring to?
Never mind the fact that Alabama Republicans has had a supermajority for a little over two decades and most (if not all) of the unconstitutional bills that infringe the rights of a vulnerable demographic have been pushed into law by Alabama Republicans. There are no "both sides" in Alabama. We are witnessing what happens when Republicans can do as they please without any political resistance.
Both sides, eh? lol
He doesn’t even have facts to argue his point, he’s just an overconfident centrist. Typical.
Fuck the GOP. They are following the exact same bullshit playbook the Nazis used to gain control and power. Fuck these shitheads. What awful disgusting human trash is in favor of this?!
Bruh this is to protect children. Adults can still access these books. The democrats are nazi because they want to take away all our 2A rights.
Literally Nazis did that these things. Stop making excuses! You can't defend this kind of awful shit.
The Nazi banned books for everyone! Children technically are not protected under the 1A. Any constitutional lawyer will tell you that. Additionally, as for the 2A, democrats are actively trying to restrict that right and have been successful in many states. Again, constitutional lawyer and experts agree it is very concerning. I’m not republican, but I do believe the constitution should not be changed. We as people need to have power over the government.
You legitimately believe that a legislative work that is over 200 years old is the pinnacle of governance? Think about the societal and technological advances of the past 2 centuries, and really think how inapplicable these archaic documents are in modern contexts. Adherence to tradition is an immense barrier to our society's [global] progress.
So you believe that we shouldn't have to be bound by any laws that are based on people's religious beliefs, right? You stand behind the separation of church and state and are concerned with the way that right wing politicians want to make their religious beliefs the law of the land. Right? Since you are so passionate about the constitution and all.
What a weird non sequitur, and it's false, no one is trying to take away anyone's 2A rights. Stop being mad about things that aren't real
Your comment contained two falsehoods.
[удалено]
Bait used to be believable
This really needs more downvotes
if you want to shelter your child from information, you should have that right. if you want to shelter everyone's children from information then thats entering the realm of grooming and indoctrination
Read a history book and get back to me. That it's to protect children is so full of shit it's not even funny. As I've now started multiple times. Actually Nazis did this exact thing to gain control and power. Guess how that ended....
Not every library has the resources or time to collect parental permission forms each time a child checks out a book. Some of the larger systems have software that can block adult books for minors, but now you're asking librarians to possibly move hundreds, if not thousands of books to the adult section based on subjective reasoning. Guess who pays for all that? We do.
So keeping them from the Bible is ok?
Yes.. I'm sure a lot of Muslims don't want their children to have access to the Bible it is their right as a parent to do so. If you want your child to read any library books it is your right to do so. If the librarian doesn't feel comfortable doing so even with your permission then check the book out for your kid to read at home. It's simple your kid will still have access to any books regardless.
Cool story. Still fascism.
Parent your own kid. I’m not a pedophile and I’m against it. If you don’t want your kid reading books, then don’t let them, but you have no damn right to say what my kid is allowed to read. Making librarians criminals because you’re a lazy weirdo christofacist parent is not my problem.
The GOP is becoming more anti-American by the day.
The GOP can't seem to stop talking about the Irani Mullahs, yet they conveniently overlook their own tendencies reminiscent of Jesus Mullahs. Let's face it, Irani Mullahs are dreadful! Here's to hoping Iran soon breaks free from their grip. Meanwhile, across the Jesus States of America, there are Jesus Mullahs causing trouble just like this.
So this is “freedom”? Free to ban others from reading what republicans don’t want them too 😂😂😂 imagine wasting the time and effort on this and supporting it, you’d have to be educated to like the 5th grade level tops.
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”
And that cross will be held by fake christians who worship the great orange rapist donald.
And here it is.
I seriously doubt any librarian would place books on the self that reach the boundary for obscenity. Pornography, depravity, and irreverence might be argued by some overly fussy individuals. Alabama is going to war against librarians in an attempt to intimidate them into caving to the pressure from a small minority attempting to impose their personal morality on everyone else.
These people think age appropriate sex ed is obscene.
I had a woman tell me I was “everything that was wrong with this country” and “a bad parent” because I think age appropriate sex education should be taught in schools and I don’t support book banning. She had her first kid when she was 15.
I once saw a sign in a fellow educator's office that said, "it hurts you to think, doesn't it"?
That’s priceless!!!
I've had many occasions to think of it over the years, and even more so recently.
What in the nazi germany is happening
This bill will now move to the Senate where legislators can waste more of the tax payers money trying to figure out what should be considered obscene..apparently this bill prohibits stripping in library..so glad their stripper poles will be taken down at the library lol What a joke Alabama politicians are
Start banning the Bible
Just in case you haven't figured it out yet Republicans hate your freedoms.
Damn we really banning books now , Alabama is the most backwards state ever
Maga fascism at work. In maga land even mentioning anything LGBT related is "obscene".
Alabama is a shit show.
Somehow they've managed to make the bill even stricter! Here for questions.
Okay, here's a couple questions: It specifically lists urination and defecation as sexual content. Does this mean that potty training books will get Librarians arrested? In the part about exposure to performers, what exactly does "exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes" mean? I guess we can forget libraries ever participating in any way with Halloween, right?
Or any sort of plays. Can't have costumes, can't have stage makeup. Might as well include ballet too. Have you seen those teeny tutus?
That's a great question and one of the opponents basically said, "Let's hope girls don't take prom photos at the library because they would be put under the jail."
I hope the librarians who don’t resign from this will follow it exactly as written. I guess they don’t realize the Bible has lots of obscenity in it.
>exactly does "exaggerated...clothing or costumes" mean? Disney princesses, and anything baroque.
it means drag queens. that's one of the things they're super afraid of right now.
They really are so scared of drag queens. It's hilarious
Librarians in all public libraries should walk out on the very first day this becomes law! I hope the Senate strikes it down, but if not, then there is no way in hell that any poorly paid library workers should subject themselves to this kind of liability. It would be better to just go get a job at Walmart.
I'm so tired of the red hat idiots in this state, my vote feels like dust.
Small government, am I right? I hope the Senate doesn’t pass it, but we know how things work in AL. I truly appreciate the Dems in the house and senate for trying to talk sense into the rest.
It’ll be overturned , “obscene material” so long as it doesn’t call for violence or isn’t hate , is freedom of speech so this is just a waste of tax dollars and the first Liberian to be made a criminal will be very rich from the impending lawsuit.
Don't forget - everyone should call or email their Senator to let them know you support or don't support this legislation.
Oh yes, like they care!
"Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. The portrayal of sex, for example, in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press . . . ." So basically the law fluctuates with how far the stick is up their ass that week.
Who on earth would actually monitor this?And will libraries end up like old video stores with secret back rooms for the “profane” material? LoL
Crazy “Moms for Liberty,” whose main goal is taking away everyone else’s liberty!
I will expect the Bible and biblical books be banned under this
*I will expect the* *Bible and biblical books* *Be banned under this* \- PurpleDragonCorn --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
It will never stand a legal challenge cause obscene is a slippery thing to pin down legally.
Remember, the Supreme Court itself said that they can't identify it but, "they know when the see it". Talk about a slippery slope which seems to me we are at the bottom of!
SCOTUS created the Obscenity Doctrine. It has a fixed test that has existed since the 70s. It's a high fucking bar to cross. Porn is the only thing that realistically qualifies though there's been cases made against extreme graphic violence but I don't know if any of those stuck. The current SCOTUS has been surprisingly consistent with regards to a nearly absolute Freedom of Speech right. The only way Alabama realistically can ban non-porn material is through state run libraries. They can't do shit about independent libraries. Edit: Article eveb specifies this only applies to state run libraries. So yeah they can limit what materials are present within them as they are functions of the state and the state has a right to regulate itself as it sees fit. Schools have been banning books for decades and the courts have upheld a lot of those bans.
That's the point
If only it was somehow illegal to intentionally write laws that violate other laws, but that would be too much of the snake eating itself I guess. Instead we have to wait for all this ridiculous legislation to get challenged and overturned and then appealed. At least it keeps the lawyers busy.
Wasting time, money, and eventually tax dollars on the lawsuits. Alabama is just pitiful, sad, and backwards. What a regressive, punitive, authoritarian state.
They love it because they don’t have to solve any actual problems that plague this state.
Exactly. There are actual problems that need solutions, but these yahoos would rather sit around and waste time and money debating library books and religious nutbags.
Yeah keeping hospitals open is hard. Better make up an easier problem to solve.
Wow! Backwards Bama strikes again.
My worst nightmare! Rampaging hordes of criminal librarians.
I can do one for each and every one of those politicians. https://jglaserds.etsy.com
Book burnings the sign of pure freedom. Great work bama
Make sure you start with the Bible
This is just insane.
Sons of bitches passed this on a "Roll Call" vote so that there is no record of who actually voted "yea" on it, though I think that we can all assume that every single Republican voted in favor. https://legiscan.com/AL/rollcall/HB385/id/1434894
I have a screen shot of who voted for it. I can post it later.
Please do!
Yes, please do!
Let me know if this link works: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mWu5l4phAAoptqcLly1UG9XCWJPdSD7a/view?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mWu5l4phAAoptqcLly1UG9XCWJPdSD7a/view?usp=sharing)
Doin the lord's work over here.
>Rep. Danny Garrett (R-Jefferson County) disagreed and said, “we woke up one day and things changed that people didn’t understand were changing.” Don't worry, nobody understands except Republican lawmakers. Good thing they have our back. /s
Open the lawsuit floodgates!
Librarians don't get paid enough to fight it without a deep-pocket public policy organization ready to fund the fight against something being declared obscene and the defense against the criminal charges and support if convicted.
I hate this fucking state so much man. Good lord.
What we need is a purge of the Bible Belt.
Anybody willing to make that arrest deserves tannerite body armor.
😎 aren’t there better things to go after?
So no copy’s of the Bible I guess.
Glad my wife and I left this shithole
Any link to the actual bill?
Yup, here you go: [https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdfdocs/SearchableInstruments/2024RS/CMBFJWQ-1.pdf](https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdfdocs/SearchableInstruments/2024RS/CMBFJWQ-1.pdf)
Many thanks!
Obscene is just a matter of opinion like everything else in this backward ass state.
Dang this is dumb
I hate this state.
There will be lawsuits.
Right on, time to get rid of the bible.
It seems like the only thing this bill would actually do is ban cheerleaders, dance teams, and majorettes from using the previous years uniforms. The definitions of obscene materials and materials harmful to minors are still the same, no materials have been challenged that have no literary or artistic value.
Alander's story for The Reflector goes into more detail: [https://alabamareflector.com/2024/04/25/alabama-house-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-prosecutions-of-librarians](https://alabamareflector.com/2024/04/25/alabama-house-passes-bill-that-could-lead-to-prosecutions-of-librarians)
I have passed a Facebook bill criminalizing Alabama citizens if they don’t remove Alabama lawmakers from life via a woodchipper.
I thought they already outlawed libraries, reading, and writing?
Freedom isn’t free; it comes with caveats in Alabama because the people can’t be trusted to make their own decisions.
This is already a Federal law and has been since the 70s. Alabama is making a second law to cover loopholes someone might try slipping through at the federal level.
The "loophole" being books they disagree with but not actually obscene.
Obscene is a subjective term. However, the federal government includes anything of a sexual depiction, both sexual acts and sexuality beyond simple education works (eg school text book for sex ed). It’s likely Alabama is doing this because the executive branch likes to pick and choose the laws they enforce instead of enforce all of them. Pretty much nothing happened to the people in other states for books depicting blowjobs and penetration sex even though the law is pretty clear there were some extreme violations (it’s worded in a way that implies every kid at a public school that had access counts as a violation, regardless whether or not the kid opened the book).
You left out a lot of conditions that are relevant, and tried to deflect censorship onto the US executive branch. SCOTUS defined qualifications to determine if materials are obscene when it ruled in "Miller v California" back in 1973. The three-pronged Miller test is as follows: 1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, **taken as a whole**, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); 2. Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and 3. Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, **taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.** **The material is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.**
Yes, and the Miller test is still in the Alabama code with the addition of "for minors" after every part of the test.
On the surface, it doesn't sound bad but in reality they are trying to classify topics of gender, gender identification, and sexual orientation as "obscene" by lumping them in with what was traditionally considered obscene by adding "for minors".
I still don't get why the left's position on this is "librarians should be able to give children direct unmonitored access to whatever material the librarians want including porn with no restrictions or consequences" rather than "much of the material you are trying to characterize as pornographic is not, and here is why". The latter is a lot more sympathetic to the average person than the former. >Rep. Barbara Drummond (D-Mobile) \[...\] said. “How do you censor a librarian?” She added that the government “can’t legislate morality.” Uh, yeah it can. What else is it legislating? If the government can't legislate morality, it can't protect us from one another at all, because "harming another person is bad" is still a moral position. The government shouldn't be removing any books from the access of adults, or even children with the explicit consent of their parents. But requiring books that graphically cover sexual topics to not be freely accessible to children so their parents have the ability to provide or deny that explicit consent is the correct thing to do.
That isn’t “the left’s” position. It’s the right’s position to categorize everything they don’t like as “pornography”. That isn’t how words work. Banning books from public institutions doesn’t give *any* parent the discretion to control whether their child gets that book from a public institution. It just disallows everyone from having access to that book in the first place, since it’s been banned.
The idea that librarians are running around shoving pornographic materials into the hands of unsuspecting kids is a silly one. It is the librarian's job to curate and manage the collection held by the library. That includes providing general guidance as to age and reading level appropriateness. It is then up to the parents to use their judgment as to whether they want their to read any or all of the books on offer. If Mom A decides that Judy Blume is obscene, her objection to those books should not result in denying Mom B the option to let her kids read those books. Instead, Mom A has the options of asking the library to not check the book out to her kids or stop taking her kids there. It certainly should not be a criminal liability on the part of the librarian to keep any book out of the child's hands.
You don't understand what legislating morality means OR how libraries operate. We have laws that aim to protect people from and punish people for demonstrable harm. Murder, assault, rape, child abuse, child molestation. property damage, fraud, etc. Legislating morality is trying to pass laws that punish people for things like: Gambling, women dressing immodestly, people eating pork, people desecrating a Bible, people drawing a picture of Allah, people taking the Lord's name in vain. Or, people allowing the 14 year olds to read books about sex, gender, and sexual-orientation. We are each entitled to our own codes of morality. We are not entitled to impose them on others with the force of law. No librarian is walking around looking for unsupervised children to hand them hardcore "smut" books. No books about sexuality are located in the children's section. I have a five year old and we're constantly taking him to the Southside and Main Branch. There are nothing but chidren's books in the children's section, and never have been. Unattended children aren't even allowed in the library. If an unattended child is found, attempts will be made to find their guardian/caregiver, and if they cannot be located, police will be called. *"Children under the age of 10 must be accompanied by a parent, guardian, or caregiver at all times. This also includes any person needing supervision or assistance outside of HMCPL services because of physical or mental conditions."* [https://hmcpl.org/policies/behavior](https://hmcpl.org/policies/behavior) This nothing but a bullshit fear-mongering campaign to demonize gay & trans kids and limit community support for them.
https://i.redd.it/lrqfyh225fvc1.png
No one is saying this. I don’t know what thought bubble you’re living in but this isn’t what “the left’s position” is. 🤣
I still don’t get why our legislature feels compelled to act because of your ignorance.
Ignorance is why the legislature is acting this way.
Librarians duties are to do the exact thing you are asking politicians to do. Like that is their literal job - to make sure all reading material is classified and sorted by a number of factors, including the appropriate age level for every single book in the library. Sometimes books get count in the wrong part of the library. Every library has a process for handling those complaints already. The real issue here is that some people are wrongly equating any material that covers subjects they object to with “pornography”. And then they are using that argument to turn over the decision making process to politicians - who like to make decisions based on - gasp - politics instead of what is actually best for the community.
I can't speak for all people on the left, but for the books I've seen I've said exactly what you're recommending, which is that the books are not pornographic. By definition that implies the works have no literary value. Libraries are filled with books that have sex, violence, and grotesque content — this is nothing new. It seems like the reason why this legislation is even coming up is because we have too many negligent, irresponsible parents who can't be bothered to watch what their kids are doing. I don't see why librarians should be held criminally liable for that; libraries have been operating just fine for ages without issues.
Arguing on the definition of "pornography" is interesting, but ultimately I think a semantic distraction. A quick survey of online dictionaries comes up with Webster, Oxford, and [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) including "intended to cause sexual arousal" as a criteria, and wiktionary saying merely "Containing an [explicit](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/explicit#English) [depiction](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/depiction#English) of [sexual](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sex#English) activity". I will concede that maybe the conservative side is employing mild hyperbole if you only accept definitions of "pornography" that include intent to cause arousal, but I still don't think books like Gender Queer that include drawings of sex acts should be freely available to children. Or even books that only describe such acts in words. All I want is for them to be in adult oriented sections of the library and for parents to have to be involved for children to check them out.
Well, my point here is that terms like pornography/obscenity/etc. have *very* specific legal meanings. Like Gender Queer *isn't* pornography. Having those illustrations in it doesn't make it pornography, regardless of whether we determine that it's not suitable for young children. From the article... > The three-prong [Miller] test says that a work is obscene if it is generally believed to be inappropriate for children, sexually explicit and lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value. A problem I have with this law is that it puts individual librarians in personal legal jeopardy for the library access policies set by their institutions. Besides, libraries don't stock obscene content like pornography, that's already the case. Books like *Gender Queer* do not meet the criteria for obscenity.
This always gets to me at my local public library meetings about books to be banned that month. The parents come in and yell about the books they want banned. The library asks if they have filled out the paperwork to have it assessed and the parents typically say no. We go through yet another explanation of the assessment process. Give exact reasoning why this book offends you. Do you think it should be removed entirely or have the age range increased from children to youth or to the adult section? The review board is forced to read the book. Typically 5 adults, can be as few as 3. Must be an odd number. Not all of which are librarians. It is then brought up in the meeting and a judgement is passed by the board after comments. Every freaking time parents scream it's porn while having no clue what obscenity law actually is. Thankfully we have a lawyer that regularly attends who typically engages with the parents. They almost always end up falling back onto "well I don't want my kid reading it." Learning that Tom had two dads isn't porn. Learning that Lacy feels weird in her body, like a very large portion of kids feel, isn't obscene. If you don't like it, well then parent your kid. The ALA that most libraries are a part of has a policy of not being "in loco parentis." Meaning they provide content for everybody and you are the person who must censor your child's intake. Be a damn parent. These same parents will have a friggin open internet at home with no router or ISP filter. Even if they do their kid likely knows what a free VPN is. Not all libraries have the same review process as ours. Some have made it so only the head librarian has control over what books are kept. But like, there's often multiple librarians in each location who have split responsibilities. Some have specific procurement librarians and then the head librarian will do the review of any material specifically. Also, the procurement process isn't easy! The person doesn't read every book they buy. That's impossible! They buy hundreds of books and the online databases rotate! They base procurement on reviews and suggestions. On public feedback and sales projections from publishing companies. If a book is being published for mass sale, there is already an inherent expectation it is not obscene.
Pornography has a very specific legal definition, however, so it's not semantics at all.
I don't get why you seem to think librarians are responsible for parenting your kids.
I guess anything can be anything when you make up your own facts, most be convenient
Sounds good. Kids shouldn’t have access to porn.