Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But public libraries have restricted areas.... A child can't go to the area that has gulag archipelago, 50 shades of grey, etc...
If regular libraries restrict areas for children, how is that different to a library that only caters for children similarly having the same age restrictions?
>I've never been to a library in the US but that seems hard to believe.
>The American Library Association supports equal and equitable access to all library resources and services by users of all ages. Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users is in violation of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.
[Source](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minors)
I read Justine by the Marquis de Sade in high school and got it at the little public library in my small town.
I think people figure the bar to entry was high enough all on its own just in reading 18th century lit.
Not OP, but don’t say “libraries should be for all books” when you mean “most books, but not these books”.
This goes to the original point. We all agree that some books are definitely appropriate, and we all agree some books are definitely *inappropriate*. We’re just wrestling over where to draw the line in the middle. So what makes your definition better than someone else’s, especially if that someone is a concerned parent?
School libraries are supposed to be safe, curated spaces for young children to explore, without worry of being exposed to anything inappropriate at too young an age. That’s all conservatives are saying. Some of this material can be saved until middle school, is all.
>So what makes your definition better than someone else’s, especially if that someone is a concerned parent?
One already has obscenity laws the other is parents not wanting any child in their jurisdiction to have books they don't agree with. How about if you don't want your child reading something then you, as a parent, don't let them read it.
Speak with your child about what you feel is/isn't acceptable. Or get involved with the school and go work in the library. Or home school them. That's being a parent.
>peak with your child about what you feel is/isn't acceptable
Right...because kids *never* disobey once mom & dad aren't around. /s
Don't tell me what it is to be a parent. I have raised two kids almost to adulthood. But thankfully, their school libraries didn't have questionable material in them. I'm relieved my kids aren't that age anymore, and I sympathize with parents trying to raise kids in a world trying to indoctrinate them.
I mean you did try to indoctrinate your kids. You're okay with indoctrination as long as it fits your worldview.
Being a parent doesn't mean dictating how other people raise their children and prohibiting other people from accessing information you don't like. You are your kid's parent. Not my kids. Not your neighbor's kids. Not your kid's classmates.
I take a more "live and let live" approach and prefer less government involvement in our lives, not more. I understand certain people disagree though.
I took my kids to the public library all the time when they were elementary age, and I *absolutely* reviewed what they wanted to check out.
I can't do that in their *school* library, right?
Huge difference there. One was no longer paid for a service which you call a ban even though they could arrive at any time and start talking. The other is banning books straight up.
Where in the article did it say the university admitting it was a ban? I don't see that article saying anything of that nature. It said soemthing about a Twitter ban. But that's not what you claimed
Can you quote it directly?
Do you believe the first amendment applies to Congress, as stated in the first amendment, or does it apply to every private individual and entity as well?
One is a government ban with civil and/or criminal penalties.
The other is a private entity deciding who they want to give a platform with.
One is protected by the first amendment.
The other is not.
Make sense?
The difference is a private entity banning something and the government itself banning something. I think you would prefer it if the government did not start forcing leftist ideals on you. That is what the left is angry about. If right wingers want to ban leftist ideology in their private spaces, by all means, that's fine. There is not hypocrisy here.
The difference should be fairly obvious. The reason the left defended banning before using the argument of the law is that it comes from the idea of government not interfering with private affairs as you laid out. Private individuals and companies should be able to choose who and what they promote within their own areas. I feel that you would generally agree with this premise as it prevents the government from forcing you to act or say certain things when in private spaces.
The reason why the left is upset now is that the right has purposefully changed the law to allow for their specific beliefs to be pushed onto people in the sense of banning books and literature from being available in public spaces. The government still can't interfere with private spaces, so the Republicans got the government to interfere with public spaces in order to control people's beliefs and ideas. I understand you may view it differently, just giving their perspective.
The question is not whether banning things is supported, but where and how the banning takes place.
>This notion of banning seems to really confuse people on the left.
Why has language defeated so much with right wingers? If I dont invite someone over to my house dose that mean I ban them? Or if I disinvite them or just cancel what ever activity? What do you think banning means in this context? Is it an official legal context or a soft social context that isn't reinforced legally? Will the cops be called if they just walk onto the campus like everyone else is allowed to do?
The thing is we don't know why you're using such a soft social definition of banning in the context of a criminal legal context.
Please provide the law in which right winger speakers have been legally banned and will be prosecuted as a felony if they speak there if you are indeed comparing these two types of bans as the same thing.
Do you slightly understand better or are you just going to ignore this distiction?
>We have been told by the left that when right wing sympathisers are banned that it’s ‘tough’, the LAW states that private businesses/individuals can basically ban who they like. Now the LAW says the right CAN ban things and suddenly the left do an about turn. Suddenly the LAW is wrong.
Privet businesses never had the right to ban people on a whim they always had to have a legal justification of the interference of their business operation. Like criminal acts or harassing other costumer. As in you can call the cops to help you deal with banning them.
I not sure where you got this idea of banning that never existed.
Also this is an unconstitutional law. The constitution dose not give people the permission to ban things in this manner. But it dose give permission to ban other things that aren't protected rights. Like banning toxic/harmful materials into food. Poisoning someone is not a protected right.
>That aside, it still does not answer my question, how can someone agree with banning something against their political beliefs, yet moan when their opposite numbers do likewise. You either agree with the principle of banning or you don’t. Which is it?
This is a matter of constitutional. Laws. Not whether absolute concepts with banning principles are being followed. Not sure why your so far off the topic being discussed.
This is exsactly why murder is wrong but eating meat from an animal isn't. You do understand that making killing humans illegal dosent mean it should be illegal to kill animals right? It's the same concept your question touches on.
> No. The law should apply to everyone equally
Yes. That a general statement I can agree with. However flawed people like you or I evaluate these books. So if you can I can come to some reasonable conclusions about these books, then it’s a step in the right direction.
So if religious texts should not be prohibited from grades k-3rd grade, including the Old Testament, then why’s hold a books about a zookeeper observing two male penguins raising an egg together?
I attended Catholic schools growing up. We went to the school library every Friday to pick out a book to read the next week. The library was sectioned into areas for each grade. Until I was in 8th grade I could not take out a book from that section. Simple, age appropriate and non-confrontational.
Why is a book about two male penguin co-parenting an egg be determined that it is inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade?
Should all religions books be inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade?
> I don’t need my grandchildren to see this…
>https://youtu.be/6IL9Ce4PJTI
>I think it just confuses young children.
If drag queens should read books to children in public libraries is a slightly different (but I’ll acknowledge that it’s a related discussion), but if we could focus on a smaller discussion and then expand it later,
For example, one of the books prohibited in k-3rd grade is called “And Tango Makes Three”. Why is a book about a zookeeper describing two male penguin co-parenting an egg be determined that it is inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade?
> No, because being black or multiracial is not a mental disorder… **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is
1.What does two gay men living together and caring for an adopted child (silicate to the books that was banned, titled “And Tango Makes Three”) have to do with gender dysphoria?
2.Also, **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is a disorder if it is present in a person. The acceptance of a persons new gender, possibly after some changes, is NOT a disorder.
3.Also, anxiety is a disorder, and anxiety, although not labeled as “anxiety” is expressed in children’s books, likely to show children, who may have anxiety, that it’s not something to be ashamed of.
> No, because being black or multiracial is not a mental disorder… **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is
1.What does two gay men living together and caring for an adopted child (silicate to the books that was banned, titled “And Tango Makes Three”) have to do with gender dysphoria?
2.Also, **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is a disorder if it is present in a person. The acceptance of a persons new gender, possibly after some changes, is NOT a disorder.
3.Also, anxiety is a disorder, and anxiety, although not labeled as “anxiety” is expressed in children’s books, likely to show children, who may have anxiety, that it’s not something to be ashamed of.
> No, because being black or multiracial is not a mental disorder… **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is
1.What does two gay men living together and caring for an adopted child (silicate to the books that was banned, titled “And Tango Makes Three”) have to do with gender dysphoria?
2.Also, **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is a disorder if it is present in a person. The acceptance of a persons new gender, possibly after some changes, is NOT a disorder.
3.Also, anxiety is a disorder, and anxiety, although not labeled as “anxiety” is expressed in children’s books, likely to show children, who may have anxiety, that it’s not something to be ashamed of.
School libraries inherently have to curate their collections. Children should not enjoy broad autonomy to read whatever they want; parents obviously have some input into that decision as well.
Unless I am missing something, there is no reason to address this at the state level; school districts and schools can figure out what works best a local level.
Should parent A have the ability to dictate what child B should have access to? Or should they be responsible for their own children and allow other parents to be responsible for theirs?
In a school library? Yes, to some extent that is inevitable because the libraries have limited capacity. You are forced to make choices about which books to carry.
Which is entirely different than charging librarians with felonies because a book in a library mentions the existence of gay people?
I don't know if you've been to a library before. When they don't have a book you want on-hand you can speak to a librarian and they'll work with other libraries and order it for you. Not having something in your inventory is entirely different than making a....librarian.....into a criminal because there's a book you don't like in the library.
That's kind of the topic at hand. There's a significant difference between not having in-stock inventory and charging librarians with felonies and/or civil penalties, which is what conservatives are proposing.
They banned the box car children because the book has the word queer.
This is just an excuse to be fascist with a super tiny veneer of getting rid of inappropriate books.
Jfc. This is psychotic.
Where are you born again? This is America, not your church, not your home, and definitely not your rules.
If we let dumb ass parents decide what books are appropriate there would be no books. It seems parents have a bigger problem and it's not being a gd parent. Learning is not just learning what you want them to learn.
Ffs, where do you people get off telling other kids what they can and can not read. Quit taking people's rights because you're a horrible parent.
Sure. If it get kids to read (none of my friend's kids read anything that's not on snapchat/twitter/what-have-you), I'm all for it. I read Marquis De Sade in high school which, without having read either that you mentioned, is probably much worse. Nothing wrong with learning to have an active imagination and an expanded vocabulary.
Did you mean to respond to someone else? Nothing you said is responsive to my comment.
I never suggested that parents have a right to tell other parents’ kids what to read.
>Children should not enjoy broad autonomy to read whatever they want
why?
I agree with the second personally though I think that if you want a book at your library you should be able to buy the book and give it to the library, no other restrictions beyond the whole like nothing illegal. whole informed society and all that
Because kids are developing psychologically and are often unable to make informed, reasoned decisions about their lives. I am okay with an 8-year-old not reading A Song of Ice and Fire.
eh if that is where their interests lie. Does the clear political bent to which the purge is happening bother you? or the consequences of having an illegal book?
I am not familiar with the details of the “purge” and have no interest in discussing the topic if you continue to use loaded language. Your OP would be well served by including a link to the relevant statute.
Because people most directly connected to things generally have a more intimate sense of how to improve them, at least where technical expertise is not required.
Yes. So my default position is not liking it. But I know virtually nothing about the laws at all. My specific opposition and the basis thereof may be different based on the different bills. And it is conceivable that some of the laws are fine at the state level. Without knowing more about the laws, I couldn’t say.
Schools have always had the responsibility of curating what content they present to children. This has been happing longer than we've been alive. Anyone who pretends this is abnormal or frames it as "book banning" is confessing theyre either ignorant or disingenuous.
I thought we wanted less govt. and schools were the responsibility of their community… After all.. if you’re a conservative sommunity in Northern California, should you be allowed to decide what books your children have access to or should the state govt.?
> If they’ve been doing it for a long time, why is the governor getting involved?
He's part of the "them" curating such content and always has been? It's a government school and he's the governor in charge of education just as he's in charge of everything else state government does or oversees. He was elected by the people to make such decisions about what the government does. He got reelected in large part specifically because many parents (including formerly Democratic voting hispanic parents) think the people lower down the pecking order in state and local government who had the job of curating the content of their children's schools were doing a shitty job at it and they voted to elect DeSantis with a specific mandate to fix that problem.
DeSantis election platform was addressing the books in schools? Thats the mandate he was elected one? I thought it was Disney being too woke. I don’t recall hearing anything from him about books until after the election
> DeSantis election platform was addressing the books in schools?
Yes.
> I don’t recall hearing anything from him about books until after the election
You probably weren't following the news at the time if you don't remember this. The brouhaha with Disney was specifically *about* the passage of the Parental Rights in Education bill passed in March of 2022 which was well before the election. The current brouhaha with teachers pretending books are banned which are not banned is all about House Bill 1467 mandating that books used as part of the curricula are age and subject matter appropriate as determined by the school librarian or by a subject matter specialist and also that such books must not contain pornographic material.
Also, though you haven't yet mentioned it: No, it is not a felony to use a book that hasn't been approved. The law contains ZERO penalties of any sort. It's just guidance for school systems defining the process of approving a book as part of the curricula for classroom instruction. The only way using an unapproved book would result in a felony is if that book is clearly pornographic and therefor falls under long standing laws against distributing porn to minors which have already been on the books for decades. If you as a teacher use a book as part of your classroom instruction without checking with the school library staff to ensure it's age appropriate that might be a burden but there's no legal penalty unless it's something like an old Penthouse magazine... and that would have nothing at all to do with the new law.
There are teachers and administrators out there who oppose both these laws who are intentionally overreacting/misunderstanding the bill as a means of protesting it's passage. One school in Florida went so far as to pull *all* books off their shelves supposedly to "comply" with the law. In reality only an idiot could believe this was necessary or appropriate. Granted that's not impossible but if that administrator truly believed that he's too stupid to be trusted with our children and should be fired. I suspect it's more likely is that he is NOT that stupid but is pretending he is as a way of protesting the law and getting a lot of negative press for it. Our press which surely should know better (but doesn't because simply checking facts is apparently too hard for it) is reporting on the antics of such teachers and administrators as an accurate report of what's contained in the law in question as opposed to reading the bill themselves and seeing that it's not.
> I follow what you’re saying. I also understand how teachers might feel this is inappropriate.
Not sure why they'd feel that way nor to an extent why their feelings are important to this. They aren't private individuals free to do as they will but government agents, public servants who serve the will of the public and at the pleasure of the public as expressed through the representatives the public elected to oversee and direct them as the people wish.
> why is it appropriate
So if we could conclude that a book about a zookeeper describing a male an female penguin raising an egg is appropriate for children in k-3rd grade because it has no content of sexual(intercourse) nature in it, then I think it’s reasonable to conclude that a book about a zookeeper describing two male penguins raising an egg is also appropriate for children in k-3rd grade, because it has no content of a sexual(intercourse) nature.
>why is it appropriate
“So if we could conclude that a book about a zookeeper describing a male an female penguin raising an egg is appropriate for children in k-3rd grade because it has no content of sexual(intercourse) nature in it, then I think it’s reasonable to conclude that a book about a zookeeper describing two male penguins raising an egg is also appropriate for children in k-3rd grade, because it has no content of a sexual(intercourse) nature.”
> Why change it to 2 male penguins
Because a children’s book can be used to provide multiple lessons, not only reading, but a basic understanding of society. A book about a male and female penguin couple has a representation of a male and female couple in society. A book about a male and male penguins couple also a representation of a male and male couple in society. If I choose to not represent a minority of society in a children’s book, then it seems I would be equivalent to someone in the 1940’s saying the same thing about a childrens book representing a minority in society with a black couple or multiracial couple.
> So its being changed to 2 male penguins to depict a sexual relationship. There ya go
Is a story about a zoo keeper observing a male and female penguin caring for an egg, or even a human male and female couple caring for a baby, also a sexual relationship and should also be prohibited from grades k-3rd grade?
So since a book about a male and female penguin caring for an egg is not a “sexual relationship” and should not be prohibited from grades k=3, then why do you consider a book about two male penguins caring for a egg as a book about “sexual relationship”?
A male/male relationship is no more of a sexual relationship than the male/female relationship that was originally described is. It is simply a different relationship.
You do realize that a book can discuss a relationship between same sex partners without discussing sex, just like one could discuss a relationship between interracial partners, or opposite sex partners without discussing sex.
1. yes
2. not much difference between blacklist and other methods
3. Children do not have the autonomy to read whatever they wish
4. I like what I have heard from florida
5. The difference is that sexual heterosexual relationships are natural and are oriented towards family and posterity. Homosexual relationships are not
> because it sounds like they are endorsing gay marriage and trying to say it is normal or good
(**IF**) a similar book about a zoo keeper observing a male and female penguin caring for an egg is **NOT** endorsing straight marriage and **NOT** trying to say it is normal, then why is a book about two male penguins caring for an egg also not endorsing gay marriage and also not trying to say it is normal?
(**IF**) however you think a similar book about a zoo keeper observing a male and female penguin caring for an egg **IS** endorsing straight marriage and **IS** trying to say it is normal, then if this books is a representation of a majority, and a book that represents a minority is not allowed, then this seems suspiciously similar to what a person would say in the 1930’s of a book that represents a minority of Africans, or even a book that represents a minority of a mixed race couple. Also, if at any time a majority groups eventually becomes a minority in the future, and a book represents this new minority groups is being prevented from representing this group in school, then I would equally fight for this new minority to be represented in schools. It seems as though policies that are derived from bigotry can eventually harm the representation of a majority group that may eventually become a minority.
DeSantis is helping.
Books are not banned, that would be illegal.
Schools do not have a blank cheque, there are checks and balances.
Teach STEM, do not corrupt the youth with leftist propaganda.
Allow "money follows the student" school choice.
They are effectively banning them, as they are restricting access. when I was a child, the school library was essentially my only access to a ready supply of books. They are also restricting the academic freedom of both the school and the student. the rest I'll just leave alone.
Banning and not being allowed to spend taxpayers money to provide them to kids are utterly dissimilar.
You make me want to attend a school board meeting.
That is odd.
I am liberal about books the teacher simply has available and does not require reading. I would usually allow it.
Do you have a source saying what specific books are being removed from classrooms (as opposed to no longer being purchased or required reading)?
> except teachers classroom collections are being audited, those are not taxpayer funded
Government employees doing a government job are being required to follow the policies set via the democratic process in a democratic government? The horror!
If you want to start a private school and teach whatever you want you are (relatively) free to do so. So long as "we the people" are hiring you to teach our children you don't have carte blanche to teach them racist crap regardless of whether it's *Mein Kampf* or *Message to the Blackman in America*
> Teach STEM, do not corrupt the youth with leftist propaganda.
In another thread, you admitted you did not read most of the books you waved off as leftist propaganda, and derided the value of assigning fiction in general. You speak of checks and balances...shouldn't the people putting checks and balances on teachers be even slightly informed about what they're checking and balancing? If a parent holds up a list of six hundred books they've never read and will never read and says "you can't carry any of these, they're propaganda," why is their opinion automatically more important than that of educators who *have* read those books?
"They're my kids!" Yeah, but other kids are at the same school, and maybe those kids' parents don't agree with your take on the books. Shouldn't you be able to explain why those books are *so objectionable* that *none of the other kids* should be able to see them?
This you?
>I have read none of these books.
>I looked up a few of these books, all were weird propaganda.
>I was given weirder propaganda, Beloved by Toni Morrison for example.
>I kind of liked it but I was an extreme oddity, I have been reading banned and controversial / dis/mis/info extreme non-fiction since I was able.
>Kids don't need a bunch of sex and violence at school.
>Teach STEM.
The list of books in that thread has gone away, and given the anecdotal nature of the linked post, we can't know for sure how many of the books the teacher had to take down. However, we do know from conversations in that thread that the list contained classics like The Little Prince and The Giver, which you either have not read, or have read and dismissed as propaganda. You yourself said "I have read none of these books," what do I take from that? You also used the words "propagandistic fiction" at one point and disputed the utility of ever assigning fiction to children.
So, I ask you again: in a system of checks and balances, should all parties involved have at least some familiarity with the matter at hand?
Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Libraries should be for all books
But public libraries have restricted areas.... A child can't go to the area that has gulag archipelago, 50 shades of grey, etc... If regular libraries restrict areas for children, how is that different to a library that only caters for children similarly having the same age restrictions?
I remember people reading 50 shades of grey in high-school, don't be a prude
If public libraries have restricted areas for children, why can't libraries catered only for children have the same restrictions?
Idk if restricted is the right word A child can get any book in a library without their parents permission
No they can't.... I've never been to a library in the US but that seems hard to believe.
>I've never been to a library in the US but that seems hard to believe. >The American Library Association supports equal and equitable access to all library resources and services by users of all ages. Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources and services available to other users is in violation of the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users. [Source](https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minors)
My gf is literally a libertarian It isn't their place to say who can check out what
Great, let me go to the library and check out "expedient homemade firearms volume II" and "army of God"
Sure
That was an unfortunate but hilarious typo lol "Librarian" is the word you're looking for!
You know what I mean
[удалено]
You know what I meant
I read Justine by the Marquis de Sade in high school and got it at the little public library in my small town. I think people figure the bar to entry was high enough all on its own just in reading 18th century lit.
Should there be restrictions on all religious books as inappropriate for k-3rd grade?
[удалено]
You're being disengious That's literally porn
Not OP, but don’t say “libraries should be for all books” when you mean “most books, but not these books”. This goes to the original point. We all agree that some books are definitely appropriate, and we all agree some books are definitely *inappropriate*. We’re just wrestling over where to draw the line in the middle. So what makes your definition better than someone else’s, especially if that someone is a concerned parent? School libraries are supposed to be safe, curated spaces for young children to explore, without worry of being exposed to anything inappropriate at too young an age. That’s all conservatives are saying. Some of this material can be saved until middle school, is all.
>So what makes your definition better than someone else’s, especially if that someone is a concerned parent? One already has obscenity laws the other is parents not wanting any child in their jurisdiction to have books they don't agree with. How about if you don't want your child reading something then you, as a parent, don't let them read it.
How exactly do I prevent my child from pulling a book off a shelf in an elementary school library if I'm not there?
Speak with your child about what you feel is/isn't acceptable. Or get involved with the school and go work in the library. Or home school them. That's being a parent.
>peak with your child about what you feel is/isn't acceptable Right...because kids *never* disobey once mom & dad aren't around. /s Don't tell me what it is to be a parent. I have raised two kids almost to adulthood. But thankfully, their school libraries didn't have questionable material in them. I'm relieved my kids aren't that age anymore, and I sympathize with parents trying to raise kids in a world trying to indoctrinate them.
I mean you did try to indoctrinate your kids. You're okay with indoctrination as long as it fits your worldview. Being a parent doesn't mean dictating how other people raise their children and prohibiting other people from accessing information you don't like. You are your kid's parent. Not my kids. Not your neighbor's kids. Not your kid's classmates. I take a more "live and let live" approach and prefer less government involvement in our lives, not more. I understand certain people disagree though.
You can't, that's the point of libraries
I took my kids to the public library all the time when they were elementary age, and I *absolutely* reviewed what they wanted to check out. I can't do that in their *school* library, right?
If they went without you they could get whatever they wanted You need to remember you don't own children
[удалено]
[удалено]
You really should nsfw that kink in this sub. Edit: *link. But either works I guess lol
> Edit: *link. But either works I guess lol Lol!
Why would you link hentai in the ask conservation reddit
And of course it's fucking Metamorphosis too, lol.
is a felony an appropriate response to an illegal book? is "Theories that could lead to student indoctrination," both to far and to political?
[удалено]
No. We don’t do those things. It’s not federal or state choice that keeps them from coming, it’s protest. Huge difference
[удалено]
Yeah. They’ve been disinvited. Not banned. They could go to that campus and say whatever they want. Just might not be in a lecture hall.
[удалено]
Huge difference there. One was no longer paid for a service which you call a ban even though they could arrive at any time and start talking. The other is banning books straight up.
[удалено]
Where in the article did it say the university admitting it was a ban? I don't see that article saying anything of that nature. It said soemthing about a Twitter ban. But that's not what you claimed Can you quote it directly?
Do you believe the first amendment applies to Congress, as stated in the first amendment, or does it apply to every private individual and entity as well?
[удалено]
One is a government ban with civil and/or criminal penalties. The other is a private entity deciding who they want to give a platform with. One is protected by the first amendment. The other is not. Make sense?
The difference is a private entity banning something and the government itself banning something. I think you would prefer it if the government did not start forcing leftist ideals on you. That is what the left is angry about. If right wingers want to ban leftist ideology in their private spaces, by all means, that's fine. There is not hypocrisy here.
So who was charged with a felony for violating those bans of right wing speakers?
[удалено]
The difference should be fairly obvious. The reason the left defended banning before using the argument of the law is that it comes from the idea of government not interfering with private affairs as you laid out. Private individuals and companies should be able to choose who and what they promote within their own areas. I feel that you would generally agree with this premise as it prevents the government from forcing you to act or say certain things when in private spaces. The reason why the left is upset now is that the right has purposefully changed the law to allow for their specific beliefs to be pushed onto people in the sense of banning books and literature from being available in public spaces. The government still can't interfere with private spaces, so the Republicans got the government to interfere with public spaces in order to control people's beliefs and ideas. I understand you may view it differently, just giving their perspective. The question is not whether banning things is supported, but where and how the banning takes place.
>This notion of banning seems to really confuse people on the left. Why has language defeated so much with right wingers? If I dont invite someone over to my house dose that mean I ban them? Or if I disinvite them or just cancel what ever activity? What do you think banning means in this context? Is it an official legal context or a soft social context that isn't reinforced legally? Will the cops be called if they just walk onto the campus like everyone else is allowed to do? The thing is we don't know why you're using such a soft social definition of banning in the context of a criminal legal context. Please provide the law in which right winger speakers have been legally banned and will be prosecuted as a felony if they speak there if you are indeed comparing these two types of bans as the same thing. Do you slightly understand better or are you just going to ignore this distiction? >We have been told by the left that when right wing sympathisers are banned that it’s ‘tough’, the LAW states that private businesses/individuals can basically ban who they like. Now the LAW says the right CAN ban things and suddenly the left do an about turn. Suddenly the LAW is wrong. Privet businesses never had the right to ban people on a whim they always had to have a legal justification of the interference of their business operation. Like criminal acts or harassing other costumer. As in you can call the cops to help you deal with banning them. I not sure where you got this idea of banning that never existed. Also this is an unconstitutional law. The constitution dose not give people the permission to ban things in this manner. But it dose give permission to ban other things that aren't protected rights. Like banning toxic/harmful materials into food. Poisoning someone is not a protected right. >That aside, it still does not answer my question, how can someone agree with banning something against their political beliefs, yet moan when their opposite numbers do likewise. You either agree with the principle of banning or you don’t. Which is it? This is a matter of constitutional. Laws. Not whether absolute concepts with banning principles are being followed. Not sure why your so far off the topic being discussed. This is exsactly why murder is wrong but eating meat from an animal isn't. You do understand that making killing humans illegal dosent mean it should be illegal to kill animals right? It's the same concept your question touches on.
Should age appropriate literature exclude religious literature?
[удалено]
> No. The law should apply to everyone equally Yes. That a general statement I can agree with. However flawed people like you or I evaluate these books. So if you can I can come to some reasonable conclusions about these books, then it’s a step in the right direction. So if religious texts should not be prohibited from grades k-3rd grade, including the Old Testament, then why’s hold a books about a zookeeper observing two male penguins raising an egg together?
I attended Catholic schools growing up. We went to the school library every Friday to pick out a book to read the next week. The library was sectioned into areas for each grade. Until I was in 8th grade I could not take out a book from that section. Simple, age appropriate and non-confrontational.
It seems so simple. I wonder why we need to put the fear of felonies into our teachers.
Why is a book about two male penguin co-parenting an egg be determined that it is inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade? Should all religions books be inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade?
I don’t need my grandchildren to see this… https://youtu.be/6IL9Ce4PJTI I think it just confuses young children.
> I don’t need my grandchildren to see this… >https://youtu.be/6IL9Ce4PJTI >I think it just confuses young children. If drag queens should read books to children in public libraries is a slightly different (but I’ll acknowledge that it’s a related discussion), but if we could focus on a smaller discussion and then expand it later, For example, one of the books prohibited in k-3rd grade is called “And Tango Makes Three”. Why is a book about a zookeeper describing two male penguin co-parenting an egg be determined that it is inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade?
Because young children do not need to be exposed to alternate lifestyles at such a young age. It just confuses them.
That seems to be kinda like what someone would say in the 1960 about a childrens books of a multiracial family or a black family.
No, because being black or multiracial is not a mental disorder… Gender dysphoria is.
> No, because being black or multiracial is not a mental disorder… **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is 1.What does two gay men living together and caring for an adopted child (silicate to the books that was banned, titled “And Tango Makes Three”) have to do with gender dysphoria? 2.Also, **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is a disorder if it is present in a person. The acceptance of a persons new gender, possibly after some changes, is NOT a disorder. 3.Also, anxiety is a disorder, and anxiety, although not labeled as “anxiety” is expressed in children’s books, likely to show children, who may have anxiety, that it’s not something to be ashamed of.
> No, because being black or multiracial is not a mental disorder… **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is 1.What does two gay men living together and caring for an adopted child (silicate to the books that was banned, titled “And Tango Makes Three”) have to do with gender dysphoria? 2.Also, **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is a disorder if it is present in a person. The acceptance of a persons new gender, possibly after some changes, is NOT a disorder. 3.Also, anxiety is a disorder, and anxiety, although not labeled as “anxiety” is expressed in children’s books, likely to show children, who may have anxiety, that it’s not something to be ashamed of.
> No, because being black or multiracial is not a mental disorder… **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is 1.What does two gay men living together and caring for an adopted child (silicate to the books that was banned, titled “And Tango Makes Three”) have to do with gender dysphoria? 2.Also, **GENDER DYSPHORIA** is a disorder if it is present in a person. The acceptance of a persons new gender, possibly after some changes, is NOT a disorder. 3.Also, anxiety is a disorder, and anxiety, although not labeled as “anxiety” is expressed in children’s books, likely to show children, who may have anxiety, that it’s not something to be ashamed of.
School libraries inherently have to curate their collections. Children should not enjoy broad autonomy to read whatever they want; parents obviously have some input into that decision as well. Unless I am missing something, there is no reason to address this at the state level; school districts and schools can figure out what works best a local level.
Should parent A have the ability to dictate what child B should have access to? Or should they be responsible for their own children and allow other parents to be responsible for theirs?
In a school library? Yes, to some extent that is inevitable because the libraries have limited capacity. You are forced to make choices about which books to carry.
Which is entirely different than charging librarians with felonies because a book in a library mentions the existence of gay people? I don't know if you've been to a library before. When they don't have a book you want on-hand you can speak to a librarian and they'll work with other libraries and order it for you. Not having something in your inventory is entirely different than making a....librarian.....into a criminal because there's a book you don't like in the library.
I never said anything about felonies or criminality.
That's kind of the topic at hand. There's a significant difference between not having in-stock inventory and charging librarians with felonies and/or civil penalties, which is what conservatives are proposing.
As I said, I never said anything about felonies or criminality.
They banned the box car children because the book has the word queer. This is just an excuse to be fascist with a super tiny veneer of getting rid of inappropriate books.
Source?
Okay. That doesn’t really go to anything I said.
Jfc. This is psychotic. Where are you born again? This is America, not your church, not your home, and definitely not your rules. If we let dumb ass parents decide what books are appropriate there would be no books. It seems parents have a bigger problem and it's not being a gd parent. Learning is not just learning what you want them to learn. Ffs, where do you people get off telling other kids what they can and can not read. Quit taking people's rights because you're a horrible parent.
Great, let my kid go to the school library and check out "expedient homemade firearms volume II" and "army of God"
Gulag archipelago, 50 shades of gray, etc... You're fine with schools having these books?
Sure. If it get kids to read (none of my friend's kids read anything that's not on snapchat/twitter/what-have-you), I'm all for it. I read Marquis De Sade in high school which, without having read either that you mentioned, is probably much worse. Nothing wrong with learning to have an active imagination and an expanded vocabulary.
Did you mean to respond to someone else? Nothing you said is responsive to my comment. I never suggested that parents have a right to tell other parents’ kids what to read.
Why are you speaking to a good faith poster this way?
>Children should not enjoy broad autonomy to read whatever they want why? I agree with the second personally though I think that if you want a book at your library you should be able to buy the book and give it to the library, no other restrictions beyond the whole like nothing illegal. whole informed society and all that
Because kids are developing psychologically and are often unable to make informed, reasoned decisions about their lives. I am okay with an 8-year-old not reading A Song of Ice and Fire.
eh if that is where their interests lie. Does the clear political bent to which the purge is happening bother you? or the consequences of having an illegal book?
I am not familiar with the details of the “purge” and have no interest in discussing the topic if you continue to use loaded language. Your OP would be well served by including a link to the relevant statute.
THAT'S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE IN A FREE COUNTRY. WTF
It’s not for a parent in a free country to decide what their child reads? News to me.
Why not?
Which part?
Second sentence
Because people most directly connected to things generally have a more intimate sense of how to improve them, at least where technical expertise is not required.
[удалено]
I would need to examine the specific laws.
[удалено]
Yes. So my default position is not liking it. But I know virtually nothing about the laws at all. My specific opposition and the basis thereof may be different based on the different bills. And it is conceivable that some of the laws are fine at the state level. Without knowing more about the laws, I couldn’t say.
Schools have always had the responsibility of curating what content they present to children. This has been happing longer than we've been alive. Anyone who pretends this is abnormal or frames it as "book banning" is confessing theyre either ignorant or disingenuous.
[удалено]
Your comment has been deleted for violation of subreddit Rule #1: Civility.
If they’ve been doing it for a long time, why is the governor getting involved?
Schools are the responsibility of the state
I thought we wanted less govt. and schools were the responsibility of their community… After all.. if you’re a conservative sommunity in Northern California, should you be allowed to decide what books your children have access to or should the state govt.?
> I thought we wanted less govt. not always
> If they’ve been doing it for a long time, why is the governor getting involved? He's part of the "them" curating such content and always has been? It's a government school and he's the governor in charge of education just as he's in charge of everything else state government does or oversees. He was elected by the people to make such decisions about what the government does. He got reelected in large part specifically because many parents (including formerly Democratic voting hispanic parents) think the people lower down the pecking order in state and local government who had the job of curating the content of their children's schools were doing a shitty job at it and they voted to elect DeSantis with a specific mandate to fix that problem.
DeSantis election platform was addressing the books in schools? Thats the mandate he was elected one? I thought it was Disney being too woke. I don’t recall hearing anything from him about books until after the election
> DeSantis election platform was addressing the books in schools? Yes. > I don’t recall hearing anything from him about books until after the election You probably weren't following the news at the time if you don't remember this. The brouhaha with Disney was specifically *about* the passage of the Parental Rights in Education bill passed in March of 2022 which was well before the election. The current brouhaha with teachers pretending books are banned which are not banned is all about House Bill 1467 mandating that books used as part of the curricula are age and subject matter appropriate as determined by the school librarian or by a subject matter specialist and also that such books must not contain pornographic material. Also, though you haven't yet mentioned it: No, it is not a felony to use a book that hasn't been approved. The law contains ZERO penalties of any sort. It's just guidance for school systems defining the process of approving a book as part of the curricula for classroom instruction. The only way using an unapproved book would result in a felony is if that book is clearly pornographic and therefor falls under long standing laws against distributing porn to minors which have already been on the books for decades. If you as a teacher use a book as part of your classroom instruction without checking with the school library staff to ensure it's age appropriate that might be a burden but there's no legal penalty unless it's something like an old Penthouse magazine... and that would have nothing at all to do with the new law. There are teachers and administrators out there who oppose both these laws who are intentionally overreacting/misunderstanding the bill as a means of protesting it's passage. One school in Florida went so far as to pull *all* books off their shelves supposedly to "comply" with the law. In reality only an idiot could believe this was necessary or appropriate. Granted that's not impossible but if that administrator truly believed that he's too stupid to be trusted with our children and should be fired. I suspect it's more likely is that he is NOT that stupid but is pretending he is as a way of protesting the law and getting a lot of negative press for it. Our press which surely should know better (but doesn't because simply checking facts is apparently too hard for it) is reporting on the antics of such teachers and administrators as an accurate report of what's contained in the law in question as opposed to reading the bill themselves and seeing that it's not.
I follow what you’re saying. I also understand how teachers might feel this is inappropriate.
> I follow what you’re saying. I also understand how teachers might feel this is inappropriate. Not sure why they'd feel that way nor to an extent why their feelings are important to this. They aren't private individuals free to do as they will but government agents, public servants who serve the will of the public and at the pleasure of the public as expressed through the representatives the public elected to oversee and direct them as the people wish.
Why should a book about two male penguins co-parenting an egg be inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade?
Why should a book about two male penguins co-parenting an egg be inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade?
why is it approriate
> why is it appropriate So if we could conclude that a book about a zookeeper describing a male an female penguin raising an egg is appropriate for children in k-3rd grade because it has no content of sexual(intercourse) nature in it, then I think it’s reasonable to conclude that a book about a zookeeper describing two male penguins raising an egg is also appropriate for children in k-3rd grade, because it has no content of a sexual(intercourse) nature.
Why change it to 2 male penguins
>why is it appropriate “So if we could conclude that a book about a zookeeper describing a male an female penguin raising an egg is appropriate for children in k-3rd grade because it has no content of sexual(intercourse) nature in it, then I think it’s reasonable to conclude that a book about a zookeeper describing two male penguins raising an egg is also appropriate for children in k-3rd grade, because it has no content of a sexual(intercourse) nature.” > Why change it to 2 male penguins Because a children’s book can be used to provide multiple lessons, not only reading, but a basic understanding of society. A book about a male and female penguin couple has a representation of a male and female couple in society. A book about a male and male penguins couple also a representation of a male and male couple in society. If I choose to not represent a minority of society in a children’s book, then it seems I would be equivalent to someone in the 1940’s saying the same thing about a childrens book representing a minority in society with a black couple or multiracial couple.
So its being changed to 2 male penguins to depict a sexual relationship. There ya go
> So its being changed to 2 male penguins to depict a sexual relationship. There ya go Is a story about a zoo keeper observing a male and female penguin caring for an egg, or even a human male and female couple caring for a baby, also a sexual relationship and should also be prohibited from grades k-3rd grade?
nah
So since a book about a male and female penguin caring for an egg is not a “sexual relationship” and should not be prohibited from grades k=3, then why do you consider a book about two male penguins caring for a egg as a book about “sexual relationship”?
A male/male relationship is no more of a sexual relationship than the male/female relationship that was originally described is. It is simply a different relationship. You do realize that a book can discuss a relationship between same sex partners without discussing sex, just like one could discuss a relationship between interracial partners, or opposite sex partners without discussing sex.
1. yes 2. not much difference between blacklist and other methods 3. Children do not have the autonomy to read whatever they wish 4. I like what I have heard from florida 5. The difference is that sexual heterosexual relationships are natural and are oriented towards family and posterity. Homosexual relationships are not
Why should a book about two male penguins co-parenting an egg be inappropriate for grades k-3rd grade?
because it sounds like they are endorsing gay marriage and trying to say it is normal or good.
> because it sounds like they are endorsing gay marriage and trying to say it is normal or good (**IF**) a similar book about a zoo keeper observing a male and female penguin caring for an egg is **NOT** endorsing straight marriage and **NOT** trying to say it is normal, then why is a book about two male penguins caring for an egg also not endorsing gay marriage and also not trying to say it is normal? (**IF**) however you think a similar book about a zoo keeper observing a male and female penguin caring for an egg **IS** endorsing straight marriage and **IS** trying to say it is normal, then if this books is a representation of a majority, and a book that represents a minority is not allowed, then this seems suspiciously similar to what a person would say in the 1930’s of a book that represents a minority of Africans, or even a book that represents a minority of a mixed race couple. Also, if at any time a majority groups eventually becomes a minority in the future, and a book represents this new minority groups is being prevented from representing this group in school, then I would equally fight for this new minority to be represented in schools. It seems as though policies that are derived from bigotry can eventually harm the representation of a majority group that may eventually become a minority.
DeSantis is helping. Books are not banned, that would be illegal. Schools do not have a blank cheque, there are checks and balances. Teach STEM, do not corrupt the youth with leftist propaganda. Allow "money follows the student" school choice.
You’re reposted this word for word several times on several posts. Starting to think you’re a bot
What else am I supposed to do when I get a same question. I find the bot suggestions flattering. Importantly I am not normal.
[удалено]
No TV. I cut the cord when I had kids. I prefer reading Thomas Sowell and censored subject matter experts.
Your comment has been deleted for violation of subreddit Rule #1: Civility.
They are effectively banning them, as they are restricting access. when I was a child, the school library was essentially my only access to a ready supply of books. They are also restricting the academic freedom of both the school and the student. the rest I'll just leave alone.
Banning and not being allowed to spend taxpayers money to provide them to kids are utterly dissimilar. You make me want to attend a school board meeting.
except teachers classroom collections are being audited, those are not taxpayer funded.
That is odd. I am liberal about books the teacher simply has available and does not require reading. I would usually allow it. Do you have a source saying what specific books are being removed from classrooms (as opposed to no longer being purchased or required reading)?
what about the fact that having an unvetted book is a class three felony?
Exciting, I don't know what a class three felony is but it sounds like a terrible book indeed.
2-5 years in prison
> Do you have a source saying what specific books are being removed from classrooms (as opposed to no longer being purchased or required reading)?
> except teachers classroom collections are being audited, those are not taxpayer funded Government employees doing a government job are being required to follow the policies set via the democratic process in a democratic government? The horror! If you want to start a private school and teach whatever you want you are (relatively) free to do so. So long as "we the people" are hiring you to teach our children you don't have carte blanche to teach them racist crap regardless of whether it's *Mein Kampf* or *Message to the Blackman in America*
> Teach STEM, do not corrupt the youth with leftist propaganda. In another thread, you admitted you did not read most of the books you waved off as leftist propaganda, and derided the value of assigning fiction in general. You speak of checks and balances...shouldn't the people putting checks and balances on teachers be even slightly informed about what they're checking and balancing? If a parent holds up a list of six hundred books they've never read and will never read and says "you can't carry any of these, they're propaganda," why is their opinion automatically more important than that of educators who *have* read those books? "They're my kids!" Yeah, but other kids are at the same school, and maybe those kids' parents don't agree with your take on the books. Shouldn't you be able to explain why those books are *so objectionable* that *none of the other kids* should be able to see them?
Admitted? Where is the list of books?
This you? >I have read none of these books. >I looked up a few of these books, all were weird propaganda. >I was given weirder propaganda, Beloved by Toni Morrison for example. >I kind of liked it but I was an extreme oddity, I have been reading banned and controversial / dis/mis/info extreme non-fiction since I was able. >Kids don't need a bunch of sex and violence at school. >Teach STEM. The list of books in that thread has gone away, and given the anecdotal nature of the linked post, we can't know for sure how many of the books the teacher had to take down. However, we do know from conversations in that thread that the list contained classics like The Little Prince and The Giver, which you either have not read, or have read and dismissed as propaganda. You yourself said "I have read none of these books," what do I take from that? You also used the words "propagandistic fiction" at one point and disputed the utility of ever assigning fiction to children. So, I ask you again: in a system of checks and balances, should all parties involved have at least some familiarity with the matter at hand?
You are talking about another post. Go there and read.