Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Comment period opens on Missouri Secretary of State’s book ban proposal

Other than this forum, my social media presence is largely read-only. However, if anyone on here feels the need to let Mr. Ashcroft know what they think of his fascist authoritarian BS, I'd be much obliged.

It's not "fascist" to protect children from sexually explicit material. Sheesh. It's called basic decency and morality.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Right. So as long as the process that allows for that [specify the harmful books and challenge their being on the shelves] is in place, it should be OK, right? And anything that makes that process better, should be embraced, right?

And then, who gets to decide what causes harm? A majority of the affected families? Great!

Please read the thread:

Originally Posted by arayder

This much ado about nothing.

Most public libraries already have written collection policies and "challenge processes" to allow the public to challenge books they believe are objectionable.

So what's the problem?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Should we deny the populace their voice? Content is a deeper matter than "boy meets boy".

I don't believe in "the will of the people" as an unbreakable principle. As you yourself have observed in other threads, Americans tend to get squeamish in this area, so why give legitimacy to the sexually paranoid crowd?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Venom

I don't believe in "the will of the people" as an unbreakable principle. As you yourself have observed in other threads, Americans tend to get squeamish in this area, so why give legitimacy to the sexually paranoid crowd?

Why give legitimacy to the sexually adventurous/minority crowd in disproportion? Why silence or oppress those with opposing views?

I mean, it goes both ways.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Where are all the "conservatives" who normally whine about "free speech"?

Busy being forced into gay marriages while having their guns confiscated by negroes and Mexicans

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Why give legitimacy to the sexually adventurous/minority crowd in disproportion? Why silence or oppress those with opposing views?

Once again, most public libraries already have written collection policies and "challenge processes" to allow the public to challenge books they believe are objectionable.

Your suggestion that those who oppose libraries having certain books are somehow silenced is pure fiction.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It's not "fascist" to protect children from sexually explicit material. Sheesh. It's called basic decency and morality.

Do you have some evidence that libraries now in existence are not doing that job, or regulated in ways that that job can be done? The law in question does not, as far as I can see, address sexually explicit material, but suggest that funding of public libraries should be determined by the feelings of anyone, including nutjobs, prudes and fanatics.

The proposed law is extremely vague, not defining what the standards actually are, but making it clear that any parent can challenge the "age appropriate" classification of any material, and, or so it appears, thereby remove it at least from the part of the library serving certain ages. And the part of the proposal that states "state funds could not be used to purchase or acquire inappropriate materials in any form that appeal to minors having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters" suggests that it would be possible to withdraw state funding for a library that contains material judged by politicians or those given standing by them if such materials are contained anywhere in the library.

Those objecting to the proposal point out that libraries already control access to certain materials, and label certain work by age appropriateness, and question whether there is evidence they are not doing that job well. Of course, some people who are prudes and homophobes and fanatics who want to teach everyone's children that Adam and Eve's kids rode to school on dinosaurs will think so, but is there sane reason to believe that public libraries are corrupting our children now?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Why give legitimacy to the sexually adventurous/minority crowd in disproportion? Why silence or oppress those with opposing views?

I mean, it goes both ways.

No, it does NOT go both ways. Having a right is not the flip side of abolishing it. Abolishing a right is by its very nature obligatory, while having a right is by its very nature not obligatory.

If you allow a book, anybody may choose whether or not to read it. If you ban a book, nobody can read it.

Saying that parents who are prudes or fundamental nuts or just plain insane cannot mandate the public behavior and public access of everyone else does not "silence or oppress" them. It may well be that, as a community, we maintain standards of just what should be forbidden or limited, but the standards of a community should not be held hostage by those on its fringe.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

No, it does NOT go both ways. Having a right is not the flip side of abolishing it. Abolishing a right is by its very nature obligatory, while having a right is by its very nature not obligatory.

If you allow a book, anybody may choose whether or not to read it. If you ban a book, nobody can read it.

Saying that parents who are prudes or fundamental nuts or just plain insane cannot mandate the public behavior and public access of everyone else does not "silence or oppress" them. It may well be that, as a community, we maintain standards of just what should be forbidden or limited, but the standards of a community should not be held hostage by those on its fringe.

"Prudes" or "Insane" by the standard of whom? This is funny, funny stuff.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

It's not "fascist" to protect children from sexually explicit material. Sheesh. It's called basic decency and morality.

What children are being exposed to what sexually explicit material?

This has nothing to do with protecting children. It's about controlling what children read in order to indoctrinate them to a limited viewpoint.

Look up the Lost Cause mythology and the Daughters of the Confederacy. Same thing, largely by the same ideologies

[Stacyhs]

I see knee jerk contrarianism is alive and well again.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Maybe if they can show that the books they want to ban have/can cause harm, I'd change my opinion.

Warp still hasn't shown that "freakish liberal ideals and beliefs are being pressed on children by public school teachers", and I suspect that we'd see the same lack of evidence from anyone attempting to prove the harmful effects of books they want banned. In fact, I'd expect to see the same evasive "I'm not going to repeat myself" tactic after offering nothing.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

"Prudes" or "Insane" by the standard of whom? This is funny, funny stuff.

If you're going to give standing to anyone, then my standards will do.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Why give legitimacy to the sexually adventurous/minority crowd in disproportion? Why silence or oppress those with opposing views?

I mean, it goes both ways.

Adventurous? No. There should be reasonable expectations of what young adults can access. I don't care how much of the population gets brainwashed into neo-Puritan bs. Any attempt to censor relatively mundane content should be scrutinized, esp considering certain media have been fear mongering over this for some time.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Finster

Their protests? No

Their ability to control what other’s have access to? – Yes, absolutely.

(And not a single person involved in pushing this law, or anybody in this thread, actually believes this has anything to do with protecting kids from porn.)

One wonders if Warpie would feel the same if it was "conservatives" complaining about about "leftists" protesting about material whitewashing racism.

Actually, no I don't wonder at all.

[arayder]

Again, this is all much ado about nothing.

For decades libraries have been dealing with the situation that arises when a youngster wants to check out Catcher in The Rye. For years they've been dealing with the issue of what's appropriate for the children's book section.

The book banners are late to the party.

As I said earlier this is an issue essentially invented by right wing activists so they can have something to shout about during the culture wars.

If it wasn't this it would be the same folks trying to claim that their third grader is being taught critical race theory or has a cat litter box in her classroom because some kids have "identified" as cats.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

Again, this is all much ado about nothing.

For decades libraries have been dealing with the situation that arises when a youngster wants to check out Catcher in The Rye. For years they've been dealing with the issue of what's appropriate for the children's book section.

From the article in the OP:

Quote:

The proposed rule would require Missouri’s 160 local public libraries to adopt policies on the age-appropriateness of literature. And under the rule, anyone could challenge access to books.

It seems to me that without rules in place, the determination of the age-appropriate access is entirely arbitrary. Why fear written policy that makes such restrictions standardized? Would you agree that clearly defined policy is better than non-defined policy, when it comes to children accessing material?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It seems to me that without rules in place, the determination of the age-appropriate access is entirely arbitrary. Why fear written policy that makes such restrictions standardized? Would you agree that clearly defined policy is better than non-defined policy, when it comes to children accessing material?

What clearly defined policy? It’s still arbitrary.

All this law does is allow culture warriors to punish libraries, with force of law, for having books that threaten them.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What clearly defined policy? It’s still arbitrary.

All this law does is allow culture warriors to punish libraries, with force of law, for having books that threaten them.

From the wording, as I posted, it seems to me that this legislation would require clearly defined policy.

Quote:

The proposed rule would require Missouri’s 160 local public libraries to adopt policies on the age-appropriateness of literature

Are you against that?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

From the article in the OP:




It seems to me that without rules in place, the determination of the age-appropriate access is entirely arbitrary. Why fear written policy that makes such restrictions standardized? Would you agree that clearly defined policy is better than non-defined policy, when it comes to children accessing material?

How do you know there are no rules in palce?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

How do you know there are no rules in palce?

There could some rules, but even if so, why would the following be a problem:

Quote:

The proposed rule would require Missouri’s 160 local public libraries to adopt policies on the age-appropriateness of literature

What scares people about the above? Can we agree that there should be standardized policies at least, that ensure that only age-appropriate materials are distributed to children?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

From the wording, as I posted, it seems to me that this legislation would require clearly defined policy.

Are you against that?

What’s the very next line in the article?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

There could some rules, but even if so, why would the following be a problem:




What scares people about the above? Can we agree that there should be standardized policies at least, that ensure that only age-appropriate materials are distributed to children?

You said "It seems to me that without rules in place,..." are there rules in place or not? If there are what is wrong with them?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

What’s the very next line in the article?

You haven't answered my question. Do you have a problem with written policy that clearly defines age-appropriate material for children?

Answer that, and then we can move on to your question.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You haven't answered my question. Do you have a problem with written policy that clearly defines age-appropriate material for children?

Answer that, and then we can move on to your question.

I am answering it. Your question is taking one line of an article out of context and presents it with the false premise that there will be a clearly defined policy. The next line of the article shows the lie in your question: there is no “policy that clearly defines age-appropriate material for children”. It’s open to any arbitrary change that any rando culture warrior yahoo gets a wild hair about.

My problem is that the law doesn’t do what you, or its author, is claiming it does.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I am answering it. Your question is taking one line of an article out of context and presents it with the false premise that there will be a clearly defined policy. The next line of the article shows the lie in your question: there is no “policy that clearly defines age-appropriate material for children”. It’s open to any arbitrary change that any rando culture warrior yahoo gets a wild hair about.

My problem is that the law doesn’t do what you, or its author, is claiming it does.

I disagree with the above. Do you have a problem, conceptually, with this:

Quote:

Ashcroft said under a new rule he wants state-funded, public libraries to write out policies and guidelines for determining what books and materials are age appropriate.

“They'll have to take responsibility for those policies, they have to make them public. So that their constituents, so that parents, so the taxpayers can see those. And then if there are challenges about the material, they have to have a written public policy to challenge that material. And they have to provide publicly the outcome of any challenge,” Ashcroft said.

I don't have a problem with the above. I think policies and procedures are important here, and should be required by law. Do you disagree with that notion?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I disagree with the above. Do you have a problem, conceptually, with this:




I don't have a problem with the above. I think policies and procedures are important here, and should be required by law. Do you disagree with that notion?

I don’t disagree with the notion. But I’m from Missouri. I have been dealing with the Ashcrofts for a long time. Anyone would be an idiot to take what they say at face value.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I don’t disagree with the notion. But I’m from Missouri. I have been dealing with the Ashcrofts for a long time. Anyone would be an idiot to take what they say at face value.

Well, at least we can agree that conceptually this a good idea. As with any legislation, there is the possibility of poor implementation.

But the concept here is sound. It seems like fear is what is driving the backlash.

[Darat]

According to the report I read "..Under Ashcroft’s plan, libraries also would be required to honor a parent’s decision as to what material their child has access to in the library..."


That is beyond having a policy in place. That would require the library to have procedures in place so even if a book is "age appropriate" according to the legal policy certain children are not allowed to borrow that book. A database would have to be created and maintained that allows the library to check at the point of borrowing if a particular child can borrow a book that is according to the public legal policy age appropriate.

Will the state be providing the libraries with such a system when they provide funding?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by arayder

As I said earlier this is an issue essentially invented by right wing activists so they can have something to shout about during the culture wars.

Not to mention something for right wing candidates to shout out during their campaigns as reasons why they must be elected, to prevent freakish liberal ideals and beliefs being pressed on children.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

According to the report I read "..Under Ashcroft’s plan, libraries also would be required to honor a parent’s decision as to what material their child has access to in the library..."


That is beyond having a policy in place. That would require the library to have procedures in place so even if a book is "age appropriate" according to the legal policy certain children are not allowed to borrow that book. A database would have to be created and maintained that allows the library to check at the point of borrowing if a particular child can borrow a book that is according to the public legal policy age appropriate.

Will the state be providing the libraries with such a system when they provide funding?

Could you provide a link to the article you reference?

Assuming what the article says is true (not sure either way), and the state can provide such a system, would you agree with it, conceptually?

Like, using an extreme example, let's say the rules allow your 9-year-old to check out the Kama Sutra. As a parent, you don't want this. Is there a problem with a system to honor the wishes of the parent?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Well, at least we can agree that conceptually this a good idea. As with any legislation, there is the possibility of poor implementation.

But the concept here is sound. It seems like fear is what is driving the backlash.

Hold on, I missed that you shifted the goal-posts in that last post. Having a written policy about age-appropriate books is one thing, but having to to justify every decision on every book every time is something else entirely. That is tailor made to eat up library's time and money. It's essentially a back-door way of defunding public libraries.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Darat

According to the report I read "..Under Ashcroft’s plan, libraries also would be required to honor a parent’s decision as to what material their child has access to in the library..."


That is beyond having a policy in place. That would require the library to have procedures in place so even if a book is "age appropriate" according to the legal policy certain children are not allowed to borrow that book. A database would have to be created and maintained that allows the library to check at the point of borrowing if a particular child can borrow a book that is according to the public legal policy age appropriate.

Will the state be providing the libraries with such a system when they provide funding?

Sorry little Zechariah, you can't check out this pop-up book about dinosaurs because your parents think fossils are actually demonic forgeries created by the Illuminati to turn you into a socialist atheist.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Like, using an extreme example, let's say the rules allow your 9-year-old to check out the Kama Sutra. As a parent, you don't want this. Is there a problem with a system to honor the wishes of the parent?

Is that happening?

Are "small government" Republicans/conservatives injecting state control into local libraries to fix any actual problem?

[arayder]

I don't have a problem with a required challenge policy. My understanding is that the Missouri Library Association (MLA) recommends such for all public libraries.

That part of the legislation, it seems to me just professionalizes the field.

The Missouri Library Association claims that many folks objecting to certain books have not bothered to use the challenge process but instead go straight to library board meetings to complain.

I suppose it's possible that local libraries have not made the challenge process well known.

My fear is that the requirement that public libraries adopt policies on the "age-appropriateness of literature" is a disingenuous move to, as the MLA says, "[R]emove, label, and restrict access to materials and events that feature the life experiences and stories of LGBTQ+, BIPOC, women and other historically marginalized communities – as has been a hallmark of anti-reader campaigns across the state and nation over the past year. . .".

I would not be so skeptical of this requirement where it not the case that right wing activists across the country have made it a standard practice to purposefully misrepresent school curricula and library practices.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Is that happening?

Are "small government" Republicans/conservatives injecting state control into local libraries to fix any actual problem?

The debate I was interested in is the concept of the law. Because, if we agree on that level, then it makes sense to create good, bipartisan legislation to achieve that end.

If we don't agree on the concept, then we are just bickering on subjective matters. Which doesn't interest me on this topic.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The debate I was interested in is the concept of the law. Because, if we agree on that level, then it makes sense to create good, bipartisan legislation to achieve that end.

If we don't agree on the concept, then we are just bickering on subjective matters. Which doesn't interest me on this topic.

Well, we all have our disappointments.

[Foster Zygote]

I think one is more likely to be able to demonstrate real psychological harm being done by sexually repressive conservative attitudes than by access to the notion that sex [gasp!] actually exists. I suspect there are droves of people with pious upbringings who can't even enjoy healthy, fulfilling sex lives with their own spouses because they've only ever known sex to be alluded to as something shameful and verboten.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Could you provide a link to the article you reference?

Assuming what the article says is true (not sure either way), and the state can provide such a system, would you agree with it, conceptually?

Like, using an extreme example, let's say the rules allow your 9-year-old to check out the Kama Sutra. As a parent, you don't want this. Is there a problem with a system to honor the wishes of the parent?

Here you go.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

Here you go.

That is a pretty vague description in the article, so it is hard to say if it is factual. But do you disagree with the concept, if competently implemented with state funds, behind a parent being able to restrict the materials their child can access?

Originally Posted by Warp12

Assuming what the article says is true (not sure either way), and the state can provide such a system, would you agree with it, conceptually?

Like, using an extreme example, let's say the rules allow your 9-year-old to check out the Kama Sutra. As a parent, you don't want this. Is there a problem with a system to honor the wishes of the parent?