Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[Foster Zygote]

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?

That goes beyond "extreme" to "ludicrous". I mean, let's say the rules allow the library to have a rack in the children's section displaying German dungeon porn. They could label the rack "freakish liberal ideals and beliefs". Won't somebody please think of the children?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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?

Jeez, what happened to asking one's child what he or she is reading and on occasion going through their book bag?

Is the fear that one's child upon reading that World War II codebreaker Alan Turing was gay during the few hours before you got to his book bag will turn into a raging, cross dressing, transgendered psychological mess?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

That goes beyond "extreme" to "ludicrous". I mean, let's say the rules allow the library to have a rack in the children's section displaying German dungeon porn. They could label the rack "freakish liberal ideals and beliefs". Won't somebody please think of the children?

The above comment hardly warrants reply, as the stated example was just to illustrate the concept of clearly reasonable parental intervention. Obviously.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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?

Have you read the proposed legislation?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

Jeez, what happened to asking one's child what he or she is reading and on occasion going through their book bag?

So, rather than have an established policy for age-appropriate materials that can be distributed to children by state-funded libraries, you would prefer the above method?

I mean, it's pretty funny. But, to each their own.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The above comment hardly warrants reply, as the stated example was just to illustrate the concept of clearly reasonable parental intervention. Obviously.

No, your comment suggesting libraries might give little kids copies of the Kama Sutra was meant to advance the idea that such a thing is the problem.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

Have you read the proposed legislation?

I'd like for you to answer my question. As I already stated, I think it best to start at the conceptual level. And then move on from there.

Originally Posted by Warp12

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?

If we don't agree on the concept there is no need for further debate, from my standpoint.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by arayder

Jeez, what happened to asking one's child what he or she is reading and on occasion going through their book bag?

Is the fear that one's child upon reading that World War II codebreaker Alan Turing was gay during the few hours before you got to his book bag will turn into a raging, cross dressing, transgendered psychological mess?

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, rather than have an established policy for age-appropriate materials that can be distributed to children by state-funded libraries, you would prefer the above method?

I mean, it's pretty funny. But, to each their own.

You think parents not living up to their responsibilities is funny?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The above comment hardly warrants reply, as the stated example was just to illustrate the concept of clearly reasonable parental intervention. Obviously.

You still haven't replied to my request to show us examples of "freakish liberal ideals and beliefs being pressed on children", so I'm not really expecting a response in the form of an actual cogent argument.

Is there any public library where the policy in place is to allow a nine year old to check out, or even view, the Kama Sutra? Is there a history of this sort of thing happening? Is there a pattern that establishes any realistic risk of this sort of thing happening?

There's nothing reasonable about your hypothetical. It was, as you said, an extreme example, meant to shock and provoke a hand-wringing emotional reaction in order to fabricate a justification for conservative thought police to demonize libraries.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by arayder

You think parents not living up to their responsibilities is funny?

The problem is that parents might not do it right. We need culture warriors and the state to enforce correct morals on children. To protect them, don'cha know.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I'd like for you to answer my question. As I already stated, I think it best to start at the conceptual level. And then move on from there.




If we don't agree on the concept there is no need for further debate, from my standpoint.

Have you read the legislation? I am only wondering as you seem to indicate you don't think the article is accurate.

[arayder]

Hey, here's the scenario.

Right wing nut Bubba has failed to have the usual father son talks with little Bubba Jr.

Bubba Jr. knows he can't talk to Bubba or Mrs. Bubba abound certain things, so when he hears about gay men he asks a few of his friends about it and quickly realizes they don't know much more than he does.

So he digs up some literature on the subject some of which are historical biographies of Oscar Wilde, Gore Vidal and Alexander the Great.

Bubba Sr. stumbles across Bubba Jr's web search history, freaks out and decides to rifle though his book bag while Jr. is manly watching a football game in the family room.

He finds a biography of James Baldwin and freaks out some more when he finds out that the book is from the local public library. He burns the book and grounds Bubba Jr until 2025.

To protest Bubba and Mrs. Bubba attend the library board meeting which just happens to be five days away. They leave Bubba Jr. with their maternal cousin, Sean, who happens to be a closeted gay man.

Bubba Jr. and Sean become close after Bubba Jr. tells Sean what it's all about.

And it's all the library's fault?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by arayder

You think parents not living up to their responsibilities is funny?

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The problem is that parents might not do it right. We need culture warriors and the state to enforce correct morals on children. To protect them, don'cha know.

Yeah, the irony of right wing activist parents imploring the state to help them raise their kids is funny.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by arayder

Hey, here's the scenario.

[snip]

And it's all the library's fault?

The only thing I find implausible in your scenario is the part where Jr., having found stuff online, goes to a library for a physical book. I'm guessing Jr. is at least in his 40s. Otherwise, I quite enjoyed it.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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?

But this is NOT really an issue of a parent being able to restrict what his own child can access. It is about a parent who cannot control what his own kids do, restricting what every other child in the state can access.

The proposal rests on the presumption that library policy as it stands is insufficient, and that individuals should be given what appears, in the proposal as it stands, to be the ability to override community standards now applied, and to impose their beliefs and biases on everyone else.

Of course the proposal is just that, and so far is open to public comment. My comment, if I had any standing in Missouri, would be the comment I make here, that the proposal is a stupid one, and a poorly disguised attempt by religious, racial and sexual bigots to impose on everyone regressive ideas that the society as a whole has outgrown.

[bruto]

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?

You conspicuously highlight the part that suggests a cure is needed, and conspicuously do not highlight the part that is what nearly everyone here is disputing - the idea that the agency of censorship should be the complaints of individual parents. "Anyone can challenge the access to books" is the part most of us here are speaking about.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The only thing I find implausible in your scenario is the part where Jr., having found stuff online, goes to a library for a physical book. I'm guessing Jr. is at least in his 40s. Otherwise, I quite enjoyed it.

Fast forward and Bubba Jr. grows up hereto-sexual. Marries and has three kids.

His oldest daughter, Carla, comes out only after "Grandpa Bub" dies choking on a chicken wing.

Upon hearing the news, grandma, "Ma Ma Bub", says she always knew Carla was different and is okay with it all.

Carla is a librarian in Kansas City.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

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

Can you name a few of these sexually explicit media that children currently have access to that this law is supposed to protect them from?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Can you name a few of these sexually explicit media that children currently have access to that this law is supposed to protect them from?

Well, as mentioned here before, the Bible would be one of those.

[Finster]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

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

There is not a single person that believes this is about protecting children from sexually explicit material. It’s called lying.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Well, as mentioned here before, the Bible would be one of those.

I don't believe for one second that those supporting the book ban bill would think the bible is one of those, even though it does fit the criteria.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

You conspicuously highlight the part that suggests a cure is needed, and conspicuously do not highlight the part that is what nearly everyone here is disputing - the idea that the agency of censorship should be the complaints of individual parents. "Anyone can challenge the access to books" is the part most of us here are speaking about.

Please refer to this post, and review the highlighted portions:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post13946692

[seayakin]

Speaking as a librarian, these are simply attacks on the professionalism of librarians in an effort to address a problem that doesn't exist. As others have pointed out, most libraries have procedures for addressing concerns about selections librarians have made. On top of that, most collection development policies which are used in the selection process are approved by a board of trustees who represent the community through an election process or by appointment of elected officials.

This legislation is grand standing to appeal to a far right culture base. It is also dangerous because it encourages the far right conspiracy of pedophilia. Librarians across the country are having to deal with baseless accusations of pedophilia. In more conservative areas, some have left because they have had their lives threatened. are doxed, and hounded with a variety of baseless accusations.

As others have pointed out, it also threatens library funding. Without public funding, only the largest well heeled libraries would exist. Or, libraries would be membership based as in the 18th and 19th century which were accessible to the wealthy. In the end, legislation like this is not to protect children but limit the free flow of ideas.

On a more positive note, some of the flagship libraries like New York Public, Brooklyn Public and Chicago Public library will lend the banned books to anyone in the country who does not have access.

The American Library Association maintains a list of the most challenged books and it is all about censorship of ideas.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I don't believe for one second that those supporting the book ban bill would think the bible is one of those, even though it does fit the criteria.

But that would be hypocritical! Surely the 'think of the children' crowd would agree that a book that contains mass rapes, parents prostituting their children rules sending loyal followers to their death so they can steal the wife they'd been peeping on and containing instructions on when you can impregnate your servants would positively RUSH at banning such a book.

In fact, I'm sure they would also wish that such a book is banned from being taught in public schools as well.

Right Warp12?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by seayakin

Speaking as a librarian, these are simply attacks on the professionalism of librarians in an effort to address a problem that doesn't exist. [snip]

Speaking as the son of a librarian, I've been hearing about this for over 40 years. I agree with 100%. This isn't protection. This is fascist control of ideas.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

But that would be hypocritical! Surely the 'think of the children' crowd would agree that a book that contains mass rapes, parents prostituting their children rules sending loyal followers to their death so they can steal the wife they'd been peeping on and containing instructions on when you can impregnate your servants would positively RUSH at banning such a book.

In fact, I'm sure they would also wish that such a book is banned from being taught in public schools as well.

Right Warp12?

I don't consider The Bible as reading material for young children. This is aside from the fact that I consider it to be largely fictional.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider The Bible as reading material for young children. This is aside from the fact that I consider it to be largely fictional.

Exactly, so it should be banned right?
After all, what if a young child were to see it in a library or in a school?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Exactly, so it should be banned right?
After all, what if a young child were to see it in a library or in a school?

I wouldn't say "banned". Age-restricted would be adequate.

Some are treating this as a Fahrenheit 451 scenario, it seems. I don't see it that way.

Maybe read back further to the conceptual questions of the legislation.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by seayakin

Speaking as a librarian, these are simply attacks on the professionalism of librarians in an effort to address a problem that doesn't exist. As others have pointed out, most libraries have procedures for addressing concerns about selections librarians have made. On top of that, most collection development policies which are used in the selection process are approved by a board of trustees who represent the community through an election process or by appointment of elected officials.

This legislation is grand standing to appeal to a far right culture base. It is also dangerous because it encourages the far right conspiracy of pedophilia. Librarians across the country are having to deal with baseless accusations of pedophilia. In more conservative areas, some have left because they have had their lives threatened. are doxed, and hounded with a variety of baseless accusations.

As others have pointed out, it also threatens library funding. Without public funding, only the largest well heeled libraries would exist. Or, libraries would be membership based as in the 18th and 19th century which were accessible to the wealthy. In the end, legislation like this is not to protect children but limit the free flow of ideas.

On a more positive note, some of the flagship libraries like New York Public, Brooklyn Public and Chicago Public library will lend the banned books to anyone in the country who does not have access.

The American Library Association maintains a list of the most challenged books and it is all about censorship of ideas.

Well said.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The problem is that OTHER parents might not do it right. We need culture warriors and the state to enforce correct morals on children. To protect them, don'cha know.

FTFY - I am certain they would object to the state telling them how to raise their children.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

But that would be hypocritical! Surely the 'think of the children' crowd would agree that a book that contains mass rapes, parents prostituting their children rules sending loyal followers to their death so they can steal the wife they'd been peeping on and containing instructions on when you can impregnate your servants would positively RUSH at banning such a book.

In fact, I'm sure they would also wish that such a book is banned from being taught in public schools as well.

Right Warp12?

And talks - literally - of men hung as donkeys!

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I wouldn't say "banned". Age-restricted would be adequate.

Some are treating this as a Fahrenheit 451 scenario, it seems. I don't see it that way.

Maybe read back further to the conceptual questions of the legislation.

The "conceptual question" of the legislation is to fear-monger over nonexistent problems. No one is handing out pornography to children in public libraries. This is just another ginned-up culture war from right wing freaks who have absolutely nothing of value to add to society.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider The Bible as reading material for young children. This is aside from the fact that I consider it to be largely fictional.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

Exactly, so it should be banned right?
After all, what if a young child were to see it in a library or in a school?

Originally Posted by Warp12

I wouldn't say "banned". Age-restricted would be adequate.

Well, there we have it. Warp has backed into a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the 1st amendment, which lest he equivocate, is repeated in state constitutions.

Senselessly acting out the role of book burning bigots he has told us that the Bible should be "restricted reading" simply because he says so.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, rather than have an established policy for age-appropriate materials that can be distributed to children by state-funded libraries, you would prefer the above method?

I mean, it's pretty funny. But, to each their own.

Yes, I would prefer parents take some responsibility in their own children's education rather than leaving it entirely up to the state.

I don't know why you find this amusing.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Yes, I would prefer parents take some responsibility in their own children's education rather than leaving it entirely up to the state.

I don't know why you find this amusing.

Because "small government" conservatives are lying about being in favor of "small government".

[seayakin]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Speaking as the son of a librarian, I've been hearing about this for over 40 years. I agree with 100%. This isn't protection. This is fascist control of ideas.

The challenges have definitely been happening for a long time. At least anecdotally, speaking with colleagues, it has gotten much worse in the last couple of years. ALA also is reporting a significant increase.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

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

And who the hell decides what is decent and moral?
You can take your censorship and put it where the sun don't shine.
But then you probablly want to get rid of public libraries ,since you want to get rid of public education.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

They banned the graphic novel "Maus" because of a naked mouse and inappropriate language. That's the porn they want to protect kids from....

Well it did also paint nazis in a bad light.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The above comment hardly warrants reply, as the stated example was just to illustrate the concept of clearly reasonable parental intervention. Obviously.

No, it wasn't. It was a ludicrous example.

[Stacyhs]

I'll say it again: conservatism is based in fear and this just another example. The more far right someone is, the more they live in abject terror and paranoia. It's really rather sad. It's no accident that Obama's campaign slogan was "HOPE".