Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[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.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

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

Having been caught red handed trashing the 1st amendment Warp has "fled the thread".

Don't expect a return.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

Having been caught red handed trashing the 1st amendment Warp has "fled the thread".

Don't expect a return.

The above comment makes little sense. But, whatever.

The thread has quickly devolved to typical conservative bashing. We couldn't get past discussing the conceptual stage of the legislation, it seems.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The above comment makes little sense. But, whatever.

The thread has quickly devolved to typical conservative bashing. We couldn't get past discussing the conceptual stage of the legislation, it seems.

Don't delude yourself into thinking you represent all conservatives, or assume that they would agree with you on this issue.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The above comment makes little sense. But, whatever.

The thread has quickly devolved to typical conservative bashing. We couldn't get past discussing the conceptual stage of the legislation, it seems.

Warp, you got caught red handed advocating that the government take the Bible off library shelves so that children would not be able to read it.

That is a direct and willful abrogation of the 1st amendment so gross that you have lost all creditability on the matter.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Don't delude yourself into thinking you represent all conservatives, or assume that they would agree with you on this issue.

I never implied either.

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by arayder

Warp, you got caught red handed advocating that the government take the Bible off library shelves so that children would not be able to read it.

That is a direct and willful abrogation of the 1st amendment so gross that you have lost all creditability on the matter.

Warp12 has made it clear more than once that logic and consistency are far behind entertainment value as personal goals.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

Warp, you got caught red handed advocating that the government take the Bible off library shelves so that children would not be able to read it.

That is a direct and willful abrogation of the 1st amendment so gross that you have lost all creditability on the matter.

Incorrect.

Age-restricting media is not "taking it off the shelves". The reason the whole issue of the "good book" came up is because some thought it would be a "gotcha" for a conservative. Which it is not, in my case.

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 mean, the whole debate is about age-appropriate material. This far into the discussion I'd like to think most understand this.

[arayder]

Warp, you said:

"I don't consider The Bible as reading material for young children."

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

Your words, plain and simple.

A child goes into the public library and asks for a Bible to read and you would deny that child and his/her family's their 1st amendment rights.

You have given us an example of exactly the path right wing activists would use to stifle freedom of thought and religion!

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

. . .Age-restricting media is no the whole debate is about age-appropriate material. This far into the discussion I'd like to think most understand this.

I am looking at the 1st Amendment and Missouri's Constitution and I don't see any age restriction to the freedom of religion!

[Warp12]

To further elaborate:

Some in this thread want to equate The Bible with a book such as Why does Sally Have A Penis?. Or, even The Kama Sutra. They think that is going to trap me in some way, the big "gotcha". But it doesn't at all. Because I don't put religion on a pedestal. If the material is deemed age-inappropriate, it is what it is. There are plenty of avenues to practice religion outside of libraries, just as it relates to prayer in school.

But as I say, we can't even seem to make it past agreeing on the concept of well-defined policies and procedures when it comes to age-appropriate material. So, there is really no need for further discussion, from my point of view. I think it best to just carry on with the Bubba jokes. It is fitting for this venue.

[arayder]

Warp, you have proved the point made by the detractors of this legislation far better than could be done in a thousand posts. You would cede to government the power to restrict our freedom to practice our religions.

Right before our eyes you have acted out the disastrous course of action the book burning bigots of Missouri might easily follow.

You can "not discuss" it all you want but your words and intent are clear.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by arayder

Warp, you got caught red handed advocating that the government take the Bible off library shelves so that children would not be able to read it.

That is a direct and willful abrogation of the 1st amendment so gross that you have lost all creditability on the matter.

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Warp12 has made it clear more than once that logic and consistency are far behind entertainment value as personal goals.

Warp says he is not really "banning" the Bible. He just doesn't think young people should read it.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by arayder

Warp, you have proved the point made by the detractors of this legislation far better than could be done in a thousand posts. You would cede to government the power to restrict our freedom to practice our religions.

Right before our eyes you have acted out the disastrous course of action the book burning bigots of Missouri might easily follow.

You can "not discuss" it all you want but your words and intent are clear.

Many millions (children too) practice their religion fastidiously without ever opening the bible, preferring to depend on the interpretation of others. If we're going to talk about one book in particular at least try and keep things within reason.

[Norman Alexander]

The solution for Missouri is simple: Ban ALL books, magazines, pamphlets, letters, newspapers, invoices, receipts, bus-tickets, legal documentation, bills before government, handwritten anything, etc., etc. This will include PC screens, printers, smartphones, and phone books.

So just ban all printing and writing absolutely. And prosecute anyone found with a writing instrument or a sheet of paper of any size. Because ANYTHING in writing can be construed as being "bad for children" if you read it the "right" way. Any of it could potentially corrupt little innocent minds. So if there is nothing to read, the kiddies will be sure to be safe.

Job done! I'm sure Jebus would approve.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

The solution for Missouri is simple: Ban ALL books, magazines, pamphlets, letters, newspapers, invoices, receipts, bus-tickets, legal documentation, bills before government, handwritten anything, etc., etc. This will include PC screens, printers, smartphones, and phone books.

So just ban all printing and writing absolutely. And prosecute anyone found with a writing instrument or a sheet of paper of any size. Because ANYTHING in writing can be construed as being "bad for children" if you read it the "right" way. Any of it could potentially corrupt little innocent minds. So if there is nothing to read, the kiddies will be sure to be safe.

Job done! I'm sure Jebus would approve.

Looks like Farenheit 451

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Incorrect.

Age-restricting media is not "taking it off the shelves". The reason the whole issue of the "good book" came up is because some thought it would be a "gotcha" for a conservative. Which it is not, in my case.




I mean, the whole debate is about age-appropriate material. This far into the discussion I'd like to think most understand this.

Can you point to where this is outlined in the proposed legislation?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

To further elaborate:

Some in this thread want to equate The Bible with a book such as Why does Sally Have A Penis?. Or, even The Kama Sutra. …snip..

No one in this thread has done that.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by arayder

Warp, you have proved the point made by the detractors of this legislation far better than could be done in a thousand posts. You would cede to government the power to restrict our freedom to practice our religions.

Right before our eyes you have acted out the disastrous course of action the book burning bigots of Missouri might easily follow.

You can "not discuss" it all you want but your words and intent are clear.

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Many millions (children too) practice their religion fastidiously without ever opening the bible, preferring to depend on the interpretation of others. If we're going to talk about one book in particular at least try and keep things within reason.

And many people, including children, do use the Bible as part of their religious practice. These children, and by extension their families, would be denied their 1st Amendment rights based on enabling legislation contemplated by Warp 12.

He endorses government sponsored tyranny which would be heaped on Missouri's children simply because he does not practice the Christian religion and believes it is a fiction.

This is un-American!

Warp 12 no longer has any credibility on this issue!

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by arayder

And many people, including children, do use the Bible as part of their religious practice. These children, and by extension their families, would be denied their 1st Amendment rights based on enabling legislation contemplated by Warp 12.

He endorses government sponsored tyranny which would be heaped on Missouri's children simply because he does not practice the Christian religion and believes it is a fiction.

This is un-American!

Warp 12 no longer has any credibility on this issue!

I'm not seeing it as the "gotcha" that you see it as. Just sayin'

[arayder]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

I'm not seeing it as the "gotcha" that you see it as. Just sayin'

It's simple.

A kid walks into the library to do some study for his Bible class. He wants to study a Contemporary English Version of the Bible since he's young, a not so good reader and is having trouble with the King James Version, which he has at home.

He knows it's there and he walks up to the desk to ask for help finding it.

The librarian tells him that state law and the newly formed People's Library Council have restricted its distribution and he's too young to get it.

That's a violation of his 1st Amendment rights courtesy of Warp 12.

[seayakin]

There is also national law that will be proposed.

"The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.” "

This bill would withhold federal funding from any institution including libraries that would violate what it defines as sexually oriented material. The conservatives supporting this define being gay or transgender as sexually explicit on par with Penthouse or other material easily defined as pornographic.

This bill would only have a chance of passing if Republicans controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. The irony for me is that if they did that, they would probably try to defund IMLS, NEH and NEA which is where almost all funding for libraries and cultural institutions comes from at the federal level.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by seayakin

There is also national law that will be proposed.

"The bill defines “sexually-oriented material” as “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexual activity, any lewd or lascivious depiction or description of human genitals, or any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.” "

This bill would withhold federal funding from any institution including libraries that would violate what it defines as sexually oriented material. The conservatives supporting this define being gay or transgender as sexually explicit on par with Penthouse or other material easily defined as pornographic.

To some people, a male saying the words "my boyfriend" is sexually explicit. It's an acknowledgement that homosexuality exists. This is intolerable to some people. The goal is erasure from mention.

[sackett]

Kama Sutra, at least in Burton's translation, is pretty tame stuff, especially compared to Fanny Hill.

Which contains not one dirty word.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by sackett

Kama Sutra, at least in Burton's translation, is pretty tame stuff, especially compared to Fanny Hill.

Which contains not one dirty word.

Yeah lets spend time, money, and resources making sure a 12 year old can't go to the library and see the Kama Sutra* when this thing called... the internet... have you heard of it(?)... exists.

GOP relying on outrage politics instead of doing the things they promised like fixing inflation... since that would require work and compromising with the Senate. I'm soooo surprised /s

*I have my doubts that any libraries in Missouri keep a copy of it anyways

[sackett]

Censorship is only attempted by unlettered fools.

[JoeMorgue]

If your child has been on the internet unsupervised for more then .00000000002 nanoseconds at any point in their life and you're worried about anything they see in a library you're the dumbest person who ever lived.

[seayakin]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Yeah lets spend time, money, and resources making sure a 12 year old can't go to the library and see the Kama Sutra* when this thing called... the internet... have you heard of it(?)... exists.

I know a lot of librarians who have a good laugh at this and the absurdity of trying to control information flow in the internet age. Totalitarian regimes have enough trouble doing it.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by sackett

Kama Sutra, at least in Burton's translation, is pretty tame stuff, especially compared to Fanny Hill.

Which contains not one dirty word.

In fact, his version of the 1001 Nights is a lot more raunchier. A lot of the Kama Sutra is basically an instruction for upper caste males on how they should conduct themselves and how their wives should serve them dutifully... Ya know, the chef in the kitchen, a mother to the kids and a whore in the bedroom.
The supposedly naught bits are a couple of chapters that primarily uses sanskrit equivalents of words like penis, vagina, intercourse, embrace, oral intercourse and se tecnical descriptions where spinal contortions may be involved. The illustrations are mostly statuary from ancient temples pr post 16C miniatures from the Mughal era.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

To further elaborate:

Some in this thread want to equate The Bible with a book such as Why does Sally Have A Penis?. Or, even The Kama Sutra. They think that is going to trap me in some way, the big "gotcha". But it doesn't at all. Because I don't put religion on a pedestal. If the material is deemed age-inappropriate, it is what it is. There are plenty of avenues to practice religion outside of libraries, just as it relates to prayer in school.

But as I say, we can't even seem to make it past agreeing on the concept of well-defined policies and procedures when it comes to age-appropriate material. So, there is really no need for further discussion, from my point of view. I think it best to just carry on with the Bubba jokes. It is fitting for this venue.

People are deriding me for my expressed desire for authoritarian control over people's lives so I'm going to cry now and then run away.

[JoeMorgue]

It it worth bothering keeping track of which users are free speech when Nazis are involved yet not for free speech when a kid might learn that that people other than their racist backwoods parents exist?

[Norman Alexander]

These ignorant fools will want to ban medical and psychology textbooks next, because they will describe all sorts of sexual behaviours and human genitals. So really, they are anti knowledge, pro ignorance. Like them.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, kids will get stuff from the internet, and books from the next state over. So it's a stupid idea too.

.....triggering the libs, anyone?

[Cat Not Included]

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.

I'm just gonna toss in here that no, it doesn't make sense to "create good bipartisan legislature" to enforce what books children can check out of a library. I'd call that government overreach, and completely not worth spending the time and money of lawmakers and politicians working on. If as a parent you don't want your children reading certain books, pay attention to what books they are checking out.

[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.

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

I'm just gonna toss in here that no, it doesn't make sense to "create good bipartisan legislature" to enforce what books children can check out of a library. I'd call that government overreach, and completely not worth spending the time and money of lawmakers and politicians working on. If as a parent you don't want your children reading certain books, pay attention to what books they are checking out.

Well said, Cat Not Included.

And we already know that we don't agree on the concepts of law proposed by Warp. Those being that we might throw our religious liberties in the trash can and turn a large part of the rearing of our children over the state.

[Warp12]

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?

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?

Originally Posted by sackett

Kama Sutra, at least in Burton's translation, is pretty tame stuff, especially compared to Fanny Hill.

Which contains not one dirty word.

Originally Posted by Susheel

In fact, his version of the 1001 Nights is a lot more raunchier. A lot of the Kama Sutra is basically an instruction for upper caste males on how they should conduct themselves and how their wives should serve them dutifully... Ya know, the chef in the kitchen, a mother to the kids and a whore in the bedroom.
The supposedly naught bits are a couple of chapters that primarily uses sanskrit equivalents of words like penis, vagina, intercourse, embrace, oral intercourse and se tecnical descriptions where spinal contortions may be involved. The illustrations are mostly statuary from ancient temples pr post 16C miniatures from the Mughal era.

The above illustrates precisely why we need policy and procedures to regulate what children have access to. On the one hand someone is saying that my extreme example of a 9-year-old checking out the Kama Sutra is ludicrous. On the hand, some others are quick to explain how the book isn't that bad, after all.

As I mentioned earlier:

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?

[JoeMorgue]

Quick, someone get a Nazi or the Klan to try and put a book in a public library. They'll trip over themselves to defend free speech then.

[sackett]

Well now, Warp old poster, you & I can agree on one thing: the Old Testament is not for little kids. It's simply too crowded with murder, rape, mutilation, atrocities, and the "stoney cruelty of antiquity."

As quite a tot, I was vulnerable to damage from the horrors I encountered in my reading. It was permanent damage too, lifelong trauma. I know this because I remain haunted by those words and the ghastly images they created. And I'm not talking about the OT, merely newspapers and magazines.

The New Testament can be hard on innocent minds too. That stuff with the nails, and came thereforth blood and water.

Heck you n me, WE get the point: Them liberals's rules is all arbitrary. OUR rules is going to be fair & settled law. By god, WE'RE talking about FREEDOM!

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by sackett

Well now, Warp old poster, you & I can agree on one thing: the Old Testament is not for little kids. It's simply too crowded with murder, rape, mutilation, atrocities, and the "stoney cruelty of antiquity."

As quite a tot, I was vulnerable to damage from the horrors I encountered in my reading. It was permanent damage too, lifelong trauma. I know this because I remain haunted by those words and the ghastly images they created. And I'm not talking about the OT, merely newspapers and magazines.

The New Testament can be hard on innocent minds too. That stuff with the nails, and came thereforth blood and water.

Heck you n me, WE get the point.

I think you have missed the point as well. The Bible was brought up as though, being a conservative, I would be unwilling to age-restrict such a text. That simply isn't true. If the material is age-inappropriate, it is what it is. I am not here to lobby against The Bible, or any specific text for that matter.

Of course I have already pointed this out. I mean, it just makes me laugh at the approach: "I bet you will do anything to protect your Bible! Gotcha!", and when that doesn't work it is followed by, "Look he wants to ban Bibles! Gotcha!".

While funny, it is also a pathetic and desperate tactic.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The above illustrates precisely why we need policy and procedures to regulate what children have access to. On the one hand someone is saying that my extreme example of a 9-year-old checking out the Kama Sutra is ludicrous. On the hand, some others are quick to explain how the book isn't that bad, after all.

Everyone with sense knows giving children a copies of the Kama Sutra is not the issue since libraries don't do that.

But the point you ignore is that your policy would be to deny children access to the Bible, thus trashing the 1st Amendment.

You can't talk your way around this one, Warp.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by arayder

You can't talk your way around this one, Warp.

Sure he can.

"Oh I'm sorry I thought you understood. These rules apply to you, not to me."

He won't actually come out and say it, but that is what he is saying.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I think you have missed the point as well. The Bible was brought up as though, being a conservative, I would be unwilling to age-restrict such a text. That simply isn't true. If the material is age-inappropriate, it is what it is. I am not here to lobby against The Bible, or any specific text for that matter.

Of course I have already pointed this out. I mean, it just makes me laugh at the approach: "I bet you will do anything to protect your Bible! Gotcha!", and when that doesn't work it is followed by, "Look he wants to ban Bibles! Gotcha!".

While funny, it is also a pathetic and desperate tactic.

We all know what you said, Warp.

And we all know you just told a bald faced lie about your own words.

Your problem, not anybody else's.