Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am pretty sure that you can't speak for every library system.

You haven't spoken for any library system. You have yet to offer a single piece of evidence supporting the contention that children being exposed to harmful material by public libraries is a problem at all, let alone one that needs new legislation to address.

Quote:

It doesn't seem that they are required to comply with any particular standards.

Based on what? Your argumentum ad ignorantiam? If you could establish a pattern of children regularly being granted access to books like the Kama Sutra, The Art of Sensual Massage, Fifty Shades of Grey, or the boxed collection of the Golden Books Guide to Anal Sex Techniques series, you'd have something upon which to base your above statement. But you have to resort of semantics like "seems" because you actually have no idea.

Quote:

What you have identified is the need for such policies and procedures to be in place. Why on earth shouldn't this be a documented requirement for state-funded libraries?

It makes no sense to be against such a thing. Unless you want totally arbitrary policies, procedures, and application of such.

You're completely ignoring the people who have actually worked in libraries who have told you that such procedures already exist. The very fact that you've been unable to provide any examples establishing a pattern of children regularly accessing pornography in public libraries should tell you that there are clearly already policies in place to prevent them from getting their grubby little paws on books or recordings that are not age appropriate. The problem for conservatives is that those procedures don't extend to restricting access to information about things like the existence of same sex couples, alternative views on religion, evolutionary biology, the history of slavery or Native American genocide. This is about religious fundamentalists and history deniers seeking to cleanse public libraries of materials that don't conform to their religious, social and political beliefs. But even more so, it's about politicians manufacturing a "liberal" threat to ignorant reactionaries that only they can save them from.

[thaiboxerken]

Once again, we all know that those in favor of the book bans know it is not about protecting children from pornography. The laws are written as an excuse to ban books about anything that could steer children away from becoming homophobic, christians that comply with white supremacy.

[bruto]

It may be true that one cannot speak for every library system, but there's no evidence that Ashcroft is speaking for any.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

. . .The problem for conservatives is that those procedures don't extend to restricting access to information about things like the existence of same sex couples, alternative views on religion, evolutionary biology, the history of slavery or Native American genocide. This is about religious fundamentalists and history deniers seeking to cleanse public libraries of materials that don't conform to their religious, social and political beliefs. But even more so, it's about politicians manufacturing a "liberal" threat to ignorant reactionaries that only they can save them from.

Yeah, I think what really irks conservative critics is that the books dealing with these subjects don't stigmatize the LGBT-BIPOC community.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am pretty sure that you can't speak for every library system. It doesn't seem that they are required to comply with any particular standards.

What you have identified is the need for such policies and procedures to be in place. Why on earth shouldn't this be a documented requirement for state-funded libraries?

It makes no sense to be against such a thing. Unless you want totally arbitrary policies, procedures, and application of such.

You're quite literally advocating for the implementation of arbitrary policies and procedures.

[sackett]

How about a rule that people can defend a book and insist that it stay on the shelf?

Nah, 'at's no fun. Anybody don't like a book would get in one o' them debates that liberals like so much. He'd hafta WRITE DOWN what he don't like about it, and prolly they'd make him stand up 'n DEFEND himself for bein' a CHRRRISTIAN!

Let the begrudgers rule. 'N nobody else.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You're quite literally advocating for the implementation of arbitrary policies and procedures.

Yes, but it's' important whose arbitrary opinions count. Who should set library policies, politicians or librarians? Well, politicians of course. They know everything anyone needs to know.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You're quite literally advocating for the implementation of arbitrary policies and procedures.

I am advocating for the requirement for policy and procedure in order to receive state funding. While also making these policies and procedures subject to some degree of oversight (public and otherwise). On the other hand, others here are against such procedures being required. But they are even proclaiming we don't need a requirement, because such procedures already exist. Which is basically saying that such procedures are not a bad thing. This is an entirely conflicted, nonsensical argument.

Which of the two scenarios above seems more arbitrary? No requirement and no oversight? Or a requirement that includes oversight?

The arguments being presented against a policy and procedure requirement are incredibly weak, imo.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am advocating for the requirement for policy and procedure in order to receive state funding. While also making these policies and procedures subject to some degree of oversight (public and otherwise). On the other hand, others here are against such procedures being required. But they are even proclaiming we don't need a requirement, because such procedures already exist. Which is basically saying that such procedures are not a bad thing. This is an entirely nonsensical argument.

Which of the two scenarios above seems more arbitrary? No requirement and no oversight? Or a requirement that includes oversight?

The arguments being presented against a policy and procedure requirement are incredibly weak.

The arguments you’ve presented in favor of your arbitrary polices and procedures are nonexistent. You’re suggesting “solutions” to a problem you have yet to establish exists within a system of which you have displayed very little understanding or knowledge.

[Chris_Halkides]

"The funds are a small part of any individual library’s budget. For Daniel Boone Regional Library, state aid represents about 1.1% of the $12.8 million in revenue budgeted for the current year. Local property taxes account for 95% of the library’s funding." Missouri Independent

What I don't know about government would fill a book, but the question that came into my mind is whether it should be the state or a more local government entity that should be proposing new rules, assuming for the sake of argument that new rules were needed.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

snip
Based on what? Your argumentum ad ignorantiam? If you could establish a pattern of children regularly being granted access to books like the Kama Sutra, The Art of Sensual Massage, Fifty Shades of Grey, or the boxed collection of the Golden Books Guide to Anal Sex Techniques series, you'd have something upon which to base your above statement. But you have to resort of semantics like "seems" because you actually have no idea.

snip

Oh, thanks a hell of a lot! There goes my evening cosmopolitan all over the place.

[mgidm86]

Funny how sexuality is the main issue here with books for these people. Not a word about violence or crime? Terrorist propaganda? Nope, just the evils of sexuality.

That's all you need to know to determine that this is a bunch of bullcrap.

The last thing Republicans want is a society of well educated critical thinkers who can see through their lies. Hell they put it in writing in Texas!

All the books above would make no sense to a young child (Kama Sutra haha who cares?), and anyone old enough to understand them is old enough to read them.

Same ol' bullcrap from the same ol' bullcrap artists, who by the way apparently have never heard of the internet.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am advocating for the requirement for policy and procedure in order to receive state funding. While also making these policies and procedures subject to some degree of oversight (public and otherwise). On the other hand, others here are against such procedures being required. But they are even proclaiming we don't need a requirement, because such procedures already exist. Which is basically saying that such procedures are not a bad thing. This is an entirely conflicted, nonsensical argument.

Which of the two scenarios above seems more arbitrary? No requirement and no oversight? Or a requirement that includes oversight?

The arguments being presented against a policy and procedure requirement are incredibly weak, imo.

No people here are objecting about this proposed legislation - not any hypothetical policies or legislation. Remember this is the one that for instance would force libraries to keep a database on each child member so they can note any particular book their parents have said they can't take out.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Funny how sexuality is the main issue here with books for these people. Not a word about violence or crime? Terrorist propaganda? Nope, just the evils of sexuality.

To be fair, they also have an issue with racism.

Too much pointing out racism.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

OK. Its certainly better to let each community decide what material will be in their own municipal libraries than kicking it up the state level, or now theres even talk of it at the federal level.

You know what's even better than letting each community choose? How about you let each household choose what books their kids can check out?

If I'm ok with my 9 year old checking out the Kama Sutra from the library (since that is the current example I am hearing) then who is federal, state or local government or Karen the nosy-neighbor to say they can't?

It's interesting (not) how many of the same people who insist on knowing everything the teachers are teaching so they can have their own input insist on deciding what my kids can't be taught.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Funny how sexuality is the main issue here with books for these people. Not a word about violence or crime? Terrorist propaganda? Nope, just the evils of sexuality.

That's all you need to know to determine that this is a bunch of bullcrap.

The last thing Republicans want is a society of well educated critical thinkers who can see through their lies. Hell they put it in writing in Texas!

All the books above would make no sense to a young child (Kama Sutra haha who cares?), and anyone old enough to understand them is old enough to read them.

Same ol' bullcrap from the same ol' bullcrap artists, who by the way apparently have never heard of the internet.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

You know what's even better than letting each community choose? How about you let each household choose what books their kids can check out?

If I'm ok with my 9 year old checking out the Kama Sutra from the library (since that is the current example I am hearing) then who is federal, state or local government or Karen the nosy-neighbor to say they can't?

It's interesting (not) how many of the same people who insist on knowing everything the teachers are teaching so they can have their own input insist on deciding what my kids can't be taught.

And let us not forget that it is not just overt sexuality that is the issue here, but social organization which has a sexual component. Books about gay couples or bullied transsexual kids, and the like, are no more sexual in content than the heteronormative household of Dick and Jane. The argument for censorship uses the Kama Sutra and stuff like that as a banner, but its real intent is retrograde social engineering. They don't just want your kids not to get excited by the pictures in the Kama Sutra, they want them to be ignorant, estranged from the real world, and ready to hate it.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

You know what's even better than letting each community choose? How about you let each household choose what books their kids can check out?

If I'm ok with my 9 year old checking out the Kama Sutra from the library (since that is the current example I am hearing) then who is federal, state or local government or Karen the nosy-neighbor to say they can't?

It's interesting (not) how many of the same people who insist on knowing everything the teachers are teaching so they can have their own input insist on deciding what my kids can't be taught.

Sure, I agree, but if a library is municipally funded then it has to fall on someone working for the municipal library to decide what books to keep in their library... unless you are suggesting that a municipal library carries every published book ever? I don't see why the state should be involved at all, as someone pointed out upthread they contribute almost nothing to the library.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by arayder

What Warp is avoiding talking about are the raft of children's books which, in an age appropriate manner, explain why Suzy has two mommies, why Johny's daddy is married to another man and why Gretta's mother isn't pregnant any more but doesn't have a baby.

These books scare the crap out of right wing nuts because they feel they normalize homosexuality, abortion and the rest of the stuff they fear and loath..

Yep

Remember the big concern about legalizing gay marriage was that, if we legalize gay marriage, then kids will be taught that it is acceptable!!!!!

And, of course, the answer is, yeah. Or, kind of. I mean, who really teaches things about marriage? More importantly, they can't be taught that it is not allowed. Which is true.

And that kills the relgiious people. It's legal therefore it is ok!!!!

But then again, not really. For example, adultery is legal. Do religious people really have a problem teaching their kids that adultery is wrong? (well, they say it, but in practice....). So just because something is legal doesn't mean that Christians have to say it is acceptable to them, or that they approve of it.

But LGBT...that's icky and they can't deal with it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Funny how sexuality is the main issue here with books for these people. Not a word about violence or crime? Terrorist propaganda? Nope, just the evils of sexuality.

I remember a quote I heard long, long ago, before the age of the internet.

"Show a man kissing a woman's breast, and it's rated X. Show a man cutting off a woman's breast with a chainsaw, and it's rated R."

Something like that. It's stuck with me all these years.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Yep

Remember the big concern about legalizing gay marriage was that, if we legalize gay marriage, then kids will be taught that it is acceptable!!!!!

And, of course, the answer is, yeah. Or, kind of. I mean, who really teaches things about marriage? More importantly, they can't be taught that it is not allowed. Which is true.

And that kills the relgiious people. It's legal therefore it is ok!!!!

But then again, not really. For example, adultery is legal. Do religious people really have a problem teaching their kids that adultery is wrong? (well, they say it, but in practice....). So just because something is legal doesn't mean that Christians have to say it is acceptable to them, or that they approve of it.

But LGBT...that's icky and they can't deal with it.

Sooner or later all this gets "explained" to children.

I think parents who think they are the only ones doing the explaining are kidding themselves. The children learn from friends, the media and at school.

I think it is hard to convince kids that gay's are awful when they see that the gay parents of one of their classmates seem perfectly ok.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by arayder

I think it is hard to convince kids that gay's are awful when they see that the gay parents of one of their classmates seem perfectly ok.

Of course, this was the other problem. Its really hard to fret about the end of the world happening with gay marriage when gay marriage is allowed and....the world doesn't end.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I remember a quote I heard long, long ago, before the age of the internet.

"Show a man kissing a woman's breast, and it's rated X. Show a man cutting off a woman's breast with a chainsaw, and it's rated R."

Something like that. It's stuck with me all these years.

That's rich food for thought. Illuminating of a society where the same people who thump their buy-bull and advocate for the killing of teh gays accept Sandy Hook level events as the price for possessing the means to do in those they hate. God 'n Gunz!!!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

To be fair, they also have an issue with racism.

Too much pointing out racism.

Certain people see racism where it doesn't exist and don't see it where it does exist.

[Foster Zygote]

Years ago I heard someone complaining about the prospect of kids being exposed to the idea that there are same sex couples by asking how he was supposed to explain "butt sex" to his kids. I said he should explain it the same way he'd explain any kind of sex if his kids learned that their older cousin had just gotten engaged to his girlfriend. That is to say, not at all. Homophobes seem to spend more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Years ago I heard someone complaining about the prospect of kids being exposed to the idea that there are same sex couples by asking how he was supposed to explain "butt sex" to his kids. I said he should explain it the same way he'd explain any kind of sex if his kids learned that their older cousin had just gotten engaged to his girlfriend. That is to say, not at all. Homophobes seem to spend more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do.

They have to have something to be afraid about. If not 'gay sex' there's always CRT, transgender and non-binary people, the Kama Sutra and and old copies of The Happy Hooker in elementary school libraries, white replacement, and Hunter Biden's laptop.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

They have to have something to be afraid about. If not 'gay sex' there's always CRT, transgender and non-binary people, the Kama Sutra and and old copies of The Happy Hooker in elementary school libraries, white replacement, and Hunter Biden's laptop.

As I said above, Missouri should ban all reading full stop. If the kids can't read, they can't read gay porn, etc.

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Certain people see racism where it doesn't exist and don't see it where it does exist.

I think it's more likely that they think accusing others of Racism, normally after they've been accused of it, is them playing the Uno Reverse card as a Gotcha.

Just another way for trolls to deflect

[sackett]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

As I said above, Missouri should ban all reading full stop. If the kids can't read, they can't read gay porn, etc.

If Missouri enforces its educational policies wholeheartedly and bans ALL print and electronic communication, within a generation the kids won't even be able to read pictures.

Yes, that's a real phenomenon. Czarist-era Russian and Polish peasants sometimes displayed their icons upside-down, because such stylized images were completely meaningless to them. Desert Arabs into the 20th century couldn't make diddly out of a western artist's most realistic drawings, and to them a photograph was just a piece of smudged paper.

So onward, Christian soldiers!

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Certain people see racism where it doesn't exist and don't see it where it does exist.

And then there's **** like this. We had a copy of the book from when it first came out and read it to our kids. The only offensive part about it is the segregation itself.

eta: Wildwood is in the greater St. Louis area, so we heard quite a bit about it when this happened.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

And then there's **** like this. We had a copy of the book from when it first came out and read it to our kids. The only offensive part about it is the segregation itself.

eta: Wildwood is in the greater St. Louis area, so we heard quite a bit about it when this happened.

There was a little animated short based on this too. Vermont Public TV uses these as space fillers, and it was one for a while.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Mongrel

I think it's more likely that they think accusing others of Racism, normally after they've been accused of it, is them playing the Uno Reverse card as a Gotcha.

Just another way for trolls to deflect

True dat.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

And then there's **** like this. We had a copy of the book from when it first came out and read it to our kids. The only offensive part about it is the segregation itself.

eta: Wildwood is in the greater St. Louis area, so we heard quite a bit about it when this happened.

Interesting. I like the school's response.

[mikegriffith1]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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.

How is it "fascist" and "authoritarian" to defund public-funded libraries that make books with sexually explicit material available to children? How? This has nothing to do with "fascism" or "authoritarianism," but with trying to ensure that public libraries follow basic standards of decency and morality. Do you even know anything about the books that were found in public libraries and that prompted this action by the state's secretary of state?

By the way, Ashcroft's proposal would NOT "ban" a single book; it would simply withhold ban the use of state funds for buying sexually explicit books and would withhold state funding from any public-funded library that refuses to take reasonable steps to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material in the library.

If you want your kids exposed to books about drag queens and sex acts, that's on you, but don't tax dollars should not be used to buy them and children should not be exposed to such garbage at a public-funded library.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/m...e-content.html

[Darat]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

How is it "fascist" and "authoritarian" to defund public-funded libraries that make books with sexually explicit material available to children? How? This has nothing to do with "fascism" or "authoritarianism," but with trying to ensure that public libraries follow basic standards of decency and morality. Do you even know anything about the books that were found in public libraries and that prompted this action by the state's secretary of state?

By the way, Ashcroft's proposal would NOT "ban" a single book; it would simply withhold ban the use of state funds for buying sexually explicit books and would withhold state funding from any public-funded library that refuses to take reasonable steps to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material in the library.

If you want your kids exposed to books about drag queens and sex acts, that's on you, but don't tax dollars should not be used to buy them and children should not be exposed to such garbage at a public-funded library.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/m...e-content.html

That you equate drag queens with "sexually explicit material" is rather telling.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

How is it "fascist" and "authoritarian" to defund public-funded libraries that make books with sexually explicit material available to children? How? This has nothing to do with "fascism" or "authoritarianism," but with trying to ensure that public libraries follow basic standards of decency and morality. Do you even know anything about the books that were found in public libraries and that prompted this action by the state's secretary of state?

By the way, Ashcroft's proposal would NOT "ban" a single book; it would simply withhold ban the use of state funds for buying sexually explicit books and would withhold state funding from any public-funded library that refuses to take reasonable steps to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material in the library.

If you want your kids exposed to books about drag queens and sex acts, that's on you, but don't tax dollars should not be used to buy them and children should not be exposed to such garbage at a public-funded library.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/m...e-content.html

First, congratulations on actually returning to a thread.

Second, could you try to do what Warp could not and provide examples of children actually being granted access to sexually explicit materials? Can you show that this is enough of a real life problem to warrant passing state legislation?

Please note that I'm not talking about a 14 year old girl checking out an educational book on menstruation and reproduction, or a 7 year old reading a book like Heather Has Two Mommies that doesn't mention sex at all, or kids checking out Monty Python episodes or Mrs. Doubtfire because they've heard adults talking about them.

This proposed legislation isn't about addressing anything real. It's about fabricating an imaginary problem to get Christian conservatives all worked up so they'll vote for certain candidates.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

How is it "fascist" and "authoritarian" to defund public-funded libraries that make books with sexually explicit material available to children? How? This has nothing to do with "fascism" or "authoritarianism," but with trying to ensure that public libraries follow basic standards of decency and morality. Do you even know anything about the books that were found in public libraries and that prompted this action by the state's secretary of state?

By the way, Ashcroft's proposal would NOT "ban" a single book; it would simply withhold ban the use of state funds for buying sexually explicit books and would withhold state funding from any public-funded library that refuses to take reasonable steps to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate material in the library.

If you want your kids exposed to books about drag queens and sex acts, that's on you, but don't tax dollars should not be used to buy them and children should not be exposed to such garbage at a public-funded library.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/m...e-content.html

Do you? Is there some report you know of that others do not, outlining such an event or its results?

Of course, in this varied society which includes extremists, moral scolds and liars as well as well-meaning parents and guardians of youth, there will always be someone who objects to something somewhere, but as far as I know, this proposal does not address any specific instances or history of library misconduct or failure to do the job they have traditionally managed to do. And that likely includes the mechanisms that exist in most places whereby objectionably material can be brought to the attention of librarians, and action taken. The argument here is not that libraries should not be careful about what they give children access to, or that they don't have a responsibility. The argument here is that this particular proposal suggests a new and unnecessary (and probably costly) mechanism for control of library content by parties whose goal is not what it appears, but is rather the imposition of particular cultural ideas to the exclusion of others, and the narrowing of minds, concealed under the banner of morality and the preposterous examples of kindergarteners corrupted by the Kama Sutra.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1

Do you even know anything about the books that were found in public libraries and that prompted this action by the state's secretary of state?

I do, actually. I outlined a few of them in the thread already.

If you had read the thread, most, if not all, of your points have already been addressed. You’re yelling at a ship that has already sailed away from you.


ETA: unless the point was just blindly yell, then good job!

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Darat

That you equate drag queens with "sexually explicit material" is rather telling.

This is a problem, yes. If you don't accept the premise that "drag is bad, m'kay?" then the whole thing falls apart.

Oooo, you are grooming kids!
Grooming them for what?
To be in drag shows!
And? Granting that for the sake of argument, so what?
But but but drag is bad!
How so?

And I've even seen the response of, well, if you can't see that I can't explain it to you.

Yep, you can't. Because there's no good reason

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by sackett

If Missouri enforces its educational policies wholeheartedly and bans ALL print and electronic communication, within a generation the kids won't even be able to read pictures.

Yes, that's a real phenomenon. Czarist-era Russian and Polish peasants sometimes displayed their icons upside-down, because such stylized images were completely meaningless to them. Desert Arabs into the 20th century couldn't make diddly out of a western artist's most realistic drawings, and to them a photograph was just a piece of smudged paper.

So onward, Christian soldiers!

I was aware of this (particularly the Czarist peasants). It does seem to be the genuine ultimate goal of some of these people who are objecting to perceived library outrages.

At best, though, it would seem their pig-ignorance on the matter confirms they have never visited a library at all. They are objecting to stuff they know nothing about.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

That you equate drag queens with "sexually explicit material" is rather telling.

I wouldn't directly equate the material. I would say, however, that parents would be reasonable to protest their young children being exposed to either.