Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[Upchurch]

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

Quote:

JEFFERSON CITY — Beginning Tuesday, Missouri libraries and members of the public can formally weigh in on an attempt by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft to block public funding for libraries if they offer books that might appeal to the sexual interests of minors.

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.

Quote:

The Missouri Library Association called the rule rule “an infringement on the professional judgment of librarians, and an effort to further stoke division in the communities that libraries serve.”

“This set of new rules for the most part represents an obtuse political effort to catch librarians in the act of being librarians, and to recast that spotlight in a malicious and libelous hue,” the association said in a statement.

Quote:

Comments may be submitted to the Secretary of State’s office via email at comments@sos.mo.gov or by traditional mail to Office of the Missouri Secretary of State, P.O. Box 1767, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

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.

[dudalb]

Oh for what the great Missourians Mark Twain and Robert Heinlein who were both fervid advocates of free speech and opposed to censorship would say about this.

[dudalb]

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.

My comment would be short and NSFW..

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by dudalb

My comment would be short and NSFW..

The only rational explanation I can think of, is this is a ploy to do away with publicly funded libraries in Missouri. Books that might appeal to the sexual interests of minors... because a 17 year old and 364 day person has different interests than an 18 year old??

But as we know the MAGA crowd aren't exactly known for their deep thinking, so who knows.

[bruto]

Thinking in the same broad stroke fashion, I submit that the state would be better served if the law disqualified state officials who might be idiots.

[theprestige]

One, declining to put porn in public libraries is a reasonable policy approach. Two, inviting public comment on such a policy is also reasonable.

And three, there is no ban. Missouri is not prohibiting the printing, publication, sale, purchase, possession, or dissemination of these books. They're simply declining to have the public library system participate in such activities.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by theprestige

One, declining to put porn in public libraries is a reasonable policy approach. Two, inviting public comment on such a policy is also reasonable.

And three, there is no ban. Missouri is not prohibiting the printing, publication, sale, purchase, possession, or dissemination of these books. They're simply declining to have the public library system participate in such activities.

They're not banning the books from being allowed in libraries, they're just not allowing any of those books to be allowed in public libraries. Duh. /s

You think librarians in Missouri, in ******* Missouri, are pushing to put porn in libraries? Also, I'm pretty sure public comment is required. I don't think this ******* just came up with it to be reasonable.

Even for you, this is a tired ass argument.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

The only rational explanation I can think of, is this is a ploy to do away with publicly funded libraries in Missouri. Books that might appeal to the sexual interests of minors... because a 17 year old and 364 day person has different interests than an 18 year old??

But as we know the MAGA crowd aren't exactly known for their deep thinking, so who knows.

Well it wouldn't work as well as it could if it weren't for a pervasive squeamishness about sexual matters in general in America. Yes I think recent efforts like this have been influenced by the paranoid MAGA crowd, but a big chunk of the country has already been primed to pause before speaking out against it, as if it's supposed to be controversial for mini-adults in this case to be talking or thinking about sex.

[lobosrul5]

Also if a public library is funded by municipal funds, not the state (and I think most are) why are they not being allowed to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their community? Isn't the GoP the party of small government (we know it isn't, I'm being rhetorical)?

[pgwenthold]

"Books that appeal to the sexual interests of minors"?????

Bwah ha ha ha ha!

I mean, come on, we were looking up the words penis, vagina, copulation and fornication in like 5th grade.

Are they going to ban the dictionary?

[dudalb]

Missourian Robert E Heinlein on censorship:

Quote:

Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

"Books that appeal to the sexual interests of minors"?????

Bwah ha ha ha ha!

I mean, come on, we were looking up the words penis, vagina, copulation and fornication in like 5th grade.

Are they going to ban the dictionary?

Or certain parts of the Old Testament for that matter....

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

One, declining to put porn in public libraries is a reasonable policy approach.

Who said anything about porn in public libraries?

Originally Posted by theprestige

Two, inviting public comment on such a policy is also reasonable.

But removing local library autonomy is not.

Originally Posted by theprestige

And three, there is no ban. Missouri is not prohibiting the printing, publication, sale, purchase, possession, or dissemination of these books. They're simply declining to have the public library system participate in such activities.

Which would prevent access to low income families and people. It’s a class-level ban, perhaps.

[johnny karate]

You gotta love the feigned outrage over "books that appeal to the sexual interests of minors" from the political party that is cool with grown men having sex with underage girls.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You gotta love the feigned outrage over "books that appeal to the sexual interests of minors" from the political party that is cool with grown men having sex with underage girls.

Conservatives don't want minors reading about how terribly inappropriate it is.

So they'll support banning books and stifling free speech while claiming they aren't banning books and are support (no really!!1!) free speech.

[johnny karate]

Conservative men to underage girls: We don't want you reading books about how much we want to **** you.

[Apathia]

Better make sure that damned Bible isn't in any school library, then.

[Chris_Halkides]

Several of the things that are in there, our library district is already doing this," said [executive director of the Springfield-Greene County Library Regina Greer] Cooper. "We already have policies — we have a collections materials policy. We have librarians who are well trained — we buy things that are age appropriate and designated for certain ages. We place them in the library in the appropriate place for those age groups.” KCUR

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by theprestige

One, declining to put porn in public libraries is a reasonable policy approach. Two, inviting public comment on such a policy is also reasonable.

And three, there is no ban. Missouri is not prohibiting the printing, publication, sale, purchase, possession, or dissemination of these books. They're simply declining to have the public library system participate in such activities.

Interesting how you jump to "porn".

Prof. Freud might have something to say about that.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

"Books that appeal to the sexual interests of minors"?????

Bwah ha ha ha ha!

I mean, come on, we were looking up the words penis, vagina, copulation and fornication in like 5th grade.

Are they going to ban the dictionary?

Well, there goes the libraries' collections of National Geographic!

[Robin]

I recall finding Wuthering Heights pretty charged with sexual energy when I was a kid. Jane Eyre too. The Mayor of Casterbridge. Tess of the d'Urbervilles.

Let's get rid of them all.

[Robin]

And certainly The Godfather got passed around at our school for certain passages. Get it out of the libraries.

[Robin]

The Song of Solomon is pretty racy.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

One, declining to put porn in public libraries is a reasonable policy approach. Two, inviting public comment on such a policy is also reasonable.

And three, there is no ban. Missouri is not prohibiting the printing, publication, sale, purchase, possession, or dissemination of these books. They're simply declining to have the public library system participate in such activities.

It sounds reasonable until you get into the standing of complaints. It appears that any fool can complain of a book, and thereby force the library either to remove it or lose its public funding. Of course you can still buy the books, and samizdat has a long and honorable history, but I think an argument could perhaps be found for the suggestion that libraries and the general knowledge and education of the public which they provide are not best served by a law that appears on face to allow prudes and religious bigots to govern their contents. Of course I also have not read the law in detail. so maybe it's alarmist. It doesn't sound good, though.

[dudalb]

"When Correctly viewed
Anything is Lewd
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz...there's a dirty old man"

Tom Lehrer "Smut".

[Ladewig]

I heard someone opine: if libraries didn’t exist and were invented today, some folks would label them a socialist plot to destroy America by indoctrinating the young.

Wait a minute. Libraries have been around since the founding of the country and some folks today are labeling them socialist plots to indoctrinate the young.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I guess half of dutch literature I was required to read as part of my high school curriculum would qualify as porn by the standards of the makers of this law as it contained explicit sex scenes.

And those books are pretty much 'must read' still on any dutch high school. Yet our society has not collapsed by acknowledging teenagers are curious about and like sex.

I do pity the children in the US for the warped perception of sex that one of your main political parties seems to push.

[lionking]

I recall in a Catholic High School I attended in the 1960s we had The Stranger by Camus as a required text. One of the teaching brothers read out a chapter to the class which included a sex scene.

The world has gone seriously backwards in the last 60 years, at least in some US states.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by lionking

I recall in a Catholic High School I attended in the 1960s we had The Stranger by Camus as a required text. One of the teaching brothers read out a chapter to the class which included a sex scene.

Heh, I remember the brother who was teaching us religion in 9th grade talking about how the first sex scene in the Godfather was on page 25 (Sonny banging one of the bridesmaids against a door IIRC). Of course we had all read it by then.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by theprestige

One, declining to put porn in public libraries is a reasonable policy approach. Two, inviting public comment on such a policy is also reasonable.

And three, there is no ban. Missouri is not prohibiting the printing, publication, sale, purchase, possession, or dissemination of these books. They're simply declining to have the public library system participate in such activities.

It's not about porn, it's about books that say it's ok to be gay, that women are equal to men, that America is a country built on appalling treatment of natives and minorities, among many other topics that republicans want to ban.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

One, declining to put porn in public libraries is a reasonable policy approach. Two, inviting public comment on such a policy is also reasonable.

And three, there is no ban. Missouri is not prohibiting the printing, publication, sale, purchase, possession, or dissemination of these books. They're simply declining to have the public library system participate in such activities.

Just be clear - you are saying this is about pornography?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Robin

I recall finding Wuthering Heights pretty charged with sexual energy when I was a kid. Jane Eyre too. The Mayor of Casterbridge. Tess of the d'Urbervilles.

Let's get rid of them all.

And all bibles - after all some kids might find the description of naked Adam and Eve titillating, plus of course its mention of sexual practices.

[catsmate]

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

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Ezekiel 23, verses 19-20:

(19)Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt (20)and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

Where do I write to get this filth banned?

[Armitage72]

I remember looking up Botticelli's The Birth of Venus in my school library's encyclopedia when I was a kid. I guess reference books and classical art are out.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ethan Thane Athen

Ezekiel 23, verses 19-20:

(19)Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt (20)and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions.

Where do I write to get this filth banned?

I forgot the hung like a donkey (and yes the bible is where that phrase comes from).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by catsmate

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

Busy complaining about "cancel culture"!

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Darat

Busy complaining about "cancel culture"!

Interesting and telling response.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Well, there goes the libraries' collections of National Geographic!

Good point. That's much more relevant than the Bible (no one rrad the Bible for the sex parts)

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

One, declining to put porn in public libraries is a reasonable policy approach

I don't know what "porn" theprestige is referring to, but I have a former coworker who's favorite punching bag is Gender Queer: A Memoir, almost entirely for a couple of panels on one page that shows the protagonist wearing a strap-on and getting a blowjob from their girlfriend. Sounds super provocative and porn-y, right?

Except it really isn't. First, they are both clothed. The only "nudity" is the strap-on. And actually on that same page, but more so on the next, the protagonist is very uncomfortable with what is going on, decides they aren't ready for this kind of thing and discusses it with their girlfriend about doing something else. In other words, it depicts someone in their early 20s having a near-sexual encounter and dealing with their emotions about it in a positive, if difficult, manner. It's not about the almost-sex, it's about dealing with the feelings the protagonist is having.

Honestly, I think this book is entirely appropriate for high school kids, possibly older middle school kids, who might be dealing with complex feelings and have no other reference except internet porn.