Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Don't bring up "Grooming 101" and then tell me to start a new topic.

You're conflating pedophilia with homosexuality. It's a common misconception among homophobes. If you're so worried about grooming children, perhaps you'd best focus on some churches. The Catholic Church would be a good place to start. Then there's this guy:WA: CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AR... UNDERAGE GIRL

Or perhaps the Southern Baptists?

Southern Baptist members detail alleged grooming, sexual misconduct among clergy in new report

Or the Mormons, or the Anglicans, or the Amish, or the Tibetan Buddhists, or...

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Won't the Brits think of the children?

I'll bet Catharine the Great saw a performance with a pantomime horse as a child.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

And, as I have said repeatedly, I am waiting for a good argument as to why a thing that already works should have a new requirement added.

Well, I think were are just going to be at an impasse on this.

I am a proponent of clearly defined policy and procedures. In fact, I have served in the capacity of a technical writer/documentation manager for a large corporation. In that role we drove to a model where we created hundreds of procedures, even for tasks some would consider trivial. The point was to bring uniformity and oversight as to how tasks were performed. This was done to prevent loss of product and enhance safety. Prior to this, the culture was fairly loose. People would often say, "I don't need a procedure, I know how to do my job". In those days, our efforts to deal with problems were more reactive than proactive. I am only mentioning this so you get an idea of my mindset. It isn't entirely based upon conservative values.

Now, you may feel there are no examples of parents voicing legitimate concern for the materials that their children have been given access to. But I think if you look a bit, you will find many examples of such. I was just watching a video the other day of a parent speaking to a council, and reading some passages from a book his child had access to. In that book, it made references to a very specific sex act, and in a vulgar way. I could understand the concern of the parent as related to the age-appropriateness of the material.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Darat, I don't think you have been reading all of my commentary in this thread...because you seem to be conflating issues and misrepresenting my statements. So, I don't think I can carry on this debate with you if this continues.

As I have said repeatedly, I am waiting for a good argument as to why procedures should not be required.

And the rest of us are talking about the legislation that is the topic of this thread.

What procedures does this legislation put in place? What way will they help prevent grooming and sexually assault of children?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Well, I think were are just going to be at an impasse on this.

I am a proponent of clearly defined policy and procedures. ...snip...

Please tell us what clearly defined policy and procedures this legislation is putting in place - if it goes forward unaltered of course.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

What procedures does this legislation put in place? What way will they help prevent grooming and sexually assault of children?

You seem to be really hung up on the sexual assault and grooming. Which has hardly been the mainstay of my argument. In fact, I would call it a very, very minor portion of concern.

This legislation requires that procedures are put in place regarding review of age-appropriateness in order to receive state funding. It also requires that the public have open access to such procedures. It also requires that there be a well-documented process for challenging materials, and that the challenge outcome be made public.

All of this has been covered earlier.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

Please tell us what clearly defined policy and procedures this legislation is putting in place - if it goes forward unaltered of course.

I just detailed what the requirements are under the legislation...again. And this is the way I see it, moving forward...again, mentioned earlier:

Originally Posted by Warp12

The starting goal should be a requirement for such policies and procedures. The stretch goal is uniformity.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You seem to be really hung up on the sexual assault and grooming. Which has hardly been the mainstay of my argument. In fact, I would call it a very, very minor portion of concern.

This legislation requires that procedures are put in place regarding review of age-appropriateness in order to receive state funding. It also requires that the public have open access to such procedures. It also requires that there be a well-documented process for challenging materials, and that the challenge outcome be made public.

All of this has been covered earlier.

I presume you can link to this? Or have you still not checked out the actual legislation this thread is about?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I just detailed what the requirements are under the legislation...again. And this is the way I see it, moving forward...again, mentioned earlier:

Does the legislation not say that it will be the same clearly defined procedures "uniformly"? Does it allow libraries to simply have their own individual but clearly defined procedures and policies?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Warp12

This legislation requires that procedures are put in place regarding review of age-appropriateness in order to receive state funding.

Originally Posted by Darat

I presume you can link to this? Or have you still not checked out the actual legislation this thread is about?

It doesn't seem you have read it.

Quote:

(1) Notwithstanding any provision of 15 CSR 30-200.020 and 15 CSR 30-200.025 to the contrary, the state librarian shall not distribute any funds to any library defined in 15 CSR 30-200.010that receives funds pursuant to 15 CSR 30-200.020 and 15 CSR 30-200.025 unless such library certifies in writing each of the following:

(A) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible collection development policy addressing how selections are made in considering the appropriateness for the age and maturity level of any minor, as defined in 15 CSR 30-200.030(1)(E), who accesses any material in any form;
…

(C) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible policy allowing any minor’s parent or guardian to determine what materials and access will be available to a minor, and no person employed by or acting on behalf of the library shall knowingly grant access to any minor any material in any form not approved by the minor’s parent or guardian
…

(F) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible library materials challenge policy by which any person may dispute or challenge the library’s age-appropriate designation affixed to any presentation, event, material, or display in the library, and the results of any such dispute or challenge shall be disclosed to the public and published on the library’s website.

(2) The library shall submit a copy of its written policies to the state librarian, and shall submit, within thirty (30) days, any revisions to such policies to the state librarian.

Hope this clears things up. You can probably see why I consider our debate to be a waste of time at this point. Too much repetition of earlier discussion points.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You seem to be really hung up on the sexual assault and grooming.

Isn't it funny how people are always getting "hung up" on parts of your arguments that you find frustrating to defend?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Isn't it funny how people are always getting "hung up" on parts of your arguments that you find frustrating to defend?

It isn't frustrating to defend at all. But as I mentioned much earlier, the particular topic that was raised by others (drag queens) is for a different thread. Not to mention the mischaracterization of my position.

I won't be discussing it any further.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I won't be discussing it any further.

PRAISE JESUS!!!!!

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Carlotta

I'm saying these procedures are already in place and do not need legislation.

Republicans hate small government when it means they fail to control the small people.

Small government for the rich, ruthless government power over the peasants.
It’s out loud and has been for forty years.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

I'll bet Catharine the Great saw a performance with a pantomime horse as a child.

She was Prussian. They don't do panto's....... but if they did

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It isn't frustrating to defend at all. But as I mentioned much earlier, the particular topic that was raised by others (drag queens) is for a different thread. Not to mention the mischaracterization of my position.

I won't be discussing it any further.

To me it's interesting that to you a state government dictating what the public can read is perfectly sensible, but a private company deciding to not allow certain users is horrible censorship that goes against free speech.

I wonder if you really understand what censorship is.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

To me it's interesting that to you a state government dictating what the public can read is perfectly sensible, but a private company deciding to not allow certain users is horrible censorship that goes against free speech.

I wonder if you really understand what censorship is.

I have seen these silly arguments across several threads. As though social media banning members is the same as requiring state-funded libraries to have policies related to age-appropriate materials for children.

I think we all know better than this. It makes me laugh, tbh.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I have seen these silly arguments across several threads. As though social media banning members is the same as requiring state-funded libraries to have policies related to age-appropriate materials for children.

I think we all know better than this. It makes me laugh, tbh.

A library is a source of knowledge. If you do not want your children to read certain books, then supervise your children. It should not be the state following some moral crusaders forbidding those books from being there at all.

But again, you've shown your desire for freedom of speech follows the normal right wing definition of 'freedom of MY speech and stifling of anyone that disagrees'

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It doesn't seem you have read it.




Hope this clears things up. You can probably see why I consider our debate to be a waste of time at this point. Too much repetition of earlier discussion points.

Took you long enough.

Any chance you can explain how the libraries will be able to ensure that a certain child isn’t able to access an age-appropriate book?

[mgidm86]

Quote:

(1) Notwithstanding any provision of 15 CSR 30-200.020 and 15 CSR 30-200.025 to the contrary, the state librarian shall not distribute any funds to any library defined in 15 CSR 30-200.010that receives funds pursuant to 15 CSR 30-200.020 and 15 CSR 30-200.025 unless such library certifies in writing each of the following:

(A) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible collection development policy addressing how selections are made in considering the appropriateness for the age and maturity level of any minor, as defined in 15 CSR 30-200.030(1)(E), who accesses any material in any form;
…

(C) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible policy allowing any minor’s parent or guardian to determine what materials and access will be available to a minor, and no person employed by or acting on behalf of the library shall knowingly grant access to any minor any material in any form not approved by the minor’s parent or guardian
…

(F) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible library materials challenge policy by which any person may dispute or challenge the library’s age-appropriate designation affixed to any presentation, event, material, or display in the library, and the results of any such dispute or challenge shall be disclosed to the public and published on the library’s website.

(2) The library shall submit a copy of its written policies to the state librarian, and shall submit, within thirty (30) days, any revisions to such policies to the state librarian.

Highlighted:
Says to me that there should be a list of each individual child's allowable books. Ya talk about funding problems! May as well shut em all down right now! How utterly stupid. Is the state paying for this btw?

As for the bolded-only part, I don't think this is their job. Are there age specific sections, or just a children's section?

If you let your child go to a library alone and are concerned about what they read then that is your problem. I mean they might see two gay men on the way to the library! What kind of parent are you?

Too bad nobody can demonstrate why this is needed. I think the author even knows it isn't, they're just virtue signaling for their base.

This is so ******* stupid.

ETA:

IDEA!!!!!!

How about parents that are afraid of libraries simply buy the books they want their child to read? Nobody is forcing your kid to go to the library except you. Instead of making us all pay for new policies, you pay.

Funny how right wingers make fun of liberal "safe spaces" when these cretins are obviously the ones terrified of everything. Pathetic snowflakes. Gotta have my gun on me when I go to the public library in case gay books attack me!

[Lurch]

WTAF, America.

The people who are ready to take up the pitchforks over children having some knowledge put into their little heads are not nearly so worked up and motivated to keep bullets from going in instead.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I'm glad you mentioned this.

I was thinking about this very thing the other day. It doesn't matter if they send their 8-year-old to see an R-rated film alone...that is why we have the ratings system. We review the films to determine what is age appropriate, and we restrict access accordingly.

Is anyone going to suggest that ratings should be abolished, and it's ok for young children to go and watch Deep Throat? Even if it is campy fun, it is not for young children. Why are we so adverse to a requirement that other media be subject to such review?

Movie ratings are not legally enforceable.
Movies are not legally required to be rated.
Movie ratings are voluntary.

Parents can buy their kid a ticket for Bambi and the kid can then walk into any movie they want after that. Theaters are not legally obligated to do anything about it, though some may anyways.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/l...y-enforceable/

Quote:

Theaters have no legal duties to ensure that children do not watch R rated movies.

BTW, you will not find X-rated movies in regular cinemas, sorry.

Your argument is a 100% failure. I knew you'd make it which is why I posted all of this this in the first place.

Why aren't movies that show not only gay stuff but also people shooting each other, screwing each other, boobies, controlled by law? No law needed it seems, even though kids can watch whatever they wish. Just walk right in!

And you want to go after....libraries...while these theaters are destroying our youth?

Keep digging dude (I dug this one for you myself and you fell right in) I'll keep you around for now.

ETA:
To everyone else, ya I know I know, I'm a hypocrite. I'm home sick and bored that's my excuse

[Random]

Quote:

Quote:
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of 15 CSR 30-200.020 and 15 CSR 30-200.025 to the contrary, the state librarian shall not distribute any funds to any library defined in 15 CSR 30-200.010that receives funds pursuant to 15 CSR 30-200.020 and 15 CSR 30-200.025 unless such library certifies in writing each of the following:

(A) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible collection development policy addressing how selections are made in considering the appropriateness for the age and maturity level of any minor, as defined in 15 CSR 30-200.030(1)(E), who accesses any material in any form;
…

(C) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible policy allowing any minor’s parent or guardian to determine what materials and access will be available to a minor, and no person employed by or acting on behalf of the library shall knowingly grant access to any minor any material in any form not approved by the minor’s parent or guardian
…

(F) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible library materials challenge policy by which any person may dispute or challenge the library’s age-appropriate designation affixed to any presentation, event, material, or display in the library, and the results of any such dispute or challenge shall be disclosed to the public and published on the library’s website.

(2) The library shall submit a copy of its written policies to the state librarian, and shall submit, within thirty (30) days, any revisions to such policies to the state librarian.

Speaking as a professional bureaucrat, I would have to say section F is a huge issue. Requiring a system where there has to be a formal evaluation of any challenge made by anyone creates a massive opportunity for the pro-censorship squad to engage in asymmetric warfare. If it takes five minutes to fill out a challenge form and five man-hours to resolve the challenge, then one guy working in his basement for an hour can chew up sixty man-hours of review.

Given that challenges would be open to anyone, from weirdos on the internet to professional right-wing lawsuit filing groups, libraries would either have to take books off the shelves at the first sign of a challenge, or devote enormous resources to keeping the books available.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Movie ratings are not legally enforceable.
Movies are not legally required to be rated.
Movie ratings are voluntary.

All of this has already been addressed, further back in the thread.

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I knew you'd make it which is why I posted all of this this in the first place.

Sounds legit.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Your link isn’t a URL

Originally Posted by Darat

Looks like this one: https://all4consolaws.org/2022/07/wa...underage-girl/

But there are so many possibilities I'm not sure if this is the case.

Thanks, both. Yes, that is the correct link, Darat.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
The children may not care. But this sort of thing is Grooming 101: Familiarity (and programming). Start a new topic, if you wish. The scope of this is beyond age-appropriate library materials and this proposed legislation.

You're conflating pedophilia with homosexuality. It's a common misconception among homophobes.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Wrong. I am looking at this more on a macro level.

"Grooming101" is basic sexual grooming. You've just conveniently claimed this "macro level" bit in order to make it less obvious.

From Fivethirtyeight:

Quote:

For the unfamiliar, “grooming” is a term typically reserved to describe the type of behavior that child sexual abusers use to coerce potential victims without being caught.

This is what you're now attempting to do:

Quote:

But now some Republicans are using it against any Democrat (or company)1 who disagrees with them on certain policy issues. This is a deliberate tactic that was promoted as early as last summer by Christopher Rufo, the same conservative activist who helped muddle the language around critical race theory. “Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children. Who, after all, can argue against the safety of kids? But by adopting this language to bolster their latest political pursuits, the right is both giving a nod to fringe conspiracy theorists and using an age-old tactic to dismantle LGBTQ rights.

(ibid)

Whether the traditional homosexual sex "grooming 101" or the expanded LGBTQ- phobia that consumes the GOP, it's all fearmongering nonsense.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Desensitizing children to certain material and behaviors. Immersing them in certain cultures. Normalizing fringe behaviors that some might even call perversion or mental illness. I am speaking in regards to the aforementioned drag queens.

Your use of "desensitizing" is quite illuminating as is the rest of your post. What it reveals is a belief that LGBTQ people are to be feared, that they are somehow 'sick' and 'perverted' instead of seeing them as just people whose sexual orientation, gender identify, etc. are different from what you consider 'normal'.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Now, I don't see matters of sexuality as a sole area of focus for determining age appropriate materials. It could be violence, language...a variety of things. But people want to focus on the sexuality part. This way they can crush a lot more pearls in a shorter period of time.

Is this MO law we're discussing concerned with non-sexual areas like violence, language, etc? No.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Is this MO law we're discussing concerned with non-sexual areas like violence, language, etc? No.

I would suggest reading over the proposed legislation. Seems to me that it does not specify anything other than age-appropriate materials.
https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/AdR...30_200_015.pdf

Once again, the relevant portions have already been cited in the thread. And on this page, even.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Drag Queens were brought up, as in the Drag Queen Story Hours that they have at some libraries. My initial comment was in direct response to you mentioning drag queens.

Is there any evidence that Drag Queens have or are attempting to 'groom' children? And by 'grooming', I mean trying to influence them in any way other than to see them as worthy of respect due another human being who is 'different'?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

Unless you can show this legislation has something to do with drag queens then they are of course completely irrelvant to the topic of this thread, which is an actual piece of legislation.

Oh, and since it was suggested that events such as "Drag Queen Story Hour" were not relevant to this legislation/discussion:

Quote:

(F) The library has or will adopt a written, publicly-accessible library materials challenge policy by which any person may dispute or challenge the library’s age-appropriate designation affixed to any presentation, event, material, or display in the library, and the results of any such dispute or challenge shall be disclosed to the public and published on the library’s website.

Seems to me that a Drag Queen Story Hour would fall under the umbrella of an event. And there has been legislation proposed in MO, previously, to address these sort of event-related concerns.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And by 'grooming', I mean trying to influence them in any way other than to see them as worthy of respect due another human being who is 'different'?

Just normalizing them is harmful, imo. I don't expect liberals to agree with this. It is entirely subjective. These are children, and their parents have a right to be concerned.

And this legislation would ensure that the parents have access to a documented, publicly-accessible procedure/process for expressing that concern.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I would suggest reading over the proposed legislation. Seems to me that it does not specify anything other than age-appropriate materials.
https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/AdR...30_200_015.pdf

Once again, the relevant portions have already been cited in the thread. And on this page, even.

Yes, it does:

Quote:

B) No funds received shall be used to purchase or acquire materials in any form that appeal to the prurient interest of any minor.

Prurient: "having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters."

No mention of violence, language, etc. No matter how you, the writers, and the supporters of this law try to spin what this law is all about, it's an attempt to stop children being exposed to anything that isn't heterosexual, gender binary, etc.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yes, it does:

No mention of violence, language, etc. No matter how you, the writers, and the supporters of this law try to spin what this law is all about, it's an attempt to stop children being exposed to anything that isn't heterosexual, gender binary, etc.

It doesn't need to specify violence or language, as the wording is vague enough for that to fall under the umbrella. Even so, the vast majority of the legislation has no specification one way or the other.

Also, I like the idea that the arguing point would be, "See it's only concerned with sexually-inappropriate material for children! Gotcha!" Awesome, just awesome.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Just normalizing them is harmful, imo. I don't expect liberals to agree with this. It is entirely subjective. These are children, and their parents have a right to be concerned.

And there it is. At least you're finally admitting it.

Parents have a right to be concerned about anything regarding their children; they do not have the right to impose those bigoted and hateful 'concerns' on the parents/children of others by going to ridiculous means of control. If a parent doesn't want their child to learn certain things (like common decency and respect of others), then they can exercise their right not to take their child to a Drag Queen Story Time at the library or let their children read such "harmful" books as "Heather Has Two Mommies". They can bring them up to be just like them; bigots.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It doesn't need to specify violence or language, as the wording is vague enough for that to fall under the umbrella. Even so, the vast majority of the legislation has no specification one way or the other.

LOL! The wording is "vague", yet they feel the need to specify "prurient". If they're so concerned about violence and language, then why not spell that out, too? HINT: it's because they're not.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And there it is. At least you're finally admitting it.

Finally admitting it? I've never denied it, lol.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The wording is "vague", yet they feel the need to specify "prurient". If they're so concerned about violence and language, then why not spell that out, too? HINT: it's because they're not.

It is vague, and it allows for issues of age-appropriateness to be addressed on multiple fronts. Would it change your opinion if it directly spelled out violence and language, or any other reasons? All they have specified is that state-funding can't be used for sexually-inappropriate materials for children.

Of course, for some liberals that is terrifying. The idea that young children might not be able to access My Sister Harry Has a Penis terrifies them. Is it any wonder conservatives have concerns?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Finally admitting it? I've never denied it, lol.

You've never denied being a homophobe?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You've never denied being a homophobe?

Being against young children being exposed to drag queens does not make one a homophobe, I hate to tell you.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It is vague, and it allows for issues of age-appropriateness to be addressed on multiple fronts. Would it change your opinion if it directly spelled out violence and language, or any other reasons?

But it doesn't, which is telling.

Quote:

All they have specified is that state-funding can't be used for sexually-inappropriate materials for children.

No, it's more than that because libraries already have policies in place for that. This is about restricting anything small-minded bigots don't approve of.

Quote:

Of course, for some liberals that is terrifying. The idea that young children might not be able to access My Sister Harry Has a Penis terrifies them. Is it any wonder conservatives have concerns?

Yes, it is terrifying to anyone who isn't a small-minded, bigoted, sexually repressed, and/or bigot.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Being against young children being exposed to drag queens does not make one a homophobe, I hate to tell you.

It just makes one a bigot.

I'm done. I have dinner in a few minutes and I'd like to keep my appetite. Ciao.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It doesn't need to specify violence or language, as the wording is vague enough for that to fall under the umbrella. Even so, the vast majority of the legislation has no specification one way or the other.

Also, I like the idea that the arguing point would be, "See it's only concerned with sexually-inappropriate material for children! Gotcha!" Awesome, just awesome.

Hold on a second. Only, it seems, a moment ago this legislation was needed because it's explicit, in black and white. Now suddenly its vagueness is a virtue?