Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[thaiboxerken]

Remember when it was conservatives that were warning that banning books was a commie/librul value?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Remember when it was conservatives that were warning that banning books was a commie/librul value?

I think our friend was trying so hard to appear unbiased about what books might be kept away from children that he forgot all about the Constitution, the 1st Amendment and his country's long history of protecting religious liberty.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by arayder

I think our friend was trying so hard to appear unbiased about what books might be kept away from children that he forgot all about the Constitution, the 1st Amendment and his country's long history of protecting religious liberty.

White supremacists often think that the constitution, 1st amendment and religious freedom is only there to protect white, christian values. Not that Warp12 is a white supremacist.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

I think our friend was trying so hard to appear unbiased about what books might be kept away from children that he forgot all about the Constitution, the 1st Amendment and his country's long history of protecting religious liberty.

I could be biased in any number of ways about anything. But the legislation should be written in a way that is isn't. However, practically nobody here seems to want any age restrictions on materials....so what is the point of the debate?

I do believe that age restrictions on certain materials, as part of documented policy and procedure, are very obviously prudent. And I believe parents should have standard avenue to challenge what they deem inappropriate for their children.

[TragicMonkey]

The important thing is that legislation handles the matter, rather than expecting parents to parent their children. That's a job for the government.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I could be biased in any number of ways about anything. But the legislation should be written in a way that is isn't. However, practically nobody here seems to want any age restrictions on materials....so what is the point of the debate?

I do believe that age restrictions on certain materials, as part of documented policy and procedure, are very obviously prudent. And I believe parents should have standard avenue to challenge what they deem inappropriate for their children.

Please re-read the OP:

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.

Nowhere does it say anything about age restrictions. Its to block funding for any publicly funded library... not just libraries in elementary schools... that offers any book that *might* appeal to the sexual interests of minors. It also makes reference to that fact that it will be citizen enforced. Ie, a person objects to a particular book and it must be taken out of the library.

I'm gonna ask you a question, do you perhaps think that is maybe just a tad overly broad? Citizen says, I think my 17 year old is a "brony... he *might be sexually interested in My Little Pony. Take them off the shelf now!!!

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Please re-read the OP:

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.

Nowhere does it say anything about age restrictions. Its to block funding for any publicly funded library... not just libraries in elementary schools... that offers any book that *might* appeal to the sexual interests of minors. It also makes reference to that fact that it will be citizen enforced. Ie, a person objects to a particular book and it must be taken out of the library.

I'm gonna ask you a question, do you perhaps think that is maybe just a tad overly broad? Citizen says, I think my 17 year old is a "brony... he *might be sexually interested in My Little Pony. Take them off the shelf now!!!

Do you have a problem with the following, conceptually?:

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.

As far as the legislation being overly broad, that is a different topic than the concept behind it. All of this has been discussed extensively, earlier in the thread. I'm not going through it all again.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Do you have a problem with the following, conceptually?:




As far as the legislation being overly broad, that is a different topic than the concept behind it. All of this has been discussed extensively, earlier in the thread. I'm not going through it all again.

Im what context??? For a K thru 5 library... sure thats fine and I doubt that hasn't already been done by most school districts at least in Missouri. For a public library, no I don't think its reasonable at all to have that policy. Do you really expect librarians to have read every single book in their collection and know if it has PG-13 type material, or R rated level material. How about parents can decide what their child does and doesn't read. If they're not involved enough to even do that, then their kid almost certainly has unfettered internet access anyways.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Im what context??? For a K thru 5 library... sure thats fine and I doubt that hasn't already been done by most school districts at least in Missouri. For a public library, no I don't think its reasonable at all to have that policy. Do you really expect librarians to have read every single book in their collection and know if it has PG-13 type material, or R rated level material. How about parents can decide what their child does and doesn't read. If they're not involved enough to even do that, then their kid almost certainly has unfettered internet access anyways.

Well, clearly you want zero policy and procedures in place. I just can't agree with that. I don't think it is like every librarian has read every book. It is more like having a process to determine what is age-appropriate. If you read some articles, it even says that many (not all) libraries have such policy and procedure to review materials.

Do you also have a problem with a documented procedure for parents to challenge materials that they do not feel are age appropriate?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Do you also have a problem with a documented procedure for parents to challenge materials that they do not feel are age appropriate?

Do we ALL have to pretend you wouldn't be screeching like a toddler throwing a tantrum on the floor of a Toys'r'us if an evil librul parent didn't want a racist or homophobic book accessible to their child?

Again... where all the "BUT DUH FREE SPPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHH" nonsense we have to hear whenever someone tells a Nazi to shut up suddenly gone to?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Well, clearly you want zero policy and procedures in place. I just can't agree with that. I don't think it is like every librarian has read every book. It is more like having a process to determine what is age-appropriate. If you read some articles, it even says that many (not all) libraries have such policy and procedure to review materials.

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.

Quote:

Do you also have a problem with a documented procedure for parents to challenge materials that they do not feel are age appropriate?

What do you mean by that?? Yes I have a big problem with it. Because one parent thinks there is objectionable material in a novel it must be taken out of the library?? Or out of the curriculum for all high school student.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

What do you mean by that?? Yes I have a big problem with it. Because one parent thinks there is objectionable material in a novel it must be taken out of the library?? Or out of the curriculum for all high school student.

Why would you have a problem with a documented process to challenge? That does not mean that a challenge means the book is removed automatically. Please read this quote, again:

Quote:

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

Do you really think the above is unreasonable?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Why would you have a problem with a documented process to challenge? That does not mean that a challenge means the book is removed automatically. Please read this quote, again:




Do you really think the above is unreasonable?

No, because just above that it says "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."

Age appropriateness should be absolutely totally irrelevant in what books are held at a public library.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Age appropriateness should be absolutely totally irrelevant in what books are held at a public library.

I don't think this works how you think it does. If it did, that would mean all public libraries would only have books appropriate for 6-year-olds. For this system to work, it has to be based on what materials children are allowed access to. Not turning every library into a K-3 reading room.

Right?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't think this works how you think it does. If it did, that would mean all public libraries would only have books appropriate for 6-year-olds. For this system to work, it has to be based on what materials children are allowed access to. Not turning every library into a K-3 reading room.

Right?

No it's easy. Society just has to stop acknowledging the opinions of people who's only goal in life is to be the most horrible person you've ever met.

Here I'll break it down Barney style for you.

Reasonable Citizen: "I'm concerned about this book. It has mature themes.
Library: "Okay. We can at least look into that. Depending on the book we might not be able to remove it from circulation, we have to acknowledge the entire community, but we can try to work with you on some solution."
Unreasonable Citizen. "YOU THERE! This book is goddamn queer brainwashing! Remove it now or I'm going to cosplay as a COD Soldier with my AR-15 outside your library and shoot any drag queen I see!"
Library: "No. Go die in a fire."

See? Easy.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't think this works how you think it does. If it did, that would mean all public libraries would only have books appropriate for 6-year-olds. For this system to work, it has to be based on what materials children are allowed access to. Not turning every library into a K-3 reading room.

Right?

One would think so, but reading how the proposed law is written it doesn't seem to be.

I get that parents don't want "Lady Chatterley's Lover" etc in a K-5 school library. But I don't expect it to be put into a roped off 'adults only' area, with a guard checking ID's in the public library either. What percentage of novels written for adults, or even a young adult audience have something in them that some parent, somewhere will find objectionable... I'd argue the vast majority. My god, my former co-worker wouldn't let her kids ready frickin Harry Potter.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

One would think so, but reading how the proposed law is written it doesn't seem to be.

I get that parents don't want "Lady Chatterley's Lover" etc in a K-5 school library. But I don't expect it to be put into a roped off 'adults only' area, with a guard checking ID's in the public library either. What percentage of novels written for adults, or even a young adult audience have something in them that some parent, somewhere will find objectionable... I'd argue the vast majority. My god, my former co-worker wouldn't let her kids ready frickin Harry Potter.

Well, I understand your point. But consider, some in thread have assured me that a 9-year-old won't be allowed to check out the Kama Sutra, currently. So, there is an assumption, right or wrong, that there are some sort of measures in place already regarding such access.

My point is that the concept having clear policy and procedure for such is a good idea. Just as I believe that having documented policy for challenging materials that might be considered age-inappropriate is a good idea.

That's why I was more interested in reaching a common ground, conceptually, to start. Then you can move on to the actual legislation. As opposed to some stating that absolutely no restrictions are appropriate, from the beginning. There is hardly anything to discuss at that point.

[seayakin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

My point is that the concept having clear policy and procedure for such is a good idea. Just as I believe that having documented policy for challenging materials that might be considered age-inappropriate is a good idea.

That's why I was more interested in reaching a common ground, conceptually, to start. Then you can move on to the actual legislation. As opposed to some stating that absolutely no restrictions are appropriate, from the beginning. There is hardly anything to discuss at that point.

I would ask why you believe legislation is needed?

Almost all challenges I have seen are not about librarians allowing access to the Kama Sutra or the Joy of Sex but Harry Potter and many Judy Blume books. Why involve a government oversight?

These are efforts by conservatives to try and prevent kids from learning that all people are not straight and ultimately othering people who do not conform to the Christian identity of sex and gender preference. It's a canard that they want to protect children from pornography. These are not laws that address any specific problem.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by seayakin

I would ask why you believe legislation is needed?

Almost all challenges I have seen are not about librarians allowing access to the Kama Sutra or the Joy of Sex but Harry Potter and many Judy Blume books. Why involve a government oversight?

These are efforts by conservatives to try and prevent kids from learning that all people are not straight and ultimately othering people who do not conform to the Christian identity of sex and gender preference. It's a canard that they want to protect children from pornography. These are not laws that address any specific problem.

These are state-funded libraries. I don't see any reason why, that as a prerequisite for funding, they shouldn't be required to have clearly defined policies and procedures regarding access to age-appropriate materials.

Procedures aim to ensure consistent application of a process.

Do you think the above requirement is unreasonable?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

But consider, some in thread have assured me that a 9-year-old won't be allowed to check out the Kama Sutra, currently

For all your concern over the Kama Sutra being checked out, have you verified that it's even on the library's shelves?

I mean, if the book isn't available for anyone at all to check out, then a 9 yr old obviously can't check it out, either. Unless you can prove it is a book that can be checked out currently from a public library in Missouri, then we can safely assume that everyone who assured you of that is correct.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

These are state-funded libraries. I don't see any reason why, that as a prerequisite for funding, they shouldn't be required to have clearly defined policies and procedures regarding access to age-appropriate materials.

Procedures aim to ensure consistent application of a process.

Do you think the above requirement is unreasonable?

Have you ever had a library card? Did you have to prove your age to get one? Are we now going to be requiring a birth certificate for kids to get a library card in your utopia?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by wareyin

For all your concern over the Kama Sutra being checked out, have you verified that it's even on the library's shelves?

I mean, if the book isn't available for anyone at all to check out, then a 9 yr old obviously can't check it out, either. Unless you can prove it is a book that can be checked out currently from a public library in Missouri, then we can safely assume that everyone who assured you of that is correct.

The point isn't the exact book, obviously. It is just used as an example.

[seayakin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

These are state-funded libraries. I don't see any reason why, that as a prerequisite for funding, they shouldn't be required to have clearly defined policies and procedures regarding access to age-appropriate materials.

Procedures aim to ensure consistent application of a process.

Do you think the above requirement is unreasonable?

I think it would be appropriate for the state to mandate libraries have a collection development policy and process where resident could challenge any title selected. However, I don't think the state should define the content of the policy or give the power to a single resident to have a book removed from the library. I have not read the proposed legislation in Missouri but reading articles about the legislation, it goes far beyond simply requiring good library management and dictates content for local communities. At least one article, indicated it also would hold individual librarians liable with fines for allowing children access to what the law defines as sexually explicit material.

I don't know the funding models in Missouri but I know in some of the states I have worked in, they received so little funding from the state that some would rather forego state funding than adhere to such requirements.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Have you ever had a library card? Did you have to prove your age to get one? Are we now going to be requiring a birth certificate for kids to get a library card in your utopia?

I'm not going to go in circles on this one. On one hand, people are saying a child of age "X" already won't be allowed access to a book such as the Kama Sutra. On the other hand you are going to make a case that there is no reasonable way to verify age. Those two points don't reconcile very well.

I'm done with that particular debate.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

These are state-funded libraries. I don't see any reason why, that as a prerequisite for funding, they shouldn't be required to have clearly defined policies and procedures regarding access to age-appropriate materials.

Procedures aim to ensure consistent application of a process.

Do you think the above requirement is unreasonable?

It is when it’s a solution in search of a problem.

It is when it’s a fig leaf for one of the numerous conservative culture wars.

And I have to say, it’s really strange to see someone act so concerned about children potentially being exposed to “inappropriate” material and also totally on board with grown men having sex with underage girls. Why, these are such contradictory positions that it almost seems like the former is a completely disingenuous crock of ****.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I'm not going to go in circles on this one. On one hand, people are saying a child of age "X" already won't be allowed access to a book such as the Kama Sutra. On the other hand you are going to make a case that there is no reasonable way to verify age. Those two points don't reconcile very well.

Neither does “children need to be protected from sex in books” and “it’s okay to for adult men to have sex with underage girls”.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Remember when it was conservatives that were warning that banning books was a commie/librul value?

You mean the "Cancel Culture" thread?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

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

Sadly, true.
I have alot of sympathy with some traditional conservatism ideas..sketicism about if huge government programs are a solution to any problem, and fiscal resonsbility, and that the private business should be the main engine of an economy. But the current GOP Is not about those things, it is about paranoia and fear and white supremacy.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Neither does “children need to be protected from sex in books” and “it’s okay to for adult men to have sex with underage girls”.

And, with the internet,not like kids probably know it all about sex by the age of 12, anyway.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Remember when it was conservatives that were warning that banning books was a commie/librul value?

Yeah like I keep bringing up (and sometimes getting sent to AAH for for some reason) everytime it's a Nazi or racists being told to shut up.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The point isn't the exact book, obviously. It is just used as an example.

Originally Posted by Warp12

I'm not going to go in circles on this one. On one hand, people are saying a child of age "X" already won't be allowed access to a book such as the Kama Sutra. On the other hand you are going to make a case that there is no reasonable way to verify age. Those two points don't reconcile very well.

I'm done with that particular debate.

Again, before you get your panties in a bunch about children being allowed access to the Kama Sutra, you should first verify that the Kama Sutra is on the shelf in the first place. If it wasn't that exact book, you wouldn't keep calling out that exact book.

And, again, have you ever had a library card? Have you ever set foot in a library? You seem fundamentally clueless about what libraries offer, how they organize their books, who is allowed to check out what, and even what information a library has on its patrons.

[Stacyhs]

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.

I don't think that's true. Many who pay lip service to their religion never open a Bible, but those who "practice it fastidiously" certainly do.

[TragicMonkey]

Christ, it's not difficult: parents who care what their kids get out of the library should go to the library with them. It is not the responsiblity of everyone else in the nation to step in to do the parenting of lazy idiots who claim to care about something but make not the slightest effort to doing it themselves.

eta: That last sentence would have been recognized as a conservative value up until about 20 years ago.

[Stacyhs]

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.

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.

Sexual activity includes kissing, sexual touching, and sexual intercourse

Well, there go Sleeping Beauty and Snow White! In each, the heterosexual Prince has to kiss the heterosexual sleeping princess in order to wake her from her coma like sleep...with Snow White having been drugged. It's not a brotherly or friendly kiss, either. It has to be "the kiss of true love"...a sexual kiss. Neither princess can give consent as she is sleeping; ergo it can be considered sexual assault. How dare our little ones be exposed to such sexual orientation, sexual assault, and sexual activity content! Think of the children!

[Cat Not Included]

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.

As I mentioned earlier:

What illustrates why we need policy and procedures to regulate what children have access to? What's the terrible negative side of a child checking out a book that's inappropriate? A bit of an embarrassing conversation for the parents? Do you really think we need laws to protect people from that?

Maybe we should be passing laws about what kind of food kids can buy from the store. An unhealthy candy bar is probably a lot more damaging to a kid than a book. (No, I don't actually think we should, but its probably effort better spent in terms of protecting kids).

[Cat Not Included]

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.

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.

If actually and honestly applied would that leave basically any books at all beyond technical manuals?

I mean, I'm pretty sure the people behind these bills wouldn't be upset about that. The whole "would they mind if people tried to remove X book?" is kinda irrelevant; they're opposed to the entire idea of kids being able to get to information and ideas and read it on their own to begin with. No libraries left is a perfectly fine outcome for them.

[Stacyhs]

What this boils down to is that those supporting this bill want to control what children read...not only theirs, but everyone else's. It's not liberals or moderates who are pushing this bill, but conservatives, and mostly religious conservatives, who want to restrict children to reading only that which agrees with their very narrow views. Conservatives scream about "mah freedoms!," but would deny those very freedoms to others. If there's one thing you can safely count on, it's the hypocrisy of conservatives. Not that liberals and moderates can't be hypocritical, but not nearly to the extent of conservatives.

Just one woman's opinion.

[arayder]

Warp, you have tried to make this all about making sure children don't get a copy of the Kama Sutra. But, that's not the problem. Such a thing just doesn't happen.

In the end it's not really about "sensible policies". If you'd done a little research before you opened your pie hole you'd know libraries already have these policies in place.

The real problem is your desire to empower an authoritarian state to push parents aside and decide what their children should read.

Illustrative of your badly closeted authoritarian bend is your endorsement of an all powerful government denying children access to the religious teachings of their families and cultures.

That's just plain un-American and there is no way you can jabber your way out of it!

[bruto]

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.

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.

Of course, it should be noted that one sexual orientation, albeit the majority one which the bigots like, is heterosexuality, which, if the law were not so obviously the creation of bigots with tiny brains, would be banned as well. But then, who needs to read anyway? I love the smell of kerosene in the morning.

[Stacyhs]

My parents never restricted what I could read. As my mom said, "If you don't understand what you're reading because you're too young, it won't keep your interest and it won't do you any harm. If you do understand what you're reading, then you're old enough to read it.

Surprisingly, with this freedom to read whatever I wanted, I still grew up to be a law-abiding, heterosexual, wife and mother. Well, I am an atheist which followed studying the Bible and attending church for a short while. Go figure.