Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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.

Never let a USA kid visit the UK and see a pantomime!

[mgidm86]

"Young children" go to libraries unaccompanied by a guardian? How? Where?

Shouldn't the parents be accompanying their "children" in public places? A library has a vast amount of information from all perspectives, beliefs and ideologies. If a parent is concerned then they should not let their child go there alone (of all places!!!).

Do parents send their 8 year-olds to the mall alone, or the movies so they can walk into an R-rated film? No?

What's so special about libraries? "Gee Wally, Mom let's us go all the time! Who knew it was so dangerous?"

Parents don't even let their kids outside to play on their front lawn without a leash these days. They aren't sneaking off to the library (again, of all places).

If only they were!!!

I found one story of an Omaha woman complaining that her 11-year-old daughter checked out a Manga graphic novel that showed "almost the whole breast".

Gee, so does the cover of Cosmo! I wonder if Mom has any? My Mom did! Victoria's Secret too! Thank gawd I survived.

Where was Mom while her child was at the library? How did the 11-year-old get there? Should every panel of every comic be scrutinized?

Guess what? The Mom was able to complain and try and do something about it without any restrictive laws helping her. Parents can take care of their kids just fine if they actually try. Don't make the rest of us do it.

I like Rachel Maddow's line - "Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do"

What they are doing is banning books. Ya ya I know: "They are just withholding funding if they carry these books! It's not a ban!" As if that's different. Libraries are barely funded as it is.

And I thought conservatives were against censorship? Huh. Do you idiots ever listen to yourselves? When I finally started to listen to myself is when I stopped supporting Republicans.

Grow up, America.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Do parents send their 8 year-olds to the mall alone, or the movies so they can walk into an R-rated film? No?

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?

[Foster Zygote]

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?

Does it really help? I mean, does it really help you to think that nobody notices when you just ignore whatever issue it is that you can't address without conceding the argument? In this thread, like others before, it's the fact that you haven't presented the slightest god damned evidence that libraries don't already have policies in place regarding what materials minors are allowed to access. You haven't even pointed to anything establishing that this sort of thing is occurring at all, let alone that it is a chronic problem. You're just doing the same thing you've done in previous threads, where you thought you could hide the intellectual bankruptcy of your arguments by pretending that you hadn't failed to produce the slightest evidence supporting your claim, unsuccessfully masking your evidentiary failure with false implications that you'd already addressed the challenge via evasive dismissals about not repeating yourself, or by simply declaring that answering direct questions about your claims was beneath you.

You can certainly imagine that you've cleverly cornered others into agreeing with you by pretending that the proposed legislation in question would mandate guidelines where none now exist, but those same others can also see that that's a lie, and that you're just running away from admitting that you can't put up... Again.

[bruto]

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?

Think a moment about what you are saying here. You are arguing against your own point by accident, I think. Yes, movie ratings exist, and nobody is calling for their abolition. Movie ratings are made by the movie industry, and they are, while simple, informative and systematic, not compulsory on viewers, not mandated by politicians and state laws; so if your contention is that movie ratings are effective, where does that argument lead?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

Think a moment about what you are saying here. You are arguing against your own point by accident, I think. Yes, movie ratings exist, and nobody is calling for their abolition. Movie ratings are made by the movie industry, and they are, while simple, informative and systematic, not compulsory on viewers, not mandated by politicians and state laws; so if your contention is that movie ratings are effective, where does that argument lead?

I am hardly arguing against my own point. Do you think that it is just because the movie industry folks are swell people that such a system exists where the studios bow to it? Or do you think they did it because they knew it was best they took action before they were forced to do so, potentially with federal oversight?

If the ratings system wasn't universal here, do you think parents would just be cool with each theater arbitrarily assigning their own ratings, or none at all? Of course not.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am hardly arguing against my own point. Do you think that it is just because the movie industry folks are swell people that such a system exists where the studios bow to it? Or do you think they did it because they knew it was best they took action before they were forced to do so, potentially with federal oversight?

If the ratings system wasn't universal here, do you think parents would just be cool with each theater arbitrarily assigning their own ratings, or none at all? Of course not.

Libraries self regulate too. So as several posters have already pointed out to you your argument has shot itself in its foot.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

Libraries self regulate too. So as several posters have already pointed out to you your argument has shot itself in its foot.

Wrong. See below.

Originally Posted by Warp12

If the ratings system wasn't universal here, do you think parents would just be cool with each theater arbitrarily assigning their own ratings, or none at all? Of course not.

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

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am hardly arguing against my own point. Do you think that it is just because the movie industry folks are swell people that such a system exists where the studios bow to it? Or do you think they did it because they knew it was best they took action before they were forced to do so, potentially with federal oversight?

If the ratings system wasn't universal here, do you think parents would just be cool with each theater arbitrarily assigning their own ratings, or none at all? Of course not.

It doesn't really matter why the MPAA does what it does, or what alternatives it fears. Nor does it matter for this argument whether they are good guys or bad guys or whether one agrees with how they do it or why. I can easily imagine that the MPAA realizes it can avoid a lot of regulation and hassle by adopting a system of its own. Movies area business. The point is that they do it. The point is that they can do it. The point is that you're arguing for government control by citing a successful instance of something which is visibly and conspicuously and pointedly NOT government control.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Wrong. See below.

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

No, you are wrong. And you don't even know it.

Try taking a 10 year old into a library and asking them to get him a copy of the Kama Sutra or a Deep Throat video (your examples, not mine) and see what happens.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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.

I wonder how all those children exposed to men playing the parts of women on stage before 1661 in England survived the horror. Or in ancient Greece and Rome. Or even today in Kabuki theater in Japan.

I've got news for you: children that go to libraries to have Story Time don't give two damns about how the people reading to them are dressed. They're too young to be concerned about anything but hearing a good story read to them.

This is just another manufactured outrage for narrow-minded and uptight conservative religious people to get upset about. If it wasn't this, they'd find something else to get hysterical about.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I've got news for you: children that go to libraries to have Story Time don't give two damns about how the people reading to them are dressed. They're too young to be concerned about anything but hearing a good story read to them.

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.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I wonder how all those children exposed to men playing the parts of women on stage before 1661 in England survived the horror. Or in ancient Greece and Rome. Or even today in Kabuki theater in Japan.

As Darat pointed out, right about now there will be thousands of children going to watch performances specifically aimed at them where they will see this

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arayder

No, you are wrong. And you don't even know it.

Try taking a 10 year old into a library and asking them to get him a copy of the Kama Sutra or a Deep Throat video (your examples, not mine) and see what happens.

Warp12's comments in this thread and their support for the legislation indicates that they would be OK with a 6 year old kid having access to the most sexually explicit material in a library if a parent approves it. Suppose it would be useful for all those parents that groom their own kids and abuse them.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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.

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

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

As Darat pointed out, right about now there will be thousands of children going to watch performances specifically aimed at them where they will see this

Won't the Brits think of the children?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Darat

And talks - literally - of men hung as donkeys!

Surely an early literary example of an effective simile? Remembered vividly by readers three thousand years later.

[Gulliver Foyle]

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

"Where they burn books, soon they will burn people". Heinrich Heine.

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by 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.

I assume that other regions are similar. My first question to Mr. Ashcroft is, given the small percentage of funds that come from the state, why it should have a major say-so in library policies in general. My second question is what does he think is presently the matter with local control that can best be addressed by control at the state level. EDT The apple does not fall far from the tree.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Then there's this guy:WA: CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AR... UNDERAGE GIRL

Your link isn’t a URL

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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.

I’ve recently been reintroduced to the term “ragertainment”. That, plus a healthy dose of classic 1980s gay panic, is all this is. Culture warriors tilting at windmills with paper-thin self-righteousness because it makes them feel special.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Your link isn’t a URL

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.

ETA: If this legislation is meant to prevent child sexual abuse then leaving it up to the parents is one of the worse way of ensuring that since parents and family are the most likely perpetuators of child sexual abuse.

.... Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles, or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances, such as "friends" of the family, babysitters, or neighbors;....

The wiki article above gets its data from this report: https://www.unh.edu/ccrc/resource/cu...d-sexual-abuse

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

Warp12's comments in this thread and their support for the legislation indicates that they would be OK with a 6 year old kid having access to the most sexually explicit material in a library if a parent approves it. Suppose it would be useful for all those parents that groom their own kids and abuse them.

I don't see the system working like that. Just like a young kid doesn't go to the theater and watch an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian. There is a base level of limited access, determined by content. Now, if the parents want their children to watch movies like that at home, that would be on the parent.

I still haven't seen a compelling argument as to why these libraries should not be required to have policies and procedures in place that are subject to public review.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't see the system working like that. Just like a young kid doesn't go to the theater and watch an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian. There is a base level of limited access, determined by content. Now, if the parents want their children to watch movies like that at home, that would be on the parent.

I still haven't seen a compelling argument as to why these libraries should not be required to have policies and procedures in place that are subject to public review.

You mentioned this legislation was something to do with child sexual abuse and grooming, the legislation does not prevent material in a library being used to groom young children by their most likely abusers - family and close friends of the family.

Why were you mentioning grooming? Do you think the librarians are going to be sexually abusing children who come into the library?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You're conflating pedophilia with homosexuality.

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

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.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

You mentioned this legislation was something to do with child sexual abuse and grooming, the legislation does not prevent material in a library being used to groom young children by their most likely abusers - family and close friends of the family.

Why were you mentioning grooming? Do you think the librarians are going to be sexually abusing children who come into the library?

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.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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

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.

I can't find anything in any of the reports of the legislation that says that the legislation has anything to do with "drag queens" - where have you read that?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

I can't find anything in any of the reports of the legislation that says that the legislation has anything to do with "drag queens" - where have you read that?

Please see my above posts as to why I commented on it. I did not begin the commentary on drag queens. As for the legislation, perhaps it should have something in there about that. If there isn't already existing legislation to cover it. Or, it might fall under the umbrella of determining age-appropriate materials.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Darat

You mentioned this legislation was something to do with child sexual abuse and grooming, the legislation does not prevent material in a library being used to groom young children by their most likely abusers - family and close friends of the family.

Why were you mentioning grooming?

Again, the question is, grooming them for what?

What the "anti-groomers" group is worried about is not sexual abuse, they are concerned that kids are going to grow up not thinking that dressing in drag is bad. What's bad about it?They can't actually say, but it's bad, m'kay?

So if kids learn that dressing in drag is ok, they might dress in drag. And that's bad. Because....um, it is.

As I've pointed out, the whole "grooming" accusation falls apart if you don't accept that premise that being gay, trans or dressing in drag is inherently bad.

And as many have also noted, if you are concerned about actual sexual grooming, then it goes far beyond books that have gay or trans characters.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Please see my above posts as to why I commented on it. As for the legislation, perhaps it should have something in there about that. If there isn't already existing legislation to cover it. Or, it might fall under the umbrella of determining age-appropriate materials.

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.

Leaving that aside can you also demonstrate how the legislation will prevent or at least try to prevent children from being groomed and sexually abused? If the legislation doesn't cover that then again it will be a topic that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread - an actual piece of legislation.

[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.

Leaving that aside can you also demonstrate how the legislation will prevent or at least try to prevent children from being groomed and sexually abused? If the legislation doesn't cover that then again it will be a topic that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread - an actual piece of legislation.

Yeah, I'm not sure why it was brought up initially. As I say, I didn't start the topic. I responded to your commentary on equating drag queens with "sexually explicit material".

No, I don't need to demonstrate how the legislation will prevent children from being desensitized to controversial materials. Because nobody has even presented a legitimate argument as to why it should not be required to have policies and procedures in place for determining age-appropriate materials. As I said early on, if people are even fighting that notion...well, what is there to debate?

On one hand they say, "there are already procedures"...on the other hand they say, "we shouldn't require procedures". It makes zero sense.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't see the system working like that. Just like a young kid doesn't go to the theater and watch an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian. There is a base level of limited access, determined by content. Now, if the parents want their children to watch movies like that at home, that would be on the parent.

I still haven't seen a compelling argument as to why these libraries should not be required to have policies and procedures in place that are subject to public review.

Do they not have effective policies? Are they not subject to review? The question here is whether such policies should be required, and by whom they should be required, and why.

I have yet to see any evidence that librarians and the governing boards of libraries are failing in their job.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Darat

I can't find anything in any of the reports of the legislation that says that the legislation has anything to do with "drag queens" - where have you read that?

We are hearing about drag queens because the Kama Sutra/Deep Throat shtick got old.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Yeah, I'm not sure why it was brought up initially. As I say, I didn't start the topic. I responded to your commentary on equating drag queens with "sexually explicit material".

No, I don't need to demonstrate how the legislation will prevent children from being desensitized to controversial materials. Because nobody has even presented a legitimate argument as to why it should not be required to have policies and procedures in place for determining age-appropriate materials. As I said early on, if people are even fighting that notion...well, what is there to debate?

On one hand they say, "there are already procedures"...on the other hand they say, "we shouldn't require procedures". It makes zero sense.

No one has put forward those claims apart from yourself, that attempt at a false argument is called a strawman.

I wish to be certain - you still believe without this legislation it will allow children to be groomed and sexually assaulted?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Darat

No one has put forward those claims apart from yourself, that attempt at a false argument is called a strawman.

I wish to be certain - you still believe without this legislation it will allow children to be groomed and sexually assaulted?

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.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Darat, I don't think you 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 continue 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.

I have once again failed to substantiate my argument with anything resembling a fact and will now slink away in defeat.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by arayder

No, you are wrong. And you don't even know it.

Try taking a 10 year old into a library and asking them to get him a copy of the Kama Sutra or a Deep Throat video (your examples, not mine) and see what happens.

Warp has to invent histrionic hypotheticals because he hasn't been able to produce any real evidence to support his position. It isn't the first time he's made a knee-jerk assumption based on a simplistic conservative vs liberal dichotomy and then refused to concede that he can't link his arguments to reality.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I wonder how all those children exposed to men playing the parts of women on stage before 1661 in England survived the horror. Or in ancient Greece and Rome. Or even today in Kabuki theater in Japan.

I've got news for you: children that go to libraries to have Story Time don't give two damns about how the people reading to them are dressed. They're too young to be concerned about anything but hearing a good story read to them.

This is just another manufactured outrage for narrow-minded and uptight conservative religious people to get upset about. If it wasn't this, they'd find something else to get hysterical about.

Again, it just seems to be homophobic conservatives who can't look at someone dressed in a flamboyant costume without visualizing them *******.

[bruto]

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, 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.

We'll leave for later the issue of whether politicians are the appropriate authorities for such a requirement, and whether the argument that the movie industry's non-governmental regulation is a good one for government regulation, and why the presumed need for an overall uniform standard is served by a state law.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

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 can't "groom" kids to be gay. You aren't going to stop people from "turning gay" by never exposing them to the concept of homosexuality, or by simply letting them see adults in over-the-top costumes associated with a different gender. You're either gay or you're not.

You said it yourself: what bigots really object to is familiarity. They're worried that their kids will grow up in a world where no one cares if their neighbor, their doctor, or even their uncle is gay. They want a world where their hatred remains as normalized as it's been for generations, and gay people are forced to hide their true selves for fear of anything from violence and death to being ostracized by their friends and family. These people are worried that their kids will hear that their friend Heather has two mommies and won't have a reaction any different from learning that their other friend has a dad and a step mom, or a single parent.

And as has already been pointed out to you, the sorts of books most frequently objected to by "concerned parents" include such depraved subjects as racism, religious diversity and biological and geological science.

Also, I find it funny how you type "Grooming" as a proper noun.