I’m interested how this works, technically. I’m against banning books. I’m also against elementary school kids picking up Naked Lunch in the school library and leaving through it. I presume no librarian would elect to have that book anyway, so it will never be tested whether it can be barred somehow. There are also probably soft mechanisms that get used like “it’s in the library and you can check it out with a parental permission form.” Anyway how to handle obscene material has been a question since the beginning of time.
The bill permits restriction in the case of “developmentally inappropriate material” for certain age groups. The measure also requires local school boards and the governing bodies of public libraries to set up policies for book curation and the removal of library materials, including a way to address concerns over certain items.
Leaving a gap open for “developmentally inappropriate” makes sense in the face of it, but when Evangelicals try to ban any book that has a depiction of a gay character, this is the rationale they use: that kids should not be subjected to sexual material. I’m not saying their argument holds water, just that the gap left open by this prohibition is the exact favorite entry point of book ban abusers.
The school would still have to be the one buying the books so they just won’t buy any book they deem inappropriate. I’m sure this is mainly just to stop zealots from banning everything related to evolution. Also, I haven’t read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can’t get on the Internet nowadays.
From the article:
The bill permits restriction in the case of “developmentally inappropriate material” for certain age groups. The measure also requires local school boards and the governing bodies of public libraries to set up policies for book curation and the removal of library materials, including a way to address concerns over certain items.
So you took one sentence out of context and used it to dismiss the rest of the comment with objections that had already been addressed by the parts you dismissed?
I recommend reading the US constitution. Basically this is what the Bill of Rights is.
Also many States added bans on banning of abortions to their Constitutions for the same reason.
We need a lot more of these, like bans on bans of encrypted apps without backdoors. Bans on bans of “vagrancy” and other laws made to target black people. Bans on book bans in prison.
Them banning the bans makes me chuckle.
Conservatives should have banned ban-bans first if they wanted to get their way.
Isn’t that in Project 2025 somewhere?
Yes but project 2025 has been banned so we are all good there
“Somehow, Palpatine returned…”
Then Democrats hit 'em with the ban ban ban ban.
I’m interested how this works, technically. I’m against banning books. I’m also against elementary school kids picking up Naked Lunch in the school library and leaving through it. I presume no librarian would elect to have that book anyway, so it will never be tested whether it can be barred somehow. There are also probably soft mechanisms that get used like “it’s in the library and you can check it out with a parental permission form.” Anyway how to handle obscene material has been a question since the beginning of time.
Leaving a gap open for “developmentally inappropriate” makes sense in the face of it, but when Evangelicals try to ban any book that has a depiction of a gay character, this is the rationale they use: that kids should not be subjected to sexual material. I’m not saying their argument holds water, just that the gap left open by this prohibition is the exact favorite entry point of book ban abusers.
I don’t really understand what this bill changes either :/
The school would still have to be the one buying the books so they just won’t buy any book they deem inappropriate. I’m sure this is mainly just to stop zealots from banning everything related to evolution. Also, I haven’t read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can’t get on the Internet nowadays.
From the article:
Doesn’t know the book: check Casually dismisses the entire topic of moderating children’s content intake: check
It’s pretty clear you don’t know what you’re talking about on any level here.
Sounds like you’re having a bad day. I even gave you a quote from the article that answers your exact question. Everything okay at home?
I’m responding to this:
So you took one sentence out of context and used it to dismiss the rest of the comment with objections that had already been addressed by the parts you dismissed?
I may be over focusing on that one part of your comment but it does stand out from the rest as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point.
Nah, mate. Wanna take a guess at what actually does stand out as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point?
I recommend reading the US constitution. Basically this is what the Bill of Rights is.
Also many States added bans on banning of abortions to their Constitutions for the same reason.
We need a lot more of these, like bans on bans of encrypted apps without backdoors. Bans on bans of “vagrancy” and other laws made to target black people. Bans on book bans in prison.
The land of freedom has reached the point that we must ban banning things rather than framing it as guaranteeing the right to d9 a thing.
Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden thi yer?