Gay Penguins Face Florida's Classroom Speech Regulations
The authors of a picture book about two male penguins raising a chick together argue excluding their book from school libraries violates their free speech rights.

One Florida school district is facing a legal battle over its decision to ban a book about gay penguins. In 2022, the state passed the Parental Rights in Education Act, which banned classroom discussions on sexual orientation or gender identity "in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students." While the law initially applied only to kindergarten through third-grade classrooms, the Florida Board of Education later expanded the law to all grades.
Several Florida school districts began removing books from their collections that could possibly violate the new law—including And Tango Makes Three, a picture book depicting two male penguins who raise a chick together. In 2023, the authors of the book filed a lawsuit against one school district that removed the book, arguing that "the Ban's vagueness, in combination with its harsh penalties, make it more likely to be applied expansively—such as to public school libraries—at the expense of the authors' free speech rights and the students' right to receive information."
The state disagrees. In a November court filing, lawyers for the school district argued that authors don't have a constitutional right to demand their books be made available at school libraries. Instead, the school board has "the First Amendment right to choose what message is conveyed through its curation of the library collection," adding that "when the Board selects books to be made available in its school libraries, it is the government speaking, not the books' authors."
So who's right?
"The removal of And Tango Makes Three is constitutionally suspect because it appears to be driven by school authorities' disagreement with a particular viewpoint or perspective," says Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group. "And when school authorities remove books from libraries out of hostility to a viewpoint or ideology, that raises serious First Amendment issues." Terr notes that in 1982, "a plurality of the Supreme Court held that public schools have discretion to determine the content of their libraries. But they can't exercise that discretion in a narrowly partisan or political manner."
This isn't the only time Florida has been sued over a school district's attempt to ban the gay penguin story. In September, a group of major publishers launched another lawsuit, this time targeting another Florida law that bans any school library book that "describes sexual conduct."
"The argument that library books are government speech really defies logic and is, I think, just an excuse for censorship," Terr explains. "Libraries contain books presenting a wide range of ideas and perspectives, many of which clash with each other. So if they're all speech of the government, then the government is babbling incoherently."
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Gay Penguins Face the Ban Hammer."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
""The argument that library books are government speech really defies logic and is, I think, just an excuse for censorship," Terr explains. "Libraries contain books presenting a wide range of ideas and perspectives, many of which clash with each other. So if they're all speech of the government, then the government is babbling incoherently.""
The fundamental legal standard is that editorial control over content creates responsibility for that content. In a private institution this is argued that editorial control is a free speech right. Terr is therefore arguing that curation is not free speech.
If a public school librarian chose to put in a book that advocates intelligent design or is outright advocating a religion, would that be acceptable to Terr? If not, then why is a public school librarian compelled to include a book like "And Tango Makes Three" which is a blatant advocacy for a religious view that same sex relationships are not immoral?
We seem to have a standard being set by social progressives of "heads I win, tails you lose", but is otherwise logically incoherent.
Government Almighty, in no cases, is compelling pubic libraries to include the favored, little-known books of authors which are the "pets and darlings" of powerful Government Almighty politicians. If THAT were the case, we'd be reading about it all day, every day!
Twat IS happening, is that pubic school management and workers are picking and buying popular books to include... And then are told by powerful Government Almighty politicians, "No, you may SNOT include THAT book! Take it DOWN!!!"
Speaking of logically and just plain old insanely incoherent...
If ye cunt refute the argument, just call them grade-school names. Shit works SOOOO well... In grade school!
What argument?
There is not much to discern from your disjointed ramblings that only have passing acquaintance with English grammar.
Government Almighty, in no cases, is compelling pubic libraries to include the favored, little-known books of authors which are the "pets and darlings" of powerful Government Almighty politicians. If THAT were the case, we'd be reading about it all day, every day!
Find me ONE such case!
A truly civilized country would have burned SQRLSY at the stake long ago.
It should be boiled in acid.
"And Tango Makes Three" says that gayness is for the birds! I thought that sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturds AGREED that gayness is for the birds!!! WHEN will cuntsorevaturds EVER be satisfied?
Hang Mike Pence! Hang the penguins! So Hath Dear Leader Cummanded us; so MUST shit be done!!!
including And Tango Makes Three, a picture book depicting two male penguins who raise a chick together.
Why?
the authors
What authors? Who are they Emma? What are they, Emma? Well, let's look at the authors then.
Hmmm... professional twink, and lifelong LGBT Pedo activist. On the latter's other works...
Acknowledging that kids are "inherently sexual" (male fetuses, for example, have erections in utero [*facepalm*] ), the authors show how parents can influence their children's sexual development in healthy ways ... from infant "seeds" of sexuality to teenager's first experience of intercourse, and fearlessly cover topics from toddler sex play to dating, love, homosexuality, masturbation, birth control, STDs and pregnancy.
Groomer alert.
Oh, and answer to the very first question - because they're a pair of homosexuals who got their grubby mitts on a little girl and decided to rob her of any maternal influence whatsoever in their selfish, fetishized game of Cosplay Parenting/Family. And they were so desperate to normalize this, that they wrote a book that is effectively them just telling themselves that.
Did you not pay attention last November? America is done with this nonsense. The LGBT Pedo creep, this festering social contagion that's spent three decades preying on young people - everyone knows it for what it is now. And they're pissed.
Thank you for providing that context...explains a lot.
+10
Again-
1987-1995 Full House: ***TV-G*** A widowed sportscaster raises his three daughters with assistance from his rock and roll brother-in-law and madcap best friend.
1987 Three Men And A Baby: ***PG*** Jack Holden and his friends, Peter and Michael, spend most of their time having flings with several women in their apartment. Their life changes when a mysterious baby appears at their doorstep.
Nobody, but nobody, has a problem with banal stories about alternative parenting, dudes living together, marginal adult awkwardness (PG) around kids. It's the overt Inquisition-style campaign to shame everyone who doesn't groom their children to the ideology that's the problem. They might *think* they're being covert with the "We don't actually *know* the penguins are gay." but that belies the dishonesty of their bad fiction and the disingenuous motivations/ideology; if we don't actually know if the penguins are gay, then there's plenty of fiction with "three cohabitating widow(er)s" and "seven (nonsexual) dwarves" that is already completely sufficient to the task of demonstrating alternative life-, parenting-, and family-styles.
That was well said.
The penguins most likely aren’t gay. Being birds (unlike mammals), either a male or female parent can incubate an egg and regurgitate food to a chick. Hence even two males who have no sexual relations with each other can help the survival of the species. To be quite frank, most animals do not have sex unless to produce offspring. Only a few do so outside of certain seasons or when the female goes into heat, and both are primates.
I'm not sure about that. There are aquatic mammals who fuck like crazy. Inter-species rapes have been reported.
Forgot about dolphins doing that, but there’s no bird species we know of that does that.
Fuck a you whale and fuck a you dolphin!
Cow and chicken!!!!!!!
The penguins most likely aren’t gay.
I get into this below. You'll get the same "too clever by half", low-brow, nihilist/narcissist refusal or denial of morality and reason. If you see a male and a female gorilla engaged in violence in the pursuit and/or performance of sex, you calling it a rape is anthropomorphism and humanity should purge or malign such behavior anyway. But if two male penguins take turns sitting on a nest out of instinct they are far less capable of ourselves or primates conceiving, it is, definitively and unquestionably, a vindication of the most modern, progressive, and up-to-date thinking about homosexuality that even humans generally didn't hold (or were forced to... or still don't elsewhere...) until 20-30 yrs. ago.
There is no objectivity or even morality or benefit to or consideration of self or self in the context of others, it's 'have a conclusion that you feel is right and spin like the Tazmanian Devil until you get from there to wherever you are or vice versa'.
Is there any thoroughly one-sided argument Emma will NOT make?
Also, when was there a Constitutional right to be in a school library? Lots and lots and lots of books are not.
To dull little progressive minds, like Little Emma’s, not being allowed in school library is a ‘book ban’.
Virtually, no literally, burning the f*ckers.
Before I read the article, I, too, was pretty sure it would be another of Emma's "one-sided arguments" in the guise of a news article. Sure enough...
On the latter's other works... Acknowledging that kids are "inherently sexual" (male fetuses, for example, have erections in utero [*facepalm*] ), the authors show how parents can influence their children's sexual development in healthy ways ... from infant "seeds" of sexuality to teenager's first experience of intercourse, and fearlessly cover topics from toddler sex play to dating, love, homosexuality, masturbation, birth control, STDs and pregnancy.
Gosh, can't imagine why this wasn't mentioned. Must've been an accident.
First comes the narrative, then comes the story, then comes Emma with a shame you more.
One Florida school district is facing a legal battle over its decision to ban a book about gay penguins
The expression you are looking for is "not carry". Larry Flynt never started a legal battle over an elementary school library "banning" Hustler.
...at the expense of the authors' free speech rights
School libraries are already a racket. Choosing not to buy a particular book to put on the shelves in no way infringes on the authors' right to free expression.
The expression you are looking for is "not carry". Larry Flynt never started a legal battle over an elementary school library "banning" Hustler.
That is a very good point!
There is a difference between the school saying no and government saying no.
The issue at hand is can the government via legislature tell schools what to ban or not.
If the school said no, then the author would have no case.
Public schools are an arm of the government. There is not any meaningful difference between school and government, just the level at where the decision is being made. If the book's POV was overtly religious, particularly Christian, there would be no debate about whether the government should overrule the school official. What we have here is special pleading that books promoting LGBT+ ideology should be privileged.
The school in question is a public school - it *is* the government.
Secondly - *someone* has to decide what is and is not appropriate for a school library. Why should an unelected employee get to do this with no oversight or control by the elected legislature?
The legislature that approves funding and curricula for schools - including things like 'you can't teach Creationism'.
"Why should an unelected employee get to do this with no oversight or control by the elected legislature?"
Because those unelected employees are experts, with years of training about how to select appropriate books. We should trust the experts.
Yeah, I think they'll have a hard time proving that everyone has a free speech right to put every book ever written in a library, school or otherwise.
The forum itself demands deciding on one book over another, and to top that off I think plenty of people would be bothered by a whole bunch of books being in a school library, porn among them.
What the authors are really saying is that books that lionize being gay should be included, and some other books that aren't theirs should be excluded. This is an actual zero sum game, a finite number of books will fit.
Don't you even socialist nanny state? Of course allowing a public institution to not use tax dollars to buy a book written by progressive heroes is a violation of free speech (or whatever buzz words the blob wants to use to incite the normies).
The authors of a picture book about two male penguins raising a chick together argue excluding their book from school libraries violates their free speech rights.
Then so does excluding Playboy, Hustler, and The Rape of Nanking.
If I write a book, does every school everywhere have to carry it in their library?
Emma Camp seems to think so.
Apparently "inter-sectional" material, whereby a person designated as being in an "oppressed" group, is different and deserves some special consideration in foisting their material on public school libraries. If I take the post above by AT above [I have not personally "fact checked" it] I think it is pretty obvious what their motivations are; let's transform [some people call it "grooming"] as many children as we can so pedophiles and any other identity can enjoy acceptance social normality. It is the essence of progressivism to accomplish one goal and then continually move the posts to whatever appears in Overton's next window.
This bullshit needs to be called out for what it is; it's not "we want to be ourselves and love who we love," but more like "we want to be the normal ones and the rest of you are the freaks. "
‘Think’ is an awfully strong word in this context. And perhaps an overstatement.
Government Almighty, in no cases, is compelling pubic libraries to include the favored, little-known books of authors which are the "pets and darlings" of powerful Government Almighty politicians. If THAT were the case, we'd be reading about it all day, every day!
Twat IS happening, is that pubic school management and workers are picking and buying popular books to include... And then are told by powerful Government Almighty politicians, "No, you may SNOT include THAT book! Take it DOWN!!!"
If we give grandstanding politicians MORE micro-management powers over books, does every school and library everywhere have to ask politicians for spermission to buy every book that they buy? And then be forced to WASTE an already-bought book, at the whims of politicians?
Maybe they should have applied for a USAID grant to airdrop copies in Antarctica, so the penguins there could learn about gay parenting?
I suggest USAID-funded drag queen story hour at the South Pole.
Maybe a study that gives a few penguins trans surgery and releases them back into the wild to see how they do? Which will he weird, because outwardly male and female penguins both just have a cloaca, so what should we cut?
USAID should fund a program that relocates all democrats to the South Pole.
Why do you hate the south pole?
I'd prefer the North Pole as polar bears are much more dangerous than leopard seals.
And in danger of extinction due to lack of food according to any D who joins the polar bear narrative.
This could be win-win
A motto for those who zealously want to save polar bears:
"Hug a bear, feed a bear"
"authors don't have a constitutional right to demand their books be made available at school libraries."
Correct. End of story. Case dismissed.
"Politicians don't have a constitutional right to demand that ALREADY BOUGHT BOOKS should be WASTED, along with taxpayer dollars that have already bought the books!"
That would go a long way towards fixing twat is wrong right now. Ideally, we'd stop the fighting by eliminating pubic schools, going private-only, and stop the licensing deals where you have to have a PhD to scratch yer butt!!! Butt GOOD LUCK with all of that!
Meanwhile...
Government Almighty, in no cases, is compelling pubic libraries to include the favored, little-known books of authors which are the "pets and darlings" of powerful Government Almighty politicians. If THAT were the case, we'd be reading about it all day, every day!
Twat IS happening, is that pubic school management and workers are picking and buying popular books to include... And then are told by powerful Government Almighty politicians, "No, you may SNOT include THAT book! Take it DOWN!!!"
Great, we'll let super-religious principals stack the libraries with religious tracts and super-religious teachers buy creationist books and when anyone complains they can say "To late, don't want already bought books to be wasted".
Genius.
I don’t know how you argue with that mongoloid. He’s the only grey box I have.
Literally insane.
I'm pretty against, for me at least, muting people on the comments, but I'm close to muting him. I've tried to have conversations with him, but he always reverts to the same debunked arguments ("Hang Mike Pence") and copy pasta, and can't be reasoned with. And I'm really tired of seeing someone I think is a baby boomer substituting "dirty" words for everything. It's just really lame and I feel sorry for him, as I suspect he is emotionally damaged or something. I don't know, I'm not a psychologist, and this is just from reading his comments.
Debunked, my butt!!! Same old lies, over and over again, from ye EVIL liars!
“Hang Mike Pence”!!! Dear Leader agrees!!!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-defends-jan-6-rioters-hang-mike-pence-chant-newly-n1283798
Trump defends Jan. 6 rioters’ ‘hang Mike Pence’ chant in new audio
The audio captured part of an interview ABC News’ Jonathan Karl conducted with Trump at Mar-a-Lago in March for Karl’s upcoming book.
PS, Mike Pence’s dangerous words and ideas were that votes, voters, established democratic norms and processes, peaceful transfers of power, and the USA Constitution should actually be RESPECTED!!! Now just IMAGINE THAT!!! This was HERESY to True Trumpaloos!!!
I don't know. Do the libraries even ask congress what they can or can't do?
Buying books and putting them on the shelves of a publicly funded library is a decision open to control by taxpayers, not solely by people being paid by the same taxpayers. If failing to buy a book is censorship then the library is doubtlessly guilty of massive censorship because they only purchase a small number of the books in print every year. If the library believes in putting books on the shelves is an expression of free speech, gift them with a complete writings of David Duke and see what happens.
This is another example of Progressives losing control they have had for twenty years and trying to keep that control using loud flawed arguments.
"If failing to buy a book is censorship..."
Who, besides the voices and vices in Yer PervFected Mind, ever said that SNOT buying a book IS censorShit? The same voices and vices that said, "Hang Mike Pence" and "Hang the seemingly gay penguins"?
Evidently, it cannot be said too many times.
The book is not banned.
No author has a "right" to have his work purchased by any government institution.
No author has a "right" to have his work purchased by any government institution.
Who ever asserted anything to the cuntrary? Also note that no Americans besides Dear Donald has the right to declare wars of conquest against Panama, Canada, the Gaza Strip, and Greenland!
Meanwhile, I would like to stop the WASTE of taxpayer money involved in TAKING DOWN ALREADY-BOUGHT BOOKS!!!
“The authors of a picture book about two male penguins raising a chick together argue excluding their book from school libraries violates their free speech rights.”
“In 2023, the authors of the book filed a lawsuit against one school district that removed the book, arguing that "the Ban's vagueness, in combination with its harsh penalties, make it more likely to be applied expansively—such as to public school libraries—at the expense of the authors' free speech rights and the students' right to receive information."”
The authors asserted such.
"...one school district that removed the book..."
They REMOVED an already-bought book! There is NO assertion that a random author of a little-known book has a "right" to have his book purchased! Learn to READ, with an open mind, instead of a pre-formed conclusion, please!
Even when socialist governments are responsible for 100% of book purchases?
So this is why nobody voted for penguins to be president.
Why, was a gay penguin the (L) candidate?
Oliver wasn’t gay enough. And I’m pretty certain he completely failed at being a penguin too.
Maybe not president, but don’t forget, Opus was Bill the Cat’s vice presidential running mate.
I believe they received more votes than Chase Oliver.
One of my favorite "political" comics was the one where they pulled a delegate from the Democrats to the Meadow Party because a dead cat was better than Mondale.
actually -- I duckduckgoed it: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EvmOyeomdmM/V4mVKstV0II/AAAAAAAACMk/KApefkgVxeQRIJ2qHprDf8_RHNEbwjg4wCLcB/s1600/Mondale.gif
Problem point is ... Insisting the Public (Commie) teach YOUR kids on everyone else's STOLEN dime.
If you still haven't noticed it yet. Every Commie/Socialist program implemented in the USA is the very roots of all the discontent, division, poverty and failure.
'Guns' don't make sh*t. 'Guns' don't teach sh*t.
The only humanitarian use of a monopoly of 'Guns' is to ensure Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
Setup your community 'public' school WITHOUT the 'Guns'.
Thank you! The first realization that the solution is getting government out of school control. I'd just as soon get them out of funding too, but they are separable issues. Government has no business dictating anything about education -- not curricula, not testing, not truancy. It is none of their business.
All this blather about banning assumes government should control schools. That attitude is available in podcasts and posts all over the internet and in print magazines. If Reason wants to stand out from the crowd as a libertarian rag, they should emphasize the libertarian angle of getting government out of schools.
Fire KMW.
Get out of DC.
Be libertarian.
This is an Emma Camp article. I don't think I've read one article from her where she even gives lip service to the libertarian position of education not being a proper role of the government, especially the federal government.
Including probably a dozen FAFSA articles complaining it was too hard to get her hands on other people's money.
Emma the pedo.
You are not human
Anti-human.
Normal, reasoning, bone stock humans would come to a reasonable compromise. Especially after getting slapped in the face for the "Gay Wedding Pizza" insult, slapped across the face again for the "Don't Say Gay" dishonesty, and slapped yet again for the truly inhumane "Just a little bit of castrating minors is OK."
They would rightly recognize "OK, we can sell at the book store down on the corner... and people can get it off Amazon... and the Montessori (or other alternative) School will put it on their shelves... and there are little lending libraries all over town that can/do have it... it's *OK* if we don't *force* this school to stock it." but they can't do that because they hate humanity.
And they LOVVVVE control.
Democrats have no souls.
Let's turn the tables on this retardation:
In the sequel a big, white bear gruesomely dismembers and eats all three penguins.
If you say, "But polar bears live in the North Pole and penguins live in the South!" that means you're an anti-gay racist that hates diversity, immigration, and nature and children should be taught to gruesomely dismember gay penguins in school just to spite your stupid notions of free speech.
You disingenuous fuckwads.
Now that sounds like a children’s book I could approve of.
Who let the bear out of the trunk!?!?!?!
The fucking Democrats understand that they may have won the election if they hadn’t overplayed their culture war bullshit, especially with the kiddos, right?
I sense more doubling down; from the latest Gallup poll:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/656636/democrats-favor-party-moderation-past.aspx
It seems some 45% of them want their party to be more "moderate" but most of them want it more left [29%] or to stay where it is [22%]; as it is the DNC just concluded that Harris lost due to "racism and misogyny" and then elected David Hogg to be vice chair [which he has already abused by using their donor email list to promote his own CPAC]. Meanwhile Carville and others are playing the "just wait a month or so until the Trump administration implodes or something."
Summation: it's a shit show and I hope is fractures
I hoe, they go so violently insane that the public will be begging for McCarthyism.
Good thing schools aren't teaching kids how to read.
Also, what are kids supposed to be learning from gay penguins?
"Also, what are kids supposed to be learning from gay penguins?"
This is what I would argue, aside from the obvious "no book is entitled to be in any library, anyone can still buy on amazon"
It seems the author's intent was "look, gay couples are cool, and they can be just as good parents as heteronormative ones, look, it happens in nature!"
And that's fine, buy that book and show it to your kids if thats your bag. Doesnt mean it needs to be in a school library
Never heard of a gay penguin; I imagine if any animals are gay, they [assuming sexual preferences are genetically determined] never reproduce that trait and cease to exist within their species.
My favorite is that gay penguins are systematic and significant, not just some marginal oddity or irrelevant one-off, but primates that objectively reproduce via forcible rape and the dismemberment of illegitimate or competing offspring (by both males and females) are just humans projecting on the marginal behavior of a few odd cases.
It's like doing a mental Yurchenko Double Pike Vault onto your own genitals in order to avoid having any sense of reason or morals.
Monogamous animals like seabirds do sometimes form same-sex couples.
And you don't give a cite?
I wonder if she'd bemoan a book about a male and female penguin who saved two male penguins from horrific sexual abuse by two male penguins who were their "fathers" but pimped them out to others and made media of them nailing their young sons not being carried in a school.
Is it pedofile or minor attracted person?
Trick question, the answer is wood chipper insert
Let’s start with Shrike.
JFC. Does anybody else remember in the 90s when there was no gay agenda? I mean back when the USAID was secretly funding the Stonewall Organization (est. 1998) in the EU. Not the first time after the media perpetrated the "Gay Wedding Pizza" psyop and everybody thought it was a one-off. Or the second time when San Diego disciplined firefighters for refusing to participate in pride parade so they could be sexually harassed and everybody thought that was just a one-off. Or the third time when Reason and other parts of the mass media went through the idiotic, anti-liberty "Transgender Bathroom Panic" psyop... or the fourth time when Reason and other parts of the mass media went through the "Don't Say Gay" psyop... or this iteration of "Don't Say Gay 2.0".
I mean way back in the day when you could legitimately open a bookstore (or jewelery store or pizzeria or bakery or web design company...), not stock all the books, have a personal opinion, and the looming terror of having a "diverse" person come in your shop and discover that you don't have the exact right kind of diverse selection would trigger a progressive fatwa against you seemed largely fictional?
JFC at least the fictional back woods hillbillies dragging queers to death behind their pickup trucks largely kept to themselves in the hills and didn't try to shut down your pizzeria and force their ideology on schoolchildren.
I think very highly of FIRE but this time they're wrong. A library choosing what books to include in the collection is entirely the library's speech and is not a 1A violation. Consider FIRE's own arguments in other contexts (this time against government pressure) that a social media company's decision on what content to promote (or not) is their speech, not merely the speech of the underlying authors. For a more extreme example, you do not have a 1A right to insist that your child's kindergarten scribblings be shown at the National Portrait Gallery right next to Jenny Saville's work.
And libraries do not lose that 'curation = their own speech' right merely by virtue of being public schools. I can't insist that my personal manifesto be included in elementary school libraries either. That's not a 1A violation.
I think very highly of FIRE but this time they're wrong.
That's because you think they're actually a rag tag group of individuals using their spare time to sift through the abundance of Free Speech abuses and cherry pick the best ones to defend rather than a non-profit staffed by bureaucrats and ambulance-chasers that doesn't actually care about free speech but is primarily concerned with ginning up controversy to keep their grift alive.
People used to think very highly of the ACLU too.
Any group not specifically set up as conservative will always become progressive.
And not even then. Remember the Boy Scouts.
2020 Retarded Social Activist DNC hacks: Don't Say Gay.
2024 Retarded Social Activist DNC hacks: We've lost the message.
2025 Retarded Social Activist DNC hacks: Don't Say Gay - 2.0!
On the bright side, you aren't wrong. You really have lost the message. You used to get caught insulting half or more of the population on a hot mic and then turned around and said "But we're doing this for you! All of you!" and now that it's obvious to everyone that you're lying, you don't know how tell people you just really, really hate them all while maintaining your popularity.
If I don't have it in my library, do I violate their 1st amendment rights?
Do I if I say I can never have it?
Does it change because I am a military retired and so receive federal funding?
Schools don't have rights, individuals do. The individuals running the schools are free to purchase the book and make it available on in their own library.
Children and parents are free to purchase the books.
The schools system is using the discretion it should naturally have to prioritize limited resources - or are we seriously arguing schools should have books on Creationism too?
What sort of Creationism? The nasty, ignorant MAGA Christian bible kind? Or the noble, inclusive Indigenous sacred witch doctor earth spirit kind?
Yes, the progs are down with any kind of fundamentalism as long as it isn't Christian. That's how Native American activists are able to get away with their outrageous interference with archeology and anthropology.
The individuals running the schools are free to purchase the book and make it available on in their own library.
But school administrators are accountable to the citizens of the school district. They don't have the final word.
I don't want that for my children
YOU demand it for my children
You are goddam wrong.
If I write a book where the gay penguins contract HIV and the monkey pox, and die miserable and lonely deaths, does my First Amendment Right mean the library has to buy my book too?
[I'm not anti gay; I don't care what others do in terms of their personal lifestyle, but you don't get to use public domains like school libraries to push your agenda any more than I do]; if a school library in Providence RI wants to stock the book, that will be between them and the school board and the parents. If a library in Dothan AL doesn't want to, ditto. If libraries are obliged to stock whatever book the authors want it to, the result will be absurd and include everything from actual NAZI treatises to NAMBLA.
all so illogical. Money is limited. Kids can't read. Excellent lliterrature is way under-represented. School is not the place for pro or con gay. Parents are cornered by peiple like you. I do not want that book for my kids and the fact you love it means shitall to the discussion
JFC, how is this even a discussion? It's an idiotic book written by mentally ill idiots, and the school system run by sane adults do not want the idiotic book in their children's library. Case closed. This isn't about first amendment rights, it's about sanity and reason.
Go back to daily FAFSA articles Emma. It’s not libertarian, but at least you understood the basics
"So who's right?"
The state. No other answer is workable.
Space in school libraries is finite. To stock one book, another must be excluded.
Assuming the authors are right, why wouldn't the authors of what ever book gets excluded to make space for And Tango Makes Three have an identical claim based on their exclusion?
Absent school libraries having infinite space and infinite money, authors having a first amendment right to have their book included in school libraries is infeasible.
Space in school libraries is finite. To stock one book, another must be excluded.
I speak a little money printer, and while the "BRRRR...." has become more of a "brrrr..." in the last month or so, it still translates to "You're wrong." 🙂
No the correct translation is "mad.casual is unsane".
I would like to point out a few facts.
1: Books exist that should not be provided to children. This is adjusted to grade level.
2: Someone must make the decision about what should be purchased with government funds and put on limited shelf space in government run schools.
3: It makes complete sense for this to be a central authority. Since no librarian could possibly read all these books.
4: Choosing not to stock a book is not a ban in any sense of the word.
Now that we have these basic facts, stop the pearl-clenching. I cannot get to the actual question due to the hyperbole.
I also cannot trust the summaries given due to the sheer level of advocacy in every article.
However, if the accusations given by AT are true that the author is a known advocate of pedophilia (and as AT is the only person who has cited sources with quotations, I have no choice but to trust this), I think anything that the author wrote should be blacklisted.
Seems logical to me. Too many libertines here would not agree.
"The authors of a picture book about two male penguins raising a chick together argue excluding their book from school libraries violates their free speech rights."
No.
That was easy.
Nobody violated their free speech -- they got their book published, didn't they? There is no right for a book to be put in any particular location. In fact, forcing the library to have the book would violate the library's free speech rights. There is nothing in the Constitution that denies free speech to the government.
They/them came after the children.
That's why they/them lost the 2024 election.
"The authors of a picture book about two male penguins raising a chick together argue excluding their book from school libraries violates their free speech rights."
The sexualization of children is not free speech.
Only a complete idiot would make that argument.
Only a complete idiot would make that argument.
Welcome to (We're All Out Of) Reason Magazine.
Gay penguins??!!?? Really? Seriously?
gays should not be allowed to marry and especially they should not be allowed to adopt children, especially after the horrific abuse two young children suffered at the hands of the two faggots who "adopted them" who were then sexually abused not only by those two faggots but by others as well.
This is classic violation of free speech. Florida is banning any mention of ideas they politically don't like. The book in question has no objectionable content unless you are a bigot.
Fuck you, Tony. It's a religious tract. How you would bitch and moan if they stocked the library with picture bibles on the taxpayer dime, but I guess this is (D)ifferent, huh?
I have no objection to school libraries stocking bibles as long as they stock texts from other religions.
With tax money? None of your peers would be happy with that.
The Turner Diaries has a viewpoint. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion does too. Excluding these popular titles from school libraries is just as much a "violation of free speech" as is the exclusion of the gay penguin book.
No, it isn't.That perverts 3 principles of schooling.
Schools are in loco parentis, they are not free agents
If kids can't read write or do rithmetic , then you are obviously arguing about trivialities. (and the two ARE related, when you 'anything goes' jerks came into prominence the standards departed.
Worst of all, arguing about such trashy trivialities tends to paint YOU as a poster child for NOT doing things the way they were done to produce you. EG
2 of 3 Americans Wouldn’t Pass U.S. Citizenship Test
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-10-12/2-of-3-americans-wouldnt-pass-us-citizenship-test
https://web.archive.org/web/20210421045807/http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/politic/religious.html applies just as well to communication as to religion. You can't have government schools without government's favoring some ideas over others.
Roberta, 3 logic problems.
Government is an abstraction, all favoring is done by a living breating PERSON.
Even by your very poor argument itself you are wrong
61 percent of Senate Finance Committee members and 57 percent of Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee members send or have sent their children to private school;
43 percent of House Ways and Means Committee members and 33 percent of House Education and Workforce Committee members took advantage of the opportunity to choose a private school for their children;
33 percent of Members who represent the congressional districts of the 10 largest U.S. cities have chosen the private school option; and
28 percent of the Black Caucus and 14 percent of the Hispanic Caucus chose to send their children to private schools.
And amazinlgly if you really meant what you say you would want an outlet for those who can't help favoing religion.Right, you either favor it or you don't, so by your reasoning this case argues against just letting things be.
Good. It should not be available to early elementary school kids. They need only to know there are boy animals and girl animals and they have different plumbing. They have no need to know about perversions and crippling disabilities at that age.
I'm really getting sick of this argument. There is a difference between a "school library" and a "public library". If a book is banned from a "public library", then there is most definitely an issue. A "school library" is set up for members of that school and as such, what goes in there is meant to be appropriate and needed for the members of that school - be it a book, or an adult male unassociated with that school, such as myself.
But methinks the sick assholes pushing for this book to be in a school library probably would also be okay with me spending time in that library as well.
again, false by your own standards.
MANY kids are present in public libraries and would go there BECAUSE they can read what they are not able to read at school
Public libraries serve ALL. And go to your public library and try to find Boethius Consolation of Philosophy
Studies of the Founding of America
Solid Bible studies
-- but 2 faggot penguins that you will find
I will give up quite a bit as an adult to make things easier for children. You do me no disservice by not having a poorly-written piece of trash about pervert penguins.