New Lawsuit Against Florida Public School Library Book Bans

Allegations include violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments

I just received word that the PEN American Center as well as several book authors, publishers, and parents of children attending public school in Escambia County (Florida) have filed a lawsuit related to public school library book bans. The complaint can be found on Protect Democracy's website here.

The lawsuit alleges that the Escambia County School District and School Board removed and restricted books from public school libraries "based on their disagreement with the ideas expressed in those books." It further alleges that the School District has sided with "a challenger expressing openly discriminatory bases for challenge, overruling the recommendations of review committees at the school and district levels" and that "[t]hese restrictions and removals have disproportionately targeted books by or about people of color and/or LGBTQ people, and have prescribed an orthodoxy of opinion that violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

One of the banned books is the award-winning And Tango Makes Three, a picture book depicting the true story of two male penguins at the Central Park Zoo who raised a baby penguin named Tango for whom the mother couldn't care. The book's challenger successfully asserted when arguing for removal that the book served an "LGBTQ agenda using penguins."

The complaint at bar alleges that the book bans constitute viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. It also argues that the First Amendment right to receive information and ideas "is violated when a school district or school board removes or restricts access to library books in a narrowly partisan or political manner, and for the purpose of denying students access to ideas with which the school district or school board disagrees" (internal quotation marks and emphasis removed). Last, the complaint states that the "removal efforts at issue are based on discriminatory animus in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The plaintiffs are represented by Protect Democracy and Ballard Spahr. Let's see if Florida can keep children safe from co-parenting male penguins!

Comments

[Orbital Mechanic]

Vote Republicans out and you don't need lawsuits like this.

The party of "freedom" wants to control what you can read. They also want to control your sex life with all their cretin hangups.

Enough. Vote them out.

[Martinned]

1. Why didn't they think of that? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/03/florida-supreme-court-map-unconstitutional

2. What about the rights of the minority?

[hoppy025]

And the party of "Science" and "Freedom" wants to ensure that we're disarmed so that their pet transgender blacks can assault us with impunity because of Soros DAs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I DONT WANT 9 YEAROLDS HAVING SEX -- WITH ANYONE!!!!

[Nige]

My God, what a brave and heroic stand. Have you checked out the Florida foster care system lately?

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, But two wrongs dont make a right and you gotta start snmewhere.

[Nige]

But you should start with something that is a real wrong, not an imagined one.

[Gandydancer]

Pro-deviant-sex propaganda and drag queen story hours in school libraries isn't an "imagined" wrong.

What a Lefty-dominated defective foster care system has to do with this I cannot imagine. Just stop trying to change the subject. We're on to you.

[Sarcastr0]

Gandy saw a drag queen once.

Turned super gay for a whole week. Understands and fears their power now.

[Gandydancer]

Don't project. I'm not as easily influenced as a lefty nutter like you.

Didn't you say you'd blocked me?

[Martinned]

Get help, please.

[Sarcastr0]

You seem to be mixing up reading a book with a gay or black person in it with having sex.

You should probably retake biology.

[Gandydancer]

So sad that you encounter resistance when you try to get and keep for your sick propaganda free rein in elementary schools.

[Frank Drackman]

when you type in all caps it's like your shouting, would
you shout that in Pubic??
Even though it's a perfectly reasonable thought, you might get "Choked Out" by a Marine Corpse Veteran

Frank

[Ben_]

You think voters are very interested in making sure kids have access to sexually explicit books in school? They just had an election for that school board. Do you think access to sexually explicit books was a big issue that motivated voters? Which way?

Why do you want kids to have these particular books?

[Nige]

The penguin book is sexually explicit?

[Doug Heffernan]

The book banners contend that these are not straight penguins. They are a couple of gay, trans or other non-cisgender penguins.

Or, even if they are straight penguins, that because they are of the same biological sex, they are being too chummy or something.

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, try to pretend that two-daddys and two-mommys propaganda isn't what it is. We're on to you and that gaslighting isn't going to work.

[Ben_]

Book content preferences are for the school board to decide.

Do you think voters are very interested in this particular bird book?

[Nige]

If *some* voters are interested enough to call for its removal, they can damn well explain why.

[Ben_]

Seems like the school board already decided the reasoning was adequate.

[Nige]

And was the reasoning that the book is sexually explicit?

[Ben_]

You should ask them. Maybe they just don’t like flightless birds.

[Nige]

That would almost make sense as a reason, though.

[Gandydancer]

I'm perfectly happy to explain to you that the book is pro-deviance propaganda and most parents don't want their kids propagandized in that way. But you of course already know this. Why you think that determined stupidity is a good look is harder to explain.

[Frank Drackman]

The "Unabridged" "The Diary of a Young Girl" by A. Frank certainly is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If adults are hanging out in elementary school libraries, thats an issue.

[Nige]

...teachers?

[MeanGene]

Is there a copy of the "Turner Diaries" in your local public or school library? If not, are you even asking why not? Or do you only care when the banned books are ones you like and agree with?

[Ben_]

They’re pretending there’s actually a right involved.

Your book doesn’t have such a right though. Because shut up.

[Nige]

If you want them to stock a copy, fill out a request form.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And if they deny it, sue them for violating your First Amendment rights?

[Gandydancer]

Yeah, keeping out "The Turner Diaries" is obviously viewpoint discrimination too. They probably also block websites on the school internet. But their "principles" are blatantly a lie.

[Tom for equal rights]

American schools are significantly behind other countries in the primary subjects - Math - Science - Reading.

At the same time, progressives are complaining about banning books that are not age appropriate.

The focus should be on improving the overall education on the subjects that matter instead of agenda driven social science

[Ben_]

Their interest is clear.

[shawn_dude]

American schools are behind on reading, according to you, and Republicans are banning books. If only Republicans would take the same approach to mass shootings in those same schools.

I for one would advocate for more books about red herrings.

[Tom for equal rights]

Significantly behind on math and science - and you are upset about books which are not age appropriate being banned.

Address the substantive problem

[Gandydancer]

Republicans are arguing for stocking books that advocate mass shootings?

Link?

[SimonP]

Here is where you explain how "banning books that are not age appropriate" (even though most of them actually are) helps to promote achievement in math, science, and/or reading.

Not a single thing I've seen Republicans propose for public schools recently does anything about improving performance. The agenda right now is: defund public schools through voucher systems; impose religious propaganda and prayer times on schools; create systems that subject teachers to draconian punishments if they fail to tow the line on certain culture-war subjects; and scour school libraries for any content that doesn't abide by right-wing ideology on the culture war subjects.

Precious little about actual math or science.

[Gandydancer]

As if this lawsuit were about promoting math or science.

[Gandydancer]

"The party of 'freedom' wants to control what you can read."

If the taxpayer doesn't buy pro-tranny propaganda for you and put it in the school libraries you can't read it?

[TW]

Yes, and by the same standard, if a school decides not to include a book on the required reading list for a class, then that's the same as "banning" it.

[not guilty]

Have you read the complaint? The lawsuit is not about the acquisition of library books; it is about the removal of or limitation of access to previously purchased books based on political or ideological disagreement with the ideas they express. These are analytically distinct issues. See, Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).

[arbitrary aardvark]

I would agree pico is most on point. it was a plurality opinion. i am unclear how much precedential weight it carries.
under the unitary executive rule, the school board should be allowed to edit the content of their libraries and curricula.
i personally would like the gay penguin book, but i recognize it's not my decision.

[not guilty]

"When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds." Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).

In Pico, Justice White expressly declined to discuss First Amendment issues. 457 U.S. at 883. Justice Blackmun joined Justice Brennan's plurality opinion in all but Part II-A(1) thereof. Id., at 882. To the extent of any inconsistency with the plurality, Blackmun's opinion controls. Blackmun and the plurality agreed that school officials may not remove books from school libraries for the purpose of restricting access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in the books, when that action is motivated simply by the officials' disapproval of the ideas involved.

[Gandydancer]

The questions may be distinct, but the issue is the same. There is no reason a school board should be unable to take account of inappropriate content acquired by pro-deviants who need firing when de-aquisitioning books.

[not guilty]

Your pointed refusal to answer whether you have read the complaint is duly noted.

[John Rohan]

The party of “freedom” wants to control what you can read.

Highly ironic, from the party that wants to remove Dr. Seuss books from sale, ban Fox News from the airwaves, and burn Harry Potter books.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is why the Volokh Conspiracy is so overwhelmingly male.

This Conspirator has blogged about something Ron DeSantis would not approve. I am sure Prof. Volokh can explain and apologize this away, and the Volokh Conspiracy will continue to be on good terms with Ron DeSantis and Moms 4 Liberty, but he'll enjoy that about as much as the UCLA dean likes apologizing for employees' racial slurs.

I don't want to be too hard on the male Conspirators, though. If Florida conservatives banned every Disney movie and character from every school in the state, and from every bit of Florida land not owned by Disney, at least two or three Conspirators would be bothered enough to feel bad about not posting about it.

[Frank Drackman]

Coach Jerry Sandusky, experienced in overwhelming males.

[Ed Grinberg]

This is why the Volokh Conspiracy is so overwhelmingly male.

https://dennisprager.com/column/women-are-disproportionately-hurting-our-country/

[swood1000]

Is it the job of the primary school to teach about LGBT issues? Is it unconstitutional for a school to say “no”?

[bernard11]

No.

Is it their job to do all they can to prevent students from learning about those issues an their own?

Is it their job to prescribe "orthodox" views?

[Brett Bellmore]

Students are incapable of learning things on their own outside school hours?

The objection here isn't that this makes it impossible for the students to learn something. It's that this makes it harder for the students to learn things their parents are trying to shelter them from. If their parents WANTED them learning these things, it puts up no obstacle to speak of.

[hoppy025]

Bernard and his coterie of groomers think that parents have no such right, and that his right to teach little boys how to relax so that the Rev. Kirkland can penetrate them with less pain is paramount.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

teach little boys how to relax so that the Rev. Kirkland can penetrate them

Great blog, with great fans, Volokh Conspirators.

I especially like the civility standards Prof. Volokh has talked about.

[Frank Drackman]

Get Coach Sandusky complaining about "Civility Standards"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You and the Conspiracy make a perfect pair.

Disaffected. Awkward. Obsolete. Bigot-friendly, if not worse.

[Gandydancer]

^^^ Get Coach Sandusky complaining about “Civility Standards”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am not complaining about them. This is the Volokh Conspirators' playground and they get to set the rules.

I am expressing a sense that the professed civility standards were pretextual and/or illusory. A lie, most likely.

Carry on, bigoted clingers.

[Nige]

Some parents might be trying to shelter their kids. Surely they don't get to dictate the content of a school library?

[Gandydancer]

They get to influence the school board's standards for acquisitions and retention at least as much as you do, pal.

[Krychek_2]

And what happens when another group of parents decides they want their children taught that God created the earth in six literal solar days 6000 years ago? There are places in Florida where such parents make up enough critical mass to take over a local school board. And they, too, would see it as shielding children from views they don't want their children exposed to.

It is simply impossible to teach anything in such a way that some parent won't object. I favor parents rights up to a point, but in Florida that point is getting smaller and smaller in the rear view mirror.

[Bob from Ohio]

"want their children taught "

Like every state, Florida has laws mandating what is taught in schools. So your lame fearmongering cannot happen.

If you mean remove library books, why do you hate democracy?

[Nige]

Is criticising this hating democracy? Is criticising anything done by elected representatives hating democracy? Bad news, Biden-haters.

[Krychek_2]

But you've simply taken the issue to another level without resolving it. In the first place, creationists have actively been trying to get creationism taught in public schools. In the second place, the issue is whether a parental objection should be sufficient to stop a viewpoint from being expressed, whether we're talking curriculum or library books. And in the third place, as for hating democracy, I am far from convinced that these right wing extremist crackpots actually represent a majority of Floridians.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

In the first place, creationists have actively been trying to get creationism taught in public schools.

And they've been prevented from doing so (rightfully so) by the courts...most notably by a conservative Republican judge. So, it's not happening.

In the second place, the issue is whether a parental objection should be sufficient to stop a viewpoint from being expressed

No, preventing viewpoint expression is NOT the issue...even remotely.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

most notably by a conservative Republican judge

That judge was about as far from a MAGA-QAnon-Stormfront-Federalist Society kook as one can get and still be a Republican.

[Tom for equal rights]

American schools in general are falling significantly behind in basic math and science. Yet the the focus is on whether kids should learn about children with two mom's.

The teaching focus should be on the basic math, sciences, not agenda driven social sciences.

[Krychek_2]

I don't entirely disagree with you that math and science need more attention than what they're getting. But these other issues will come up, if only because someone in the class does in fact have two mommies.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, almost all the time these issues won't come up unless the teacher goes out of their way to make sure they come up.

[Nige]

Having the book about the penguins in the school library isn't focusing on anything. Demanding it be removed is.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If the book is simply about penguins, what do you think made it controversial?

[Nige]

Shouldn't you be telling me?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Ugh, I forgot how little programming your mindmasters provided you.

So tedious.

[Gandydancer]

"Having the book about the penguins in the school library isn’t focusing on anything."

Liar. It was put there precisely to focus on and promote homosexual "marriage".

[Sarcastr0]

Yes, acknowledging that homosexuality is a thing that exists is an important element in the argument for gay marriage.

Describing reality is not really promoting anything, though.

And you've lost on gay marriage. Hard. You're in a vanishing number of folks still salty about it. An incredible achievement in being way behind the times.

[swood1000]

Is it their job to do all they can to prevent students from learning about those issues an their own?

But excluding LGBT books from the school’s curriculum does not prevent students from learning about those issues on their own. Nor does it prescribe “orthodox” views. It simply leaves those issues without input from school instruction.

[bernard11]

excluding LGBT books from the school’s curriculum does not prevent students from learning about those issues on their own.

Of course it doesn't, but that's a silly point. Notice what I said:

Is it their job to do all they can to prevent students from learning about those issues an their own?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But your comment is still stupid, because what they're doing has nothing to do with preventing anyone from learning whatever they want "on their own".

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The assholes who are trying to scrub schools of anything incongruent with their stale, bigoted, superstitious thinking are equally eager to get as much religion -- absolute fucking nonsense -- in schools as possible.

You can't reason with belligerent ignorance, superstition, or bigotry. You can only continue to defeat the clingers in the culture war and the modern American marketplace of ideas, letting up solely when they are roadkill.

[SimonP]

Nor does it prescribe “orthodox” views. It simply leaves those issues without input from school instruction.

So, is it your position that laws that ban instruction on sexuality and gender identity requires schools not to provide any instruction on "traditional" marriage or families, or materials that reinforce "traditional" gender roles? We should start pulling all of that material, as well, right?

[swood1000]

So, is it your position that as long as the school explains the basics of human reproduction it must also elucidate all alternative sexual preferences? Where’s the stopping point?

[Gandydancer]

The stopping point is when Lefty wins and through Lefty's control of acquisitions prevents any viewpoints except Lefty's own from from remaining in school libraries.

[SimonP]

These laws don’t ban teaching about “all alternative sexual preferences” (alternative to what, exactly?). They ban instruction on sexuality and sexual identity.

You are saying that this is no problem – the ban doesn’t “prescribe orthodox views” – it just takes schools out of the discussion.

So the point I am making is that you’re wrong about that characterization. The bans by their terms prohibit instruction on sexuality and sexual identity, but as practiced the point is to permit instruction on what you call “the basics of human reproduction” – i.e., the presumed orthodox views of human sexuality – while prohibiting any discussion about what you call “alternative sexual preferences.”

You’ve effectively conceded, then, that these bans are about prescribing “orthodox” views – while trying to hook me into a slippery slope. Good job?

[swood1000]

Check out the contents of the book Gender Queer. Spoiler: it displays pictures of children engaged in fellatio. Could someone make an argument for me that this book should not be removed from a primary school library?

[Nige]

It’s a sex-ed book for teenagers. I'd be shocked if the number of primary school libraries it's in rose to a single digit.

[swood1000]

Would you oppose a policy to remove that book from all primary school libraries? If not, why not?

[Nige]

I would first have to be shown that such a policy was necessary because it was being stocked in primary school libraries, otherwise it's just posturing.

[swood1000]

So, you’re not in favor of a school adopting a rule that books showing illustrations of children engaged in sex acts are to be excluded from elementary school libraries? Why not? Is it because librarians already “know” that such books should be excluded so you are relying on an unwritten rule? What else keeps such books out?

[Nige]

Pretty much. It's a librarian's job to stock age-appropriate material. That should cover all eventualities.

[swood1000]

So what is the objection to a written rule that accomplishes the same result as the unwritten rule that you don't object to?

[Nige]

Because it's performative, at best.

[swood1000]

But not because it harms anybody. Your objection is as to style.

[Nige]

I think that sort of performative behaviour IS harmful.

[swood1000]

I think that sort of performative behaviour IS harmful.

But if they are just codifying rules that already exist in an unwritten form and that everybody agrees with, then this would not cause such rules to be brought to the attention of the public. The children would not even know about it. Where does the harm come in?

[EscherEnigma]

The failure of legislators to actually articulate the "unwritten rule" into a "written rule", for one.

[swood1000]

How about this: books in the elementary school library shall not contain images of children engaged in fellatio?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wow, now swood1000 you've gone all homophobic and are violating Gay Rights.

[Nige]

But what does that have to do with the penguin book?

[swood1000]

But what does that have to do with the penguin book?

The book under discussion, Gender Queer, contains images of children engaged in fellatio.

[SimonP]

The problem is that the "written rule" conflates any material that portrays LGBT people or their lives in a positive or accepting way with being "age inappropriate," and treats even the most bad-faith parental objection as sufficient to launch an inquiry.

Christ, just look back at the OP. Is the "written rule" suppose to be banning that? If you think it should be, then it's clear that you understand what the objection actually is. You're just being intentionally obtuse about it.

[swood1000]

Look, in the post you are replying to we were discussing a book that contained an image of children engaged in fellatio. It was claimed that such a book would never be found in an elementary school library because there is an unwritten rule understood by librarians that forbids it. I asked what is wrong with having a written rule with the same content as the unwritten rule that everybody agrees with.

[SimonP]

And I am explaining to you that saying that the written rule has the "same content" as the unwritten rule is a dishonest dodge. The written rule may say something unobjectionable - that is, indeed, how the written rule gets adopted and promoted to the skies by co-conspirators like yourself - but it is understood by everyone in a position to enforce it to mean something other than the unwritten rule.

You pass the ban by claiming you care about kindergarteners being exposed to fellatio. You apply the ban by tossing out books about penguins.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I object strongly to the broader implications the written rule relies upon—that officials are empowered by election to act at pleasure as censors of school reading materials.

[Ben_]

Protecting children isn’t a priority for some people. They’d rather use children.

[Nige]

Yeah, like ‘our childrens are being groomed! By gay penguins! Let's ban books!'

[EscherEnigma]

Yes, conservatives have been using children in their culture war against queer people for quite a while now.

DeSantis is the spiritual successor of Anita Bryant, and for some reason y'all get offended when we notice.

[Gandydancer]

No one gives a damn what you "notice".
We just don't want you propagandizing kids for deviance, especially on our dime.

[Gandydancer]

"I would first have to be shown that such a policy was necessary because it was being stocked in primary school libraries, otherwise it’s just posturing."

No, there is no good reason for you to refuse to reply. Hypotheticals are a standard tool in the Socratic method to explore the implications of a position. You were asked a hypothetical. Stop evading and answer it or we'll all recognize that what you're really doing is engaging in attempted concealment.

[swood1000]

Would you oppose a policy to remove that book from high school libraries. If so, why?

[Nige]

No I would not. Sex-ed books are appropriate for teenagers.

[swood1000]

You mean that yes, you would. So, are you OK with any sex-ed book, no matter the content, containing graphic photographs of minors engaged in all variety of sexual acts imaginable? Does it impact your thinking that child pornography is dealt with very severely by the legal system?

[Nige]

Child pornography is illegal, so by definition it can’t be stocked by any library without incurring legal penalties, as is proper. Do you object to all sex-ed and biology books that contain illustrations relating to sex and reproduction?

[not guilty]

My understanding is that Gender Queer contains comic book style illustrations. https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/ Sexual images not including actual children are First Amendment protected and cannot be criminalized unless obscene under Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973). See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

[swood1000]

Well then, if the criminal law is not in play, is there any objection to a sex-ed class with detailed illustrations of people engaged in a goodly assortment of activities from this list? That certainly would be an education for children who never would have guessed that such activities were even engaged in.

[Nige]

Is a similar sort of 'well aren't you going to teach kids about necrophilia and coprophila?' gambit used about sex education aimed at straight kids? Or is the religious conservative association of LGTBQ with perversion too hard to shake off?

[swood1000]

Not sure I understand your question. The objection being made is that there is no reason for instruction in school to go beyond basic reproduction. The failure to do so does not disparage anybody and avoids involving the school in conflict.

If you are suggesting that homosexuality is not a perversion, but the other activities referred to on that page are perverse, the participants in those activities might disagree. How would you answer such people? Just that it is self-evident and leave it at that?

[swood1000]

Basic procreation is necessary for the continuation of the human species. I think that parents are on solid ground, though, when they object to instruction on paraphilias or fetishes or how to link up with gay men. For example, the book This book is Gay includes instruction on how to use a particular sex app:

1. Upload a tiny picture of yourself to the app.
2. The app works out your location.
3. The app tells you who the nearest homosexuals are.
4. You then chat to them.
5. Because they are near, it is easy to meet up with them.

Any problem with this as instruction for high school minors?

[Nige]

Indviduals do not bear responsibility for the continutation of the human species, not can others impose that responsibility on them.

I would no more object to that than to any other information about how tech is used in the modern world.

[swood1000]

I would no more object to that than to any other information about how tech is used in the modern world.

There’s the problem. You think that unmarried minors should be encouraged to be sexually promiscuous with strangers, to the point of teaching in school how this is to be accomplished.

[Nige]

I think anyone caught having sex with underage minors is going to jail. I think when underage minors grow up to be consenting adults, they’re better off armed with knowledge than blinded by ignorance, and it's nobody’s business whether they’re promiscuous or not.

[Gandydancer]

A minor who isn't instructed in the use of a gay sex hookup app -- according to you merely "information about how tech is used in the modern world." --- isn't on that account "blinded by ignorance".

[shawn_dude]

If the school is going to ban any information regarding couples that are presumed to have sex, I'd expect them to also ban books with male/female couples.

[Gandydancer]

Exactly no one is proposing that schools "ban any information regarding couples that are presumed to have sex" (Abraham and Mary Lincoln?), but thanks for playing.

[Ruqt]

The Supreme Court has ruled that states may protect pigs from the pig farmers who raise them. Pigs are protected by our Constitution. Our children, not so much. I can understand mothers not wanting to expose young children to the fear that a mother may abandon them, is there a more nightmare inducing fear for a child? However, children are not pigs so lack government protection. Why allow pig farmers or mothers to freely exercise rearing skills endowed by Nature? Big Brother knows better.

[David Nieporent]

Are you having a stroke?

[Gandydancer]

Are you, NoPoint?

[MatthewSlyfield]

Few libraries could afford to keep every book ever published in their collections.
A school library refusing to carry a particular book is not a ban. Their reason for not carrying a specific book is not relevant to anything.

[Martinned]

Their reason for not carrying a specific book is not relevant to anything.

Well, that's exactly the question raised here, isn't it? Here is Dale Carpenter explaining it at greater length: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/676640?journalCode=scr

[Dr. Ed 2]

The state is under no obligation to have a library.

[Krychek_2]

Right, but once it decides to have a library, there are limits on how blatantly it may impose viewpoint discrimination.

[swood1000]

how blatantly it may impose viewpoint discrimination.

Whose rights are being violated here?

[shawn_dude]

Children and parents. That's why they're suing.

[swood1000]

Children and parents. That’s why they’re suing.

Let’s take the book This book is Gay. It encourages kids to use a particular app to link up with homosexuals in their area:

1. Upload a tiny picture of yourself to the app.
2. The app works out your location.
3. The app tells you who the nearest homosexuals are.
4. You then chat to them.
5. Because they are near, it is easy to meet up with them.

Some parents might object that they don’t want their kids to be encouraged to be promiscuous with strangers. Tough luck? The First Amendment requires the school library to contain this book?

[Stephen Lathrop]

swood, you are being pretty stubborn about not seeing commonplace facts. School libraries are stocked on the basis of collections policies, not by whim. The policies are worked out, monitored, and amended according to curricular needs, and other educational purposes. Let that be the standard to decide what books to put in the library, or to remove from the library, and mostly issues of the sort you purport to fear will not arise. If in some rare case something does arise, deal with it as a personnel problem, not as a censorship problem.

Doing it that way cuts off from the political process access to viewpoint-based censorship. That is a good thing. It is unwise to incentivize culture warriors to run for political positions they think can empower them to indoctrinate students according to their own preferences.

[Dr. Ed 2]

So close the libraries.

[Nige]

Libraries are one of the great public goods. Of course you want to close them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There still would be libraries downtown.

[Nige]

What, just close the uptown libraries?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some places don't have a downtown.

They don't even have a genuine town.

Students in the can't-keep-up backwaters deserve an opportunity to escape those deplorable conditions.

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek_2 15 mins ago Flag Comment Mute User "Right, but once it decides to have a library, there are limits on how blatantly it may impose viewpoint discrimination."

dont confuse Viewpoint discrimination with age appropriate discrimination. Children have vastly more important things to learn at that age

[Krychek_2]

OK, probably without intending to, you’ve identified a central issue that’s not being talked about.

If someone were to proposed that a first grade class should take an hour to learn about gay or transgender issues, most people on all sides of the political divide would agree that’s not a good use of class time and oppose it. But that’s not what’s happening here.

The underlying premise of the gay rights movement is that being gay is no more remarkable than being left handed (and left handed people in fact used to be discriminated against). But we don’t take class time to talk about issues facing left handed people. Rather, we allow children to quietly come in contact and interact with left handed people, and we don’t teach them that there’s anything bad about being left handed.

I don’t think your six year old needs to be sat down and told that gay is good. I do think that your six year old is going to interact with gay people and, unless some adult is telling him to have a bad reaction, he’s not going to have a bad reaction, Prejudice is taught.

And the real problem with banning these books is that it teaches children that being gay is qualitatively different from being straight. It’s not. It’s conceptually the same as preferring to use your left hand rather than your right hand. If the adults don’t make a big deal about it, neither will the kids. It’s your paranoia and prejudice that they’re absorbing.

I spent ten years writing an advice column for a national gay magazine. One of the things I learned from that experience is that gay people really are no different from straight people except for the gender of the person they want to share their lives with. They've got the same issues you do. They want the same things out of life that you do: Love in their marriages, financial and emotional security, a sense of belonging, being part of a community. A lot of these political issues go away once people stop treating gay people as somehow different from straight people.

[swood1000]

And the real problem with banning these books is that it teaches children that being gay is qualitatively different from being straight.

How does the absence of instruction on topic X teach anything about topic X?

[Krychek_2]

Because it's not an actual absence of instruction.

I doubt that many grade school libraries have books on quantum physics or the finer points of Confucianism, because it has never seriously occurred to anyone that those books would be of interest to grade school students. That is an absence of instruction and no inferences about quantum mechanics or Confucianism should be drawn.

It's not an absence of instruction, however, to make a production out of removing books that are already there, or having a policy that such books cannot be in the library at all. In that case, you're affirmatively stating that there is a problem with having those books in the library.

[swood1000]

It’s not an absence of instruction, however, to make a production out of removing books that are already there

Who is making the production, though. Is it those removing the books or those protesting?

having a policy that such books cannot be in the library at all.

How many school children are even aware of such policies? If the policy states that X is not in the realm of what should be taught in school, then what is the instruction that the children receive from that? What is the deleterious instruction children receive if this book is removed from primary school libraries?

[Krychek_2]

And what kind of a production would you expect if a school announced a policy that the library won't have books that portray traditional nuclear families in a positive light?

Here's what I don't think you're grasping: Take this proposed rule, and make the same rule, only about traditional families. Then, after the school board has been stormed by outraged conservatives and the superintendent has been run out of town, tell me again that the problem is with the people making a big deal rather than the policy itself.

[swood1000]

So suppose a school adopts a policy excluding books from the school library that portray the traditional nuclear family in a positive light. Your argument is that the community uproar will bring that act to the attention of the students and the result will be instruction by the school that the nuclear family should not be viewed in a positive light. But here we are dealing with a policy that a certain issue should not be portrayed in any light whatsoever. What is the instruction there?

Do you oppose a policy examining the contents of elementary school libraries and removing any book having the contents that I linked to above? If not, why not? What is the instruction to the children that results from such a policy?

[Krychek_2]

The instruction is that gay lives and families must be treated differently from straight families. I don't know how else to explain it to you. The fact that gays are being singled out constitutes teaching that gay people need to be treated differently from the rest of the community.

Doesn't mean that I think that every book out there that deals with gay issues belongs in a school library. But to exclude the entire subject wholesale is to treat gay people as being different from the community rather than a part of the community.

[swood1000]

The instruction is that gay lives and families must be treated differently from straight families. I don’t know how else to explain it to you.

No, the instruction, at most, is that this is a subject on which members of the community reach opposite conclusions, in the words of the Supreme Court majority in Obergefell, “based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.” You object that if the school fails to declare that sex is a spectrum, this teaches that the assertion “sex is a spectrum” does not have as solid a scientific foundation as other statements that purport to be assertions of fact. I agree with that. But that is not the same as teaching that sex is or is not a spectrum. You equate the failure to affirm with a denial. But I think we’ve reached an ending point in this discussion.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don’t think your six year old needs to be sat down and told that gay is good."

One of the issues here is that we've long since passed "gay is good", we're at "being delusional about your sex is good" and headed towards "pedophilia is good".

[bernard11]

One of the issues here is that we’ve long since passed “gay is good”, we’re at “being delusional about your sex is good” and headed towards “pedophilia is good”.

Utter bullshit, Brett.

[Krychek_2]

Brett, just because right wing nuts scare themselves around the campfire with horror stories about normalizing pedophilia does not mean that it actually happening. Get a grip. If anything, we're moving in the opposite direction on pedophilia.

[Tom for equal rights]

Krychek - except that the language in proposed Minn legislation make pedophiles a protected class.

[Nige]

I'd be more concerned about states where it's actually legal to marry children.

[Krychek_2]

Do you have a cite to the Minnesota legislation?

[Ed Grinberg]

Do you have a cite to the Minnesota legislation?

https://www.americanexperiment.org/friday-the-12th-horror-at-the-mn-legislature/

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah, right, 2 Homos like Pete Booty-Judge and Pudgy-Chaz just buy some babies, when did that used to happen?

[Sarcastr0]

headed towards “pedophilia is good”.

And so Brett joins QAnon light, along with some of the other, even shittier posters around here.

[Gandydancer]

"... gay people really are no different from straight people except for the gender of the person they want to share their lives with."

Lie. E.g., there is no widespread straight equivalent of the gay bathhouse. Or male homosexual promiscuity.

"If the adults don’t make a big deal about it, neither will the kids."

Another lie. Kids don't need to be taught to pick on sissy boys.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And it cant fix mistakes? If it mistakenly subscribes to Hustler must it continue to do so?

[shawn_dude]

"Heather Has Two Mommies" is like Hustler?!

[Bored Lawyer]

That begs the question.

And query whether you really believe that result. The First Amendment protects all kinds of vile viewpoints. The KKK, the Nazis, etc. They all have a First Amendment right to, for example, hold a rally in a public street, or publish literature promoting their views.

So if one parent wants a pro-KKK book or Mein Kampf in the local library, or the school library, it has to be included? If the answer is no, then you are engaged in arbitrary line-drawing.

Conversely, if you say, the school can excluded those as offensive, it can do the same with pro-LGBT books.

[Krychek_2]

My high school library did have Mein Kampf; I know this because I checked it out and read it. We read selected passages from Mein Kampf in a high school history class. We also had Das Capital by Karl Marx. One of the differences between that era and the present was the notion that one of the functions of education is to expose people to lots of different viewpoints specifically so that kids can develop critical thinking skills.

Doesn't mean I'd have a whole library full of Nazi propaganda.

[Bored Lawyer]

And what if one parent wants "a whole library full of Nazi propaganda?" Or just a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? (Parent will even donate it to the school library, so no cost)

Point is, if there is a First Amendment right to have books in the library, then all kinds of offensive and obnoxious things will get in, same as protests on the street.

[Krychek_2]

And that harks back to a comment I made earlier about you can't give every parent a veto because it's impossible to say anything that someone won't find offensive. I'm fine with Mein Kampf in the library for the reasons I've already given; I'm not sure that the Protocols would add anything.

[zztop8970]

so the decision on where the line is to be drawn is based on what you personally are fine with? Mein Kamp, yes, Protocls, no? Surely you see the problem here.

[Krychek_2]

No, that's not where the line is to be drawn. But what I'm hearing is that a total ban and a total acceptance of everything are the only two possibilities.

[Bored Lawyer]

"But what I’m hearing is that a total ban and a total acceptance of everything are the only two possibilities."

NOT. The answer is, the First Amendment does not speak to the issue, and it is up to the local school authorities, who are answerable to the voters, to determine what can or cannot be included in a school library.

[not guilty]

"The answer is, the First Amendment does not speak to the issue, and it is up to the local school authorities, who are answerable to the voters, to determine what can or cannot be included in a school library."

Wrong. The First Amendment imposes limitations upon a local school board's exercise of its discretion to remove books from high school and junior high school libraries. Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 863-72 (1982) (plurality opinion). Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion." Id., at 872, quoting West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).

[Davy C]

@not guilty, it's a *school*. The teachers already actively teach certain values. I've seen posters on the wall of a public school with all sorts of pronouns that didn't exist back when I was in school, and you can bet that the teachers are telling the kids that they should be using them. They're setting what is orthodox far more than the mere availability of a book in the school library does.

And I would argue that it is the Supreme Court, not the First Amendment, which imposes those limitations. The First Amendment itself does not require such an outcome.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And what if one parent wants “a whole library full of Nazi propaganda?”

That would be the local Republican committee chair and Trump campaign coordinator.

Or, aiming higher on the conservative ladder, Harlan Crow.

[bernard11]

Conversely, if you say, the school can excluded those as offensive, it can do the same with pro-LGBT books.

Your argument is self-defeating. If the library says we don't want to have Mein Kampf because it is full of vicious ideas that we don't want to spread, then isn't banning books that give a positive portrayal of LGBT people saying that they are vicious, and students shouldn't be exposed to books treating them as normal?

[Bored Lawyer]

You really are failing in logic today. We are talking about 1st Amendment rights.

As for your question, no, because there are all kinds of reasons for banning something from a school library. Like, we don't think it's appropriate for elementary school students to be taught about sexuality, at least not by the school. That's for the parents.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you object to books depicting heterosexual married couples, or are you just a despicable bigot awaiting replacement?

[shawn_dude]

The First Amendment includes protection from government-sponsored viewpoint discrimination. Choosing to omit books that touch on racism, slavery, and LGBTQ persons, simply because they include mainstream viewpoints on American history and family structures is viewpoint discrimination. Public schools are government institutions and banning age-appropriate books because of their viewpoints violates the First Amendment.

[Ben_]

Do you get to decide the specific content of every school library in America? Do you get to decide what school boards may and may not base their book curation decisions on?

Where did you get that authority? Where did anyone?

The school board got theirs from the voters.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

If the library says we don’t want to have Mein Kampf because it is full of vicious ideas that we don’t want to spread, then isn’t banning books that give a positive portrayal of LGBT people saying that they are vicious, and students shouldn’t be exposed to books treating them as normal?

Holy crap...are you really so braindead that you can't grasp the idea that there can be different reasons for not wanting different works in a library? Your "reasoning" (and I'm being far more generous than you deserve) is like saying that if someone doesn't like cilantro because it tastes like soap to them (they have that gene), the fact that they also don't like broccoli means that broccoli also tastes like soap to them.

[Sarcastr0]

My 80% Jewish HS had Mein Kampf.

I did a report on it.

Understanding something is not condoning it.

[Frank Drackman]

my 0.8% Highschool (80% Afro-Amurican) had "Also Sprach Zarathustra"
I didn't do a report on it
I did have Richard Pryor's Album "Supernigger"
(the follow up to "Bicentennial Nigger"
Didn't do reports on those either

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh has cultivated and trained his fans well.

Recently, they publish the vile racial slurs for him. Prof. Volokh barely has to use a racial slur once a month or so, and his blog still maintains a three-times-each-month pace!

If UCLA's law dean is monitoring this blog, it's about time for another apology.

[Nige]

'If the answer is no, then you are engaged in arbitrary line-drawing.'

Which is why it's better to focus on who exactly is arguing for its inclusion and what arguments they are making for doing so and whether they are compelling or not, just as it's best to focus on who is arguing for the exclusion of books and what those arguments are.

[Bored Lawyer]

Are you a lawyer? Because you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The legal question is, does the First Amendment at all affect the decision. And the answer is: NO.

[Nige]

If you say so. The issue is that people are demanding that books be removed. The question is why they want those books removed.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's NOT the question.

[Nige]

It's always been the question. Some commenters here LOVE the reason - children's books are pornography! Others are less enamoured, but they've picked a side in the culture war, so it's all about democracy and the limited capacities of libraries to hold every book ever printed instead.

[Sarcastr0]

As to your arbitrary line drawing, maybe (I can see plenty of ways to make that line pretty bright). But it is important to note that a sympathetic fact pattern matters.

Argue there is no difference between Mein Kampf and a gay penguin book at your peril.

(Note that above I defend MF staying in libraries; noting the legal realities here)

[Stephen Lathrop]

So if one parent wants a pro-KKK book or Mein Kampf in the local library, or the school library, it has to be included? If the answer is no, then you are engaged in arbitrary line-drawing.

Bored Lawyer, apparently you never heard of a library collections policy. Libraries of all kinds use them. They coordinate professional insight from multiple administrative levels, with an eye to keeping library collections maximally useful to perform pre-described missions particular to each library. That turns out to be an all-purpose opposite to, "arbitrary line-drawing." Rely on that kind of policy and process, and you do not open things up to elected zealots, whatever their meddlesome intentions might be.

The collections policy method may not be perfect. Admitting zealotry into the process is far worse.

[M L]

Actually, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_speech

The government speech doctrine is a principle of constitutional law which says that, although the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause limits government regulation of private speech, it does not restrict the government when the government speaks for itself. In other words, the government is not required to act neutral when expressing its own opinion.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Again, since no library can afford to keep every book ever published, zero viewpoint discrimination in book selection is impossible.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But zero per-book veto power from the political process is not only possible, but long customary, and almost always successful.

[swood1000]

Well, that’s exactly the question raised here, isn’t it? Here is Dale Carpenter explaining it at greater length: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/676640?journalCode=scr

The government acts on animus when, to a material degree, it aims "to disparage and to injure" a person or group of people.

If the government decides that primary school instruction will not include instruction on LGBT issues does it do so in order to disparage and to injure a person or group of people? How does that disparage or injure anybody?

[Krychek_2]

Because it says that gay people are so different from everyone else that they need special rules.

[swood1000]

Or does it say that this is a contentious social issue that the schools are going to stay out of?

[Krychek_2]

That ship has already sailed.

[Bob from Ohio]

Ships can return from a voyage.

Left has used schools as cultural battering rams. Restoring balance is good.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Good schools prefer reason to superstition, science and history to dogma, inclusiveness to bigotry, etc. This bothers culture war losers like Bob from Ohio.

Conservative-controlled schools are nonsense-based, bigoted hayseed farms with lousy reputations (fourth-tier or even worse), lackluster faculties, unaccomplished alumni, silly curriculums, and downscale students. Mainstream America's disrespect of conservative schools bothers Bob from Ohio, too.

[EscherEnigma]

The existence of gay people is a "contentious social issue" to you?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Because it says that gay people are so different from everyone else that they need special rules.

The fact that the works in question are LGBT-specific (as is the term "LGBT issues") already says that.

[Krychek_2]

No, actually it doesn't. An astronomy book is astronomy-specific but that doesn't mean there are special rules about having astronomy books in the library.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But it's sufficiently different from other scientific disciplines that it needs its own book, its own teachers, etc.

Also, you're completely missing the point...which is that the fact that there "LGBT issues" (which, as the term implies, are not CIS-hetero-whatever issues) means that those who are members of that group are in fact "different" from others in some significant way. Oh, and...no special rules are being established here. It's one rule about sexually-oriented materials. Granted, the objection over the penguin book seems like a pretty stupid stretch in terms of interpretation of the book, but that doesn't alter the fact that the objection is over what they perceive to be sexual themes, rightly or wrongly.

[Krychek_2]

All right, we're using different definitions for the word "different". You're using it in the sense that any two things are are non-identical are different, which is in fact true. I'm using it in the sense that the law should not put them on an unequal footing.

In terms of their food choices, and only in terms of their food choices, vegans are different from people who eat meat three times a day. And, in terms of their sexual preferences, gay people are different from straight people. And there are specific issues that impact one group differently than impact the other. No one is claiming otherwise.

But, just as most people don't make moral judgments about what you choose to have for lunch, neither should there be moral judgments about whether you prefer to wake up next to a man or a woman. Nor should there be the assumption that vegans and carnivores are different from each other in any way except as to their food choices.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The problem here is that you can't read, and/or are just making shit up. I didn't use "different" in anything like that sense, and used it with qualifiers like "sufficiently different". Try again.

But, just as most people don’t make moral judgments about what you choose to have for lunch, neither should there be moral judgments about whether you prefer to wake up next to a man or a woman.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not sexually-themed books are age (or otherwise)-appropriate for school libraries, or a good use of their shelf space (as opposed to whatever works would need to be omitted in order to make room for them).

[Krychek_2]

Best wishes for you to have a speedy recovery.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Have you figured out yet why your "if a fetus is a person it's liable for trespass against the person" theory was so idiotic?

[Gandydancer]

You don't really object to viewpoint discrimination, or you'd object to school libraries maintaining lists of unacceptable websites (such as Stormfront) or stocking copies of "The Turner Diaries". But my guess is that you don't. Am I wrong?

[Nige]

Someone demanded its removal, and gave their reasons. Like it or not, that's where the argument lies.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Their reason for not carrying a specific book is not relevant to anything."

That is a conclusion, not an argument. Perhaps your local libraries still have books that can help you distinguish the two.

[JonFrum]

When public libraries start buying my book Why Black People Deserve To Be Slaves, I'll take this article seriously. Next up, as soon as I can find a publisher: Lay Back and Enjoy It: Raping My Way Through Life.

[Martinned]

Are racists a protected class under the equal protection clause?

[Ben_]

Free speech is protected, yes.

[Sarcastr0]

equal protection clause, chief.

[Ben_]

Free speech protections are enough.

[Sarcastr0]

Weak recovery, dude. That's a whole new thesis and you know it.

[Ben_]

It’s a dumb discussion that presumes someone has a right for some book to appear in a school library. No one has explained that right.

[Nige]

No, it presumes people have a right to challenge demands for books to be removed and to highlight the nature of the arguments made for removals.

[Ben_]

They can take it up with the school board that pays for the library.

[Nige]

Yes they can. They can also highlight the growing conservative movement to ban books.

[Ben_]

Also not letting kids get raped. Conservatives protect kids like that.

[Nige]

Conservatives support child marriage, so, no. They don't.

[Gandydancer]

Bizarre claim, bro.

[Sarcastr0]

1) check what what W. VA did in March.

2) you call liberals groomers, motherfucker, no policing from you.

[Brett Bellmore]

Frankly, the whole idea of "protected classes" is a direct, "some animals are more equal than others" contradiction of the idea of equal rights. Because it says that if you're NOT in a 'protected class' you're fair game.

[Nige]

Which ignores the reason for their existence, which is that people in the now-protected classes were, and in some cases still are, fair game for people who aren't.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd rather have nobody be fair game, instead of spending a generation or two discriminating in the opposite direction.

[Nige]

Good. Your wish is granted.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm aware you don't like the Civil Rights Acts, and think capitalism will make us all equal, having written de facto discrimination out of history.

But it's also *the law* explicitly.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes.

Hate speech is protected too.

[ConservativeProfessor]

Religion and ethnicity are protected classes, and yet public school libraries can legitimately remove from their stacks Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure you've thought that one through.

[ConservativeProfessor]

Yes, I have. Protocols is a book that, in addition to offering a false thesis, deals with a religious and ethinc minority, ableit in a pernicious way. It would be inappropriate for this book to be accessible in a library frequented by minors that the state is obligated to provide education and civic formation. (You can't argue, "But it's about Jews and banning it constitutes discrimination based on nationality or religion!") In the same way, the pornographic literature banned by this bill, even thought it deals primarily with activities engaged in by sexual minorities, is inappropriate to be accessible in a library frequented by minors that the state is obligated to provide education and civic formation. (You can't argue, "But it's about gays and banning it constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation!") Most of the material (though I suspect not all), if made accessible by a neighbor at his doorstep for the kids on the block to pick up from a box labeled "for children under 15," would constitute the distribution of pornography to minors. The neighbor would rightly be prosecuted and hopefully imprisoned. Why is it okay when it is made accessible in a public school library where the librarian can actually escort the child to the book or hand it to him at the desk?

[M L]

I think the point he was trying to make is that school libraries can and do decide what books to carry based in part on the viewpoints expressed in those books. The idea that they can't do this is absurd on its face.

[Nige]

Except what's happening here is that other people are calling for these books to be removed and/or not stocked by libraries for political/cultural/religious reasons. Which is their right. As such, they can either defend their arguments and stand by them, or say stuff like this to avoid defending their arguments, and the libraries and school boards can and should defend their decisions too.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They do -- to the voters. And to parents.

[Nige]

And other voters and parents argue back, which is what you lot seem to be having a hard time with.

[Bored Lawyer]

Except the suit wants to take the decision out of the hands of the voters and parents, and make it a matter of First Amendment law. That's the point here. There can always be disagreement about what is appropriate in a school library, just as there can be disagreement about what the best way to teach reading or math to children. The First Amendment, and hence the courts, have no say in the matter.

[Nige]

So the case won't go anywhere. If you're going to keep resorting to appeals to the sanctity of 'the voters,' you're going to have to also accept the sanctity of voters taking things to court.

[Pettifogger]

Wouldn't that be the sanctity of litigants? 🙂

[Nige]

Good edit, too late.

[bernard11]

What is this shit about parents?

Are the parents unanimous on this issue? Of course not. Some don't want their kids reading the books, others do, or don't mind. The nice thing about a library is that there's room for lots of books, so different groups can be satisfied.

The thing is, though, that there is an asymmetry between the banners and the others. The banners want to stop kids from reading the books. The others don't want to force anyone to read them. Who is on the side of liberty here?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

The parents who want their children to have access to the materials in question are perfectly free to acquire them and give them to their children. They are not entitled to have the state provide them.

You really are as dumb as a bag of hammers.

[M L]

I’ll give you a shot at comprehending. The argument over what books should be in a school library, is separate from the argument over who decides what books should be in a school library. And it’s separate from the argument over whether a school is allowed to select books based on the viewpoints expressed in those books, or whether a federal court has any jurisdiction over the issue.

But yes, people on either side of any of these arguments can either defend their arguments and stand by them, or obfuscate and conflate these separate issues. For example someone can defend why the book in the following clip must be taught to 4 year olds according to their political/cultural/religious reasons, or they can avoid defending that by resorting to extraneous legal issues or non-sequiturs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_hxjiLTU0U&ab_channel=NewsNation

[Nige]

First they have to defend the claim that objectionable books *are* being taught to four year-olds, along with the reasons why they find them objectionable, otherwise it's just 'when did you stop beating your spouse' bullshit.

[M L]

Do you think the book in the clip should be taught to 4 year olds? Or are you claiming that it's not happening?

[Nige]

Are you claiming it is happening?

[M L]

First, why don't you defend your arguments and stand by them? As you said, "people are calling for these books to be removed and/or not stocked by libraries for political/cultural/religious reasons." So give us your political/cultural/religious reasons why this book should. or should not. be taught to 4 year olds. And give us your thoughts on why parents should, or should not, be able to exclude the book from school libraries.

[Nige]

No reason why I should, unless you prove that it's being taught to four year olds. People can argue for the exclusion of books if they like, but if they're arguing for the exclusion of books that aren't actually included, they're liars.

[shawn_dude]

According to the Florida department of education, children must be 5 years old on or before September 1 of the school year. Where did you come up with a 4 year old?

Regardless, "And Tango Makes Three" isn't a gay sex instruction manual. It's just a book about two penguin parents. Mentioning a same-sex couple as parents doesn't require nor include sex education. The Florida ban now goes all the way to 12th grade, so please do explain why 17yo students would be harmed by same-sex penguin parents.

[Gandydancer]

Martinned : "Are racists a protected class under the equal protection clause?"

So, just to be clear, you are asserting that only government-designated “protected classes” are entitled to protection from “viewpoint discrimination”?

[Nige]

I'm sure The National Institiute For White Supremacy And Wimmin Hatin' would fight herocially for your freedom to be shelved in their library, but that book about the penguin hasn't got a chance.

[EscherEnigma]

I don't know about your school, but when I was in high school we did, in fact, read defenses of slavery. It was important context to understanding the Civil War.

As far as rape goes, yeah, that's debated as well. Did you know that many states didn't have rape laws that included a woman forcing a man to penetrate her? The assumption was that if he was hard enough for it, then he obviously was willing. Another thing I learned in high school.

Did you just go to a bad high school or something?

[Ben_]

"...is violated when a school district or school board removes or restricts access to library books in a narrowly partisan or political manner..."

The constitution apparently says only Democrats get any input on any decisions on what government does. When anyone else has any input, it's unconstitutional.

It's another example of trying to effectively undo an election. We saw it in 2017 when some rogue courts decided they -- not the State Department -- had the authority to decide who got travel visas and who didn't.

[Sarcastr0]

As has been hashed out here many times by now, legally removal is not the same act as not stocking in the first place, even if the upshot is the same.

We do not have a consequentialist legal system.

[hoppy025]

It should be. Libraries are government speech. If a liberal state can ban pro life or confederate flag, conservative states should be allowed to keep your transgender filth out of our libraries.

[Krychek_2]

I suspect that most blue state libraries have books that articulate the pro-life and confederate world views.

[hoppy025]

Was supposed to be "license plates."

[Krychek_2]

Doesn't change the basic point.

[Michael P]

Then I'm sure you can go and find some examples, and see what happens. (Narrator: If he finds any examples, which is unlikely, those books will be hounded out of the libraries as harmful speech.)

[Krychek_2]

If I wanted to take the time I probably could.

[Sarcastr0]

You are positing the factual position that blue state school libraries are devoid of pro-life content?

I note that you already added a great way to discount any counterexamples. Always a great sign someone is cares about the facts.

[MatthewSlyfield]

" legally removal is not the same act as not stocking in the first place"
Can you cite actual legal authority for this?

[not guilty]

SCOTUS opined in Island Trees Sch. Dist. v. Pico by Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982) (plurality opinion) that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books. The Court, however, observed:

As noted earlier, nothing in our decision today affects in any way the discretion of a local school board to choose books to add to the libraries of their schools. Because we are concerned in this case with the suppression of ideas, our holding today affects only the discretion to remove books.

457 U.S. at 871-72.

[M L]

It should be up to the local school board to decide what to teach in the school and what books to include in the school library. Not up to SCOTUS or some federal judge, nor up to a librarian that somehow gets siloed into an independent power center by some bizarre judicial innovation.

When poor choices are made about what to teach in the school or which books to include in the library, there is a remedy for that. The people in that district can fire the people who made those decisions and/or elect new people to decide. If the decision lies in the hands of federal judges, then there really is no remedy. And that is exactly the nature of our current fundamental transformation of society and government across every area, by the all-encompassing centralization of government powers.

As far as freeze peach, the choice of what to teach in school or what books to include in a school library is itself speech. When the school is a government school, then it is government speech. What’s not at issue is any speech of would-be readers of the school library books, or would-be authors of the school library books, or most of all the ideological intermeddlers that want to have power over what books are included in the school library. No speech of theirs is being affected. Nobody has a free speech right to dictate what books are included in the school library except the school itself.

[Sarcastr0]

We all know you are against the 14A having any kind of federal judicial force.

All policies have a political remedy - that's a degenerate argument. But we also have rights above and beyond that. Rights are an explicitly anti-populous institution. That means a popular remedy is *explicitly disfavored*. And our history provides plenty of examples where that has been a good idea. Even a...popular one.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did the Volokh Conspiracy mention the teacher being investigated by Florida authorities because a Republican school board member (who declared "God put me here" to complain about this) complained about an exhibition of Disney movie Strange World in a fifth-grade class (after collection of parental permission slips)?

The objection: A gay character constitutes a passing element of the movie.

If not, why not?

Carry on, clingers.

[hoppy025]

Did you mention that you are being investigated by Interpol for traveling to Thailand to molest little boys?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Autistic right-wingers seem to fixate on little boys (and lesbians, Muslims, drag queens, gays, etc.). Why?

[Frank Drackman]

You tell us

[Dr. Ed 2]

Its the main character and the teacher had already resigned. She did this for show.

[F.D. Wolf]

Protect[ing] Democracy by taking the decision of which books a public school library should carry out of the hands of parents and elected local school boards and placing them in the hands of unelected federal judges, where they belong.

[Kazinski]

Every book selection decision a public library makes is based on the content of the book.

How can it be illegal?

A public library making a decision to use public funds to make a book available or to make it unavailable is the governments own speech.

[M L]

It can be illegal because those who decide say so. Nothing more or less.

[Martinned]

Congratulations, you've discovered the law.

[M L]

I mean, I've known this. Maybe you meant the person I was responding to?

[Nige]

I don't know if it's illegal - I can see making it so creating more problems than it solves - but once it reaches the public stage, it becomes an issue.

[Stephen Lathrop]

A public library making a decision to use public funds to make a book available or to make it unavailable is the governments own speech.

Depends on how it happens. If the decision results from the routine operation of a library collection development policy, conducted according to government approved norms, then it is the government's own speech. If the decision results because some politician intervened and ordered it done, that is whack job political meddling, and rightly illegal.

[ConservativeProfessor]

Oh well.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/dec/21/evolution.schoolsworldwide

[Ruqt]

Politely suggest that the writer survey mothers prior to making snarky comments which may reflect youth and a blind spot ….

[Ben_]

Does anyone believe that the ultimate court rulings will be that school boards may not remove books from school libraries? If not school boards, who do you think the courts will empower to curate school libraries? Someone completely unaccountable to voters?

What governmental tradition tells voters they have no say in what government buys or provides and how the government interacts with children?

[EscherEnigma]

Does anyone believe that the ultimate court rulings will be that school boards may not remove books from school libraries?

Of course not.

What people hope for is a ruling that schools may not rescind books for ideological, viewpoint-suppression reasons.

And it's not like this distinction is new to the courts: discriminatory intent and motivation can turn an otherwise legitimate government action into an unconstitutional government action.

Pretending this needle is impossible to thread is a-historical silliness.

[Ben_]

"What people hope for is a ruling that schools may not rescind books for ideological, viewpoint-suppression reasons."

So every book curation decision is ultimately up to courts. And courts somehow get to decide the right reasons?

Are "idealogical" decisions unconstitutional?

Are viewpoints sacrosanct? Which ones? Can no message be preferred by an elected school board? Does the constitution say that somewhere?

Since no individual is targeted by a book curation decision, how can rights be violated by such a decision? Which people have which school library book curation rights? Which bookshelf is rightful? Any shelf? Does this idea make any sense?

[EscherEnigma]

So every book curation decision is ultimately up to courts. And courts somehow get to decide the right reasons?

Lots of things are "ultimately up to courts". Pretending this is unique is stupid.

And intentionally obfuscating a new law that makes it easier for individuals to challenge and get books pulled from normal curation procedures is dishonest.

Since no individual is targeted by a book curation decision, how can rights be violated by such a decision?

So you're okay with civil forfeiture now?

Does this idea make any sense?

Of course not. You put so much work into that strawman, I'd never insult you by suggesting you accidentally made one that made sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty sure that it's not civil forfeiture when the government itself disposes of the government's own property.

[Ben_]

Do you really think courts will somehow find some book content is protected and some book content isn’t?

And therefore school boards conditionally lose book curation authority … because somehow the US Constitution says they lose it?

I can come up with scenarios where that might happen (e. g. direct retaliation against a specific author for protected speech), but they’re nothing like this case.

Courts will say that government can make speech decisions about the government’s speech and library curation decisions about the government’s library.

[EscherEnigma]

I really think a lot of things.

That you are capable of accurately summarizing other people's points of view is not one of them.

[Ben_]

What do you think courts will ultimately rule?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Probably that there is a legal distinction based on reliance on pre-established normative processes vs. uncontrolled political freelancing. The latter will be illegal.

[ducksalad]

I see the distinction. And we can try to thread that needle but it’s not easy and has unintended consequences, primarily creating an abundance of inconclusive legal process.

The prime example is employment law for private businesses: they can hire or not hire for any reason…..except X, Y, and Z.

The reason such cases are often inconclusive is because it’s very hard to prove motive X, Y, or Z. But there *a lot* of cases because it’s very easy to accuse someone of having motive X, Y, or Z.

All compounded by the fact that people often have multiple motives, a mix of legitimate and illegitimate, and sometimes aren’t even conscious of their motives.

Fortunately litigating the contents of libraries won’t be as big an industry as employment law, because the stakes are way lower. But one would guess this lawsuit already cost more than teacher’s annual salary.

[shawn_dude]

Good news in this case! The Florida government is being very honest about their discriminatory reasons for banning these books.

[Ben_]

Because sexualized content is not for children. And even if someone disagrees, it’s not the government's role to provide any questionably inappropriate content to children.

[Pettifogger]

So a librarian who would never consider stocking anything on free-market economics is copacetic, because she rescinds nothing. But if I object to a book claiming the Kulaks had the Holodomor coming, that is improper?

[Ben_]

Yeah. They think courts will adopt similar reasoning. And some rogue courts might do that before being overturned.

The overriding principle is that the special people have a right to never experience negative emotions. Guys like you can die a thousand deaths because you’re not special. The only way your life has any meaning at all is when you help out the special people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A school can ban real milk and only sell skim milk.

[shawn_dude]

You would support a school banning all books that mention Christian religious faith in any way? Even if incidental?

If not, why not?

[Pettifogger]

No library can have every book ever published, so all must curate. School libraries are often smaller than major metropolitan libraries, and they have a special clientele. Their curation criteria must take those points into account.

No one denies this. But many obfuscate it by speaking of bans. Someone must curate school library collections. Shall it be the Democratic National Committee?

[Nige]

The obfuscation is in ignoring the fact that there are arguments being made for the removal of books from libraries, and ignoring what those arguments are and who is making them. They're allowed to make those arguments, and people are allowed to argue back and object to the removals.

[Bored Lawyer]

Except, the lawsuit claims that some arguments must be ignored because of the First Amendment. Which is complete nonsense.

Yes, both sides can debate what should or should not be in the school library, and the normal political process will determine which side prevails.

[Nige]

Perhaps, but the lawsuit is only a recent development - this obfuscation has been a charateristic of people dffending the removals all along.

[Pettifogger]

Sure, but don't couch your argument in terms of banning books, as if this were the incarnation of Farenheit 451. That is silly.

[Nige]

Why not? That's the impulse at work here - banning and suppressing particular books.

[shawn_dude]

Except that it *is* a book ban. Your argument is that libraries have to edit in order to optimize the space they have. But to remove entire subjects from the library, including some subjects about American civil war history, the civil rights campaigns for black and LGBT Americans, and any book that mentions an LGBT character, even if only in passing, is to cut to the heart of the purpose of libraries in the first place. Erasing uncomfortable subjects like the history of red-lining and institutional discrimination or entire minorities like LGBTQ Americans, is not about saving space but about viewpoint discrimination.

A librarian needing more space might prune some books that are out-of-date or that are rarely checked out but for which they aren't the only book on the subject. Maybe they'll swap one book on the impact of institutional racism with another. However, saying all subject matter related to is prohibited is a ban. And, removing all books currently in the library that relate to "X" sends a message to students that this subject socially unacceptable and worthy of a ban. Florida, btw, bans LGBT themed material through 12th grade.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Dont forget en loco parentis.

[Nige]

What about it?

[EscherEnigma]

I look forward to reading Volokh's imminent defense of Florida.

Maybe he can pull it off without pretending that children's books are hardcore pornography, unlike some of the commentators.

[M L]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_hxjiLTU0U&ab_channel=NewsNation

[EscherEnigma]

So you're putting yourself in the "of course And Tango Makes Three is pornography" crowd.

[M L]

I was responding to your apparent assertion that no "children's books are hardcore pornography" when in reality, most of this brouhaha is about sexually explicit material. Remember some nitwit school boards even decided that material was too obscene to be repeated in a school board meeting, but was ok to teach kids.

[EscherEnigma]

You were responding to a strawman, and you know it.

As far as "too obscene to be repeated" goes, there are Bible quotes that are too obscene for school board meetings and would get me slandered as an anti-Christian bigot for reading there. Does that mean that Bibles should be pulled?

[M L]

That's a strawman? So you admit that there are sexually explicit books in school libraries that people are objecting to?

[EscherEnigma]

That’s a strawman?

Yes, my "apparent assertion" is something I have neither said or implied, and a position you assigned to me because it's easier to attack then my actual point.

So you admit that there are sexually explicit books in school libraries that people are objecting to?

That's a whole other sentence dude. Maybe you should stick to what I've actually written rather then what you imagine I've written?

I’m not particularly interested in weighing in on that.

Another thing you're not interested in weighing in on: why And Tango Makes Three is considered "sexually explicit".

[M L]

Ok. As I said, and as I think you know, most of this controversy all around the country is about sexually explicit material. I read your comment and the general reference to "children's books" as trying to deny that, as many people do including commenters here. I guess you were only referring to this Tango book, so thanks for the clarification.

I assume the Tango book is not sexually explicit, since it was carefully selected by activists for an impact litigation vehicle.

Aside from the politics and optics or case "sympathy," do you think it matters? Is your view that schools can exclude any books that are "sexually explicit" but cannot otherwise select books based on viewpoint?

[EscherEnigma]

Ok. As I said, and as I think you know, most of this controversy all around the country is about sexually explicit material.

Oh yeah, sure. I also know that DeSantis's war with Disney is totally about the proper role of special districts and not at all retaliatory.

Hint: I disagree with your characterization of the current wave of censorship, and whataya know, the data backs me up.

[M L]

[Citation Needed]

[M L]

To your question, I'm not particularly interested in weighing in on that. I don't care about what books are in schools, as much as I care about who gets to decide what books are in schools. But if I was deciding for my own kids, up to a certain age, I would not present any kind of sexually explicit material to them. After that, it would depend on the degree of explicitness, and the context in which it was presented. Oftentimes, something that might be considered "explicit" is not really all that explicit to younger ears but is obscured, unlike the language in the video clip.

[Nige]

‘who gets to decide what books are in schools’

Librarians and teachers, insofar as budgets allow. There. Sorted.

[M L]

Right. And they work for the school which is run by the school board.

[Nige]

Who can be bullied by homophobic religious extremists, you hope.

[shawn_dude]

Define "sexually explicit" in this context. At what age would you permit a certain degree of "sex" in fiction and non-fiction? For example, Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law was extended all the way to 12th grade (17&18yo students.)

How is it that random, single parents wanting to ban a book they don't like (and haven't read) without regard for actual educational merit and age-appropriateness, isn't essentially a heckler's veto?

[M L]

Escher said that this issue wasn’t about books with “pornography” to which I replied that mostly, this controversy is about books that are sexually explicit, and I gave an example of one that is sexually explicit. Do you agree that example is sexually explicit? The excerpt is read in the video I linked above. I assume this Tango book is not, though. I’m not sure how you’d define “sexually explicit,” and I don’t think this is relevant to any of the legal issues, but I could be wrong, if you think it is, care to explain?

A heckler’s veto is when the government infringes on someone’s right to speak, based on the rationale that some heckling third party who disagrees with the speech will become violent or unruly or do some bad things. Here, the government is engaging in and deciding on its own speech — not infringing on the speech of any other party. For regular people to exert influence over their elected representatives is just the regular political process of self-government.

[Nige]

'Kids' covering everyone from four year-olds to eighteen year-olds. Teenagers read Stephen King, and there's plenty of passages in King you wouldn't be able to read out to a school board meeting.

[Ben_]

It’s not up to you to decide. It’s up to the school board.

[Nige]

If people can demand school boards remove books, people can object to those demands.

[Ben_]

The school board members have email addresses if you’d like to complain to them.

Why should they listen to anyone outside the county though?

[Nige]

The conservative movement to ban books is multi-state, becoming a national issue and possibly even an election issue. I don't know who any specific school board will listen to, but the more people who know about it, the more people can object to attempted removals in their area.

[Ben_]

Do courts enjoy being used for this sort of political sideshow?

[Nige]

What do you want me to do, speak for the courts?

[Bored Lawyer]

Been done. A school has the right to choose its book collection based on what it believes is appropriate for its students. There is no First Amendment right to have any particular book or viewpoint in the school library.
And even if the librarian, who is a public employee, initially believes that a book is appropriate, he or she can be overruled, and parents can have an input into that decision.
Next question?

[EscherEnigma]

Has not been done. Even Volokh has admitted that the question of whether a public library can practice ideological viewpoint discrimination is not a question that has been addressed.

And you are blatantly ignoring that the people complaining about these books are lying about sexual content. If you don't address that, then you are being inherently dishonest.

[M L]

Can you explain why you think this is different from the usual rule about government speech?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_speech

government speech

The government speech doctrine is a principle of constitutional law which says that, although the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause limits government regulation of private speech, it does not restrict the government when the government speaks for itself. In other words, the government is not required to act neutral when expressing its own opinion.

[EscherEnigma]

Can you explain why you think this is different from the usual rule about government speech?

In a way that'll satisfy you?

Obviously not.

[Ben_]

No one can, no.

[Sarcastr0]

The good news here is there is a lawsuit with briefings. If you cared about the arguments as to the state of the law, you can look them up.

But you don't. Neither does ML.

[M L]

You would think after a blog post and 330 comments of bickering, someone would have a better answer to the central issue than "I dunno, go look it up yourself!"

But no.

"The good news here is there is a lawsuit with briefings."

Is there? I only see a complaint in the OP.

The issue is summarized here: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/27/does-the-first-amendment-bar-public-schools-from-removing-school-library-books-based-on-their-viewpoints/

[Sarcastr0]

Well, if you're not going to look it up, I'm not going to do it for you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I look forward to reading Volokh’s imminent defense of Florida.

Prof. Volokh will continue to avoid publishing much of substance about Florida unless and until Gov. DeSantis authorizes it.

[ReaderY]

How can a public school give a higher grade to an essay on the constitution than a doodle of my dog, or give a graduation certificate to students who do the first but not those who do the second, without engaging in blatant viewpoint discrimination?

How can an English teacher differentiate between students who choose to read Chaucer and those who choose to read Captain Underpants without engaging in blatant viewpoint discrimination?

Every decision to assign certain material and not other material, every assessment of quality, is nothing but viewpoint discrimination.

Is this barred by the First Amendment? Does the constitution really prohibit school districts from discriminating against students based on their notions of what constitutes appropriate material to study, quality writing, logical argument, and other examples of viewpoint discrimination that come under labels like “curriculum” and “standards”?

What makes this any different?

[M L]

California school broadcasts sexually explicit books, some covering 'pedophiles,' kink and pornographic images

https://www.foxnews.com/media/california-school-broadcasts-sexually-explicit-books-covering-pedophiles-kink-pornographic-images

A California public school library contained sexually charged and pornographic books, including one which discussed a so-called "sexually-mature" 6-year-old boy engaging in sex acts.
...The book described a child as "sexually mature" who "hated being a kid."

"I was sexually mature. What I mean by sexually mature is that I knew about sex. From six and up, I used to kiss other guys in my neighborhood, make out with them, and perform oral sex on them. I liked it. I used to love oral. And I touched their you-know-whats. We were really young, but that's what we did... Guys used to hit on me – perverts – pedophiles. I'd see guys giving me a look, and it kinda creeped me out. They would touch themselves, saying, 'Come here, sweetie.' I ran away... By then I hated being a kid, I had a grown-up's mind and thought I was an adult."

Another passage appeared to describe an 8-year-old having sex while he was away from home.

"This was probably one of the best places I have ever been to. The things I did there I probably never would have done had I stayed with my grandmother, to tell you the truth... Two staff members always went with us. One was Kathy, the recreation person, and the other was Franklin... Because we all liked Kathy, anyone who Kathy liked, we liked. They were really good to us. No abuse. No abuse at all. There was sex – what I would call curiosity sex. We were experimenting, isn't that what a kid does at that age?"

[Nige]

High school. Teenagers reading about sex is a good thing, actually. It's more likely to help them avoid exploitation, understand abuse and contextualise easily accesible online pornography. As illustrated by the second passage you quote. The person can't or won't acknowledge that they were abused.

[M L]

Virginia School District Boots 14 Sexually Explicit Books to County Libraries

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/03/29/virginia-school-district-removes-14-sexually-explicit-books/

“All Boys Aren’t Blue: A Memoir-Manifesto” includes a detailed scene in which the author (age 13) is molested, both receiving and giving oral sex to his cousin (age 17 or 18). The author also describes several other obscene sexual scenes.

“Dime” contains explicit scenes describing the statutory rape and prostitution of a 13-year-old, who expresses joy at losing her virginity to her pimp, “Daddy.”

“America” contains several disturbing scenes in which the 15-year-old main character is raped, describes his erections and how excited he gets by seeing both boys and girls naked, and relishes how no one can stop him from imagining rape..

“The Bluest Eye” contains several instances of characters fantasizing and experiencing incest, rape, and pedophilia. Morrison spends considerable time with many scenes intimately describing sex with children.

The effort to ban sexually explicit content from public school libraries isn’t unique to Spotsylvania County, Virginia, which is about 67 miles south of the nation’s capital. Parents and teachers around the country recently have questioned the placement of explicit books in school libraries that romanticize sexual abuse and describe or picture intimate sexual acts.

Picture books in which small children question their sexuality and express a different “gender identity” have flooded libraries around the nation in the past few years as LGBTQ+ activist groups reach out to younger audiences.

[Nige]

Presumably they were already stocked with non-LGTBQ sex-ed books. Or do we just prefer anyone who isn't straight to remain completely ignorant about their sexuality?

[hoppy025]

I'd prefer those people be put in mental hospitals, but if not, removing their filth from libraries is a good second option.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

According to Nige, a 13 year old gay blowing an 18 year old is LGBT sex ed.

Yikes

[Nige]

According to Nige, these things are accounts of young peoples' sexual experiences that may prove valuable and informative to other young people. It might help them avoid similar situations, or help anyone who who experienced something similar feel less alone and stigmatised.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is it legal for an 18 year old to get a blow job from a 13 year old?

[Nige]

If you have to ask...

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's a yes or no question, you didn't provide a yes or no answer.

Weird.

[ConservativeProfessor]

Really, so there are non-gay sex books that have adult men being felatted by under age teens?

[Number 2]

The real question is whether the two penguins met via a dating app. Then Prof. Manta can have them as guests on her podcast.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Democrats are suing so they can show child points to children.

In two years it's going to be an LGBTQ rights issue for them to have sex with consenting children.

Thanks Lawrence v Texas!

[not guilty]

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), provides no support for adult sexual conduct with minors. Id., at 578.

[SRG]

BCD hasn't yet got over Loving v. Virginia. I'm not sure he's even over Brown

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Lawrence v. Texas is what pushed us down this slippery gay slope we're on heading straight for homo-child sex legalization.

They've already been claiming age of consent laws are anti-gay.

[SRG]

No wonder you’re worried, BCD:
Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

[Davy C]

I would argue that anyone who agrees to participate in a study where their penis is measured while looking at erotic homosexual stimuli... well, I'm not surprised that the study found that they had homosexual tendencies. Also n=35 vs n=29 does not inspire confidence in the results, in my view. Further critique would require access to the full text of the study.

[Nige]

Child marriage is legal in some red states, and defended by conservative politicians.

[Bored Lawyer]

You really are imprecise. "Child" has different meanings in different context. Not to mention that the marriages of such "children" are with parental consent.

https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/marriage-age-by-state/

Acc. to this website, in all but two states, to allow marriage with parental consent the marrying person must be at least 16. (Massachusetts and New Hampshire, hardly red states, go as low as 14!) Without parental consent, all states require one to be at least 18; two have higher ages. (Nebraska 19, Mississippi 21.)

So the "child marriage" you are talking about is 16 with parental consent. That is worlds apart from books in an elementary school.

Nice try at deflection, though.

[Nige]

Really? Commenters here are constantly conflating teens and pre-teens when talking about the sorts of books 'kids' have access to.

[SimonP]

Acc. to this website, ...

This is an interesting caveat, because I have to wonder if you saw the same thing that I saw when I was trying to confirm, which is that there is a surprising amount of variation in what sources actually say about it, with a fair bit of nuance omitted by your account (e.g., what may be possible with court involvement).

One wonders if you knew that you found a favorable source, chose to cite it for only what helps your case, and guarded against the possibility that someone else might contradict you with better information by throwing in that little caveat.

[Frank Drackman]

Stupid question, but
is "Lee's Lieutenants" still available or do they have to "Black Out"(see what I did there? "Black Out") Lee's name, because you know, he was THE Confederate General.

Frank

[Michael Ejercito]

So then school libraries refusing to stock Hustler violates freedom of speech?

Such a novel argument.

[Davy C]

No, but if they happen to get a copy they have to keep it, apparently.

[not guilty]

Heaven save us from the gay penguin menace?

Does this call to mind for anyone else the late Jerry Falwell's kvetching about what he imagined Tinky Winky was doing with the genitalia it didn't have?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

One of the books removed from the libraries had a graphic depiction of a 13 year old blowing an 18 year old.

But you do you.

[Bored Lawyer]

Off-topic.

Justice Department watchdog finds U.S. attorney in Massachusetts tried to influence DA election

Politics May 17, 2023 4:52 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The top federal prosecutor in Massachusetts tried to use her position to influence the outcome of a race for Boston’s district attorney by leaking information aimed at sabotaging the campaign of her preferred candidate’s rival, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog said in a report released Wednesday.

A separate investigation by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel found multiple violations by U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins of a law that limits political activity by government workers.

The findings were disclosed a day after Rollins’ lawyer told The Associated Press she would resign this week, saying she “understands that her presence has become a distraction.”

The inspector general’s 161-page report alleges a broad array of misconduct by Rollins, who was praised by progressives for her approach to law enforcement when she was sworn into office in January 2022 after serving as district attorney for Suffolk County, which includes Boston.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/justice-department-watchdog-finds-us-attorney-in-massachusetts-tried-to-influence-da-election

I'm shocked! Shocked!

[Sarcastr0]

If this was caught and made headlines, it implies it's extraordinary, and not super common, as you imply.

[ducksalad]

Going to indulge in some boafsidezism here. There’s quite a bit of disingenuity being revealed.

Many LGBTQ+ advocates claim that their preferences are innate. Traditional sexual conservatives claim that cis-hetero preferences are a law of nature.

Well, the desperate fight over this shows neither side really believes that. They really think that it’s at least partially learned behavior, that most of the learning happens in childhood, and that they need to increase (on one side) or defend (on the other side) their “market share” of the options advertised to kids, along with the unavoidable subtle messages of approval, disapproval, trendiness, or squareness in how those options are presented.

Freedom means having choices and freedom is great. However, your choice is not science and it is not a law of nature. It is merely your choice.

[Sarcastr0]

I think there are other reasons why folks might be against censoring LGBTQ content other than to recruit.

[ducksalad]

Certainly. There are plenty of people who have principles about openness to ideas, tolerance for a range of opinions, etc. Yourself no doubt.

However, when someone says this is about "existence" or "genocide" its clear that they think blocking the material will lead to a drop (at least in expressed behavior, if not in the underlying sense of not fitting) and that they are against that drop. And while I disagree with the hyperbole, I think they are probably correct that having public schools be less LGBT friendly would eventually lead to less LGBT people.

[Sarcastr0]

Fair enough.

I’m not gay, but I would tend to think that like most everything else, sexual orientation is part nature part nurture with how much of each depending on the individual.

I also think whoever is calling library book bans genocide is not really into examining slow sociological trends, versus just basking in drama.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

2% to 40% in a few decades isn't "slow" nor is it nature.

It's nuture, and people are fighting back.

[not guilty]

Ducksalad, when did you "choose" your sexual orientation? What selection criteria did you use? Did you try multiple orientations to see which one you like best?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If it was innate, some human characteristic, wouldn't the rate of homosexual orientation be fairly consistent across time?

What do the data say about that?

[ducksalad]

NG, this thread is probably dead but I'll answer anyway. First, we have to define choice.

"Choice" means I get to decide. It means my reasons and methods aren't subject to review and approval. and no one is entitled to an explanation. I don't need to prove I did a controlled study or used the scientific method. I don't even need to prove that my reasons are rational or fair.

Having said that, the answers to your questions: it was about age 14, there was an element of conscious choice, and since part of my orientation is "monogamous", the choosing came before the testing. Part of the reason was going with the flow and other peoples' implied expectations, and that is a valid reason. It's the same reason I speak English instead of Swahili. If 90% of the people around me had been gay maybe it would have gone the other way. Or not, life is not a controlled experiment.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The UN released a report very recently about how all consensual sex should be legalized.

All.

[Childhood reader of SCOTUS opinions, really]

My school should answer to me and not some organization filled with people who send their kids to expensive private schools. So teachers want other teachers to pick their kids' books in the public schools. Then why is this the case : Across the country, roughly 10% of students attend a private school while American public school teachers enroll their children at nearly twice that rate, 21.5%.Oct 21, 2022