Utah Law Forbids Public School Libraries From Having Any Books That "Describe" "Sexual Intercourse" Etc.

The Salt Lake Tribune (Courtney Tanner) reports that the Bible will be removed from Davis (Utah) School District elementary and middle school libraries, "for containing 'vulgarity or violence.'" A parent had asked, apparently as a protest against a recent Utah law that calls for removal of various school library books, that the Bible be removed; this seems to have been the response.

And the Utah law does seem to be remarkably broad, calling for removal from (among other things) school libraries of "sensitive material":

(2)(b) A public school may not: (i) adopt, use, distribute, provide a student access to, or maintain in the school setting, sensitive materials ….

{(1)(f)(i) "School setting" [includes], for a public school: … (B) in a school library ….}

"Sensitive material" is in turn defined to mean "an instructional material that is pornographic or indecent material as that term is defined in Section 76-10-1235," which is to say,

any material:
(i) defined as harmful to minors in Section 76-10-1201;
(ii) described as pornographic in Section 76-10-1203; or
(iii) described in Section 76-10-1227.

And Section 76-10-1227 provides, in relevant part,

(1) … (a) "Description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality" means:
(i) human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
(ii) acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, or sodomy;
(iii) fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals or pubic region; or
(iv) fondling or other erotic touching of the human buttock or female breast….

(2) (a) Subject to Subsection (2)(c), this section and Section 76-10-1228 do not apply to any material which, when taken as a whole, has serious value for minors.
(b) As used in Subsection (2)(a), "serious value" means having serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors, taking into consideration the ages of all minors who could be exposed to the material.
(c) A description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality as defined in Subsection (1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) has no serious value for minors.

Thus, the prohibition isn't limited to pornographic material, or material that appeals to the prurient interest of minors, describes or depicts sex or excretion in a matter that's patently offensive when distributed to minors, or lacks serious value for minors (the usual definitions of what is "harmful to minors"). Rather, any description of sexual intercourse qualifies. Nor does the law require that (to quote a much narrower Wisconsin law) the description be "explicit and detailed." So any book that describes sexual intercourse, unless it fits with narrow exceptions (e.g., "instructional material" "for medical courses"), must be excluded from public schools, including all public school libraries.

And there's no definition offered of what counts as "description." Perhaps one might draw a distinction between merely mentioning sex and describing it, but it's far from clear where that line would be drawn. The quotes from the parent who challenged the Bible seem likely to qualify as description, for instance:

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof….

So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.

I am not, of course, suggesting that this passage is pornographic, or that the Bible should be removed from public school libraries. Rather, my whole point is that Utah law appears to forbid such material in public school libraries regardless of whether it's pornographic under any sensible definition, and regardless of whether it's included in works that are of great educational value.

Perhaps I'm misreading the law, in which case I welcome correction. (Indeed, the Davis School District seems not to read the law the way I do, given that it did allow the Bible to remain in high school libraries, and decided to move the book for containing "vulgarity or violence," rather than descriptions of sexual intercourse.) But that's how matters seem to me.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's hear a competent adult try to justify special treatment for the Bible. Maybe someone could begin by contending it is a nonfiction work, perhaps even the inerrant word of a genuine (rather than illusory) god.

[Gandydancer]

I suppose that your are an adult if that is measured by age alone, although not competent at anything other than being a pest, but why EV misses "(2) (a) Subject to Subsection (2)(c), this section and Section 76-10-1228 do not apply to any material which, when taken as a whole, has serious value for minors" is less easy to explain.

[Magister]

(c) A description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality as defined in Subsection (1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) has no serious value for minors.

Eugene's excerpt clearly describes illicit sex or sexual immorality, so the part you quote doesn't appear to apply ("Subject to Subsection (2)(c), ").

[Gandydancer]

"Courts, “determine legislative intent by examining not only the literal words of the statute, but also the reasonableness of proposed constructions, the public policy behind the statute, and its legislative history.”

EV immediately gives as his gloss on what he believes is forbidden by the conclusory declaration you quote: "...any description of sexual intercourse qualifies." And he provides as an example: "...the younger daughter went in and slept with him."

But I think that that is wrong. THAT description of what the younger daughter did need not be considered a "description" in the sense of the examples given:
"(i) human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
(ii) acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, or sodomy;
(iii) fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals or pubic region; or
(iv) fondling or other erotic touching of the human buttock or female breast…."

And because it need not be so interpreted the canons of statutory interpretation say that it ought not be so interpreted.

I am anyway OK with better drafting. But that won't end the objections, will it? Gotta have those "My Butt is Noisy!" books in the children's sections, don't we?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The superstition-based world is heard from . . .

[Gandydancer]

You've been told often enough that I'm an atheist that it would be impossible for me to credit you with good faith even if I had not had other experiences with you to convince me that you are a dishonest shit.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is sometimes difficult to remember which clinger claims to be the non-racist physician, which clinger claims to be the non-homophobic lawyer, which clinger claims to be the non-misogynistic atheist, which clinger claims to be the non-birther birther, which clinger claims to be the non-Islamophobic educator, which clinger claims to be the non-autistic, non-white supremacist veteran, etc.

[Gandydancer]

If you can't keep the posters here separate in you mind, such as it is, perhaps you ought try to control the amount of egg on your face by not attributing to each one all the views of the imaginary "clingers" who haunt your brain case.

[santamonica811]

Correct. You're the racist.

(It would be helpful if the VC included a flowchart or legend, with, say, the top 20 posters, so as to correctly ascribe which particular evil goes with which particular person.)

[Gandydancer]

You'll have to compile your own list of slurs as you are the only one guaranteed to agree with it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland, if you want to complain about something, complain about this: "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

Yes, it's clear they aren't interested in girls, but still...

[Sarcastr0]

No, that is not clear.

[ReaderY]

How does that “describe” sexual intercourse? Referring to it yes. But there’s no description.

[Theendoftheleft]

Now, replace 'Bible' with 'Quran', you duplicitous, hypocritical worm.

Why not a competent, adult effort to justify normalization of the mass importation of Islamic faith into the West? How about Muhammad's marriage to a nine-year old, his owning slaves, or his warmongering imperialism? How about the pervasive consanguinity rates across the Islamic world?

It's going to be so sad for you when your entire political weltanschauung collapses and is replaced by your evolutionary betters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Bible and the Quran are similar works of fiction, in my judgment, worthy of similar respect and treatment.

[Theendoftheleft]

So are your claims of, and to, equality. Are works espousing as much worthy of the same treatment, then?

[ReaderY]

Just read the complaint, assuming you think the plaintiffs are competent.

Where in the Bible is sexual intercourse described? Referred to, yes. But described?

The complaint is singling the Bible out for special treatment.

[John F. Carr]

I wonder how many students read the Bible in the library. When I was in school there were better descriptions of sex to be found in biology books.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I doubt many students read the Bible for sexual content. Mostly, it's lost, gullible, distraught, or overmatched people seeking an escape from the reality-based world . . . or victims of childhood indoctrination.

[Theendoftheleft]

Just like the gays who so desperately want themselves and their relationships to be deemed equal in the face of their obviously being just evolutionary duds who don’t warrant respect or being held in esteem? Gays who rely on a superstition-based concept of equality, all whilst trying to purge society of the overall superstition?

Back to the closet now, AIDS. Your country's loss of global power will be the end of your agenda.

[Anon]

I had a classmate that brought his own bible to English 2.

[gVOR08]

These laws seem to typically be drafted loosely, perhaps deliberately. Ambiguity tends to make teachers and librarians err on the legally safe side and self censor. It also tends to generate protests and lawsuits that garner publicity, which is what the pols who pass this stuff want. However this ambiguity may also turn out to be sauce for the gander.

[Gandydancer]

Since the exception EV quotes that would cover Bibles is so clear I take it that those responsible for the collections of the Davis (Utah) School District elementary and middle school libraries are trolling us.

[Krychek_2]

The problem is, though, that you don’t have to be doing anything wrong for someone with a grudge to file a frivolous lawsuit. Who wants to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees before the judge determines that this is a frivolous lawsuit? The safest path is to err on the side of caution even if the law is clearly in your favor.

[Gandydancer]

I don't think that explains removing the Bibles. Christianity is dying, but it's not so dead yet that defending against a demand that that he done can't be a monetary positive, certainly compared with defending the removal of "My Butt is Noisy!!!", which you are going to have to do anyway.

[not guilty]

The description of the adventures of the harlot sisters Oho'lah and Ohol'ibah in Ezekiel 23 is pretty salacious.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was thinking of the Song of Solomon.

[Ken Arromdee]

Come on now. The Bible taken as a whole doesn't lack serious literary, artistic, or political value for minors. Why would you expect it to count?

You seem to be reading it so that "subject to Subsection (2)(c)" means that (2)(c) takes precedence. Your reading would read (2)(a-b) out of existence, so that can't be the proper reading.

[Michael P]

(2)(c) only takes precedence for the specific clauses it identifies. Material that is only covered by other clauses could have "serious value for minors".

I suspect the school board, and the law's drafters, would say that the quoted bit of scripture does not contain a "description or depiction" of sex because it leaves essentially everything to implication.

[Eugene Volokh]

Michael P is right, I think. Recall that the definition provides,

(1) … (a) "Description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality" means:
(i) human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
(ii) acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, or sodomy;
(iii) fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals or pubic region; or
(iv) fondling or other erotic touching of the human buttock or female breast….

(2) (a) Subject to Subsection (2)(c), this section and Section 76-10-1228 do not apply to any material which, when taken as a whole, has serious value for minors.
(b) As used in Subsection (2)(a), "serious value" means having serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors, taking into consideration the ages of all minors who could be exposed to the material.
(c) A description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality as defined in Subsection (1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) has no serious value for minors.

Under 2(c) (to which 2(a) and 2(b) are expressly "subject"), a description of, among other things, sexual intercourse is forbidden without further case-by-case inquiry about whether it has serious value.

[Voize]

2(c) doesn't say "Material containing a description ...", it applies to the description or depiction rather than poisoning the entire "material".

If other portions of the material do have serious value, it strikes me that the material may be deemed to have serious value "when taken as a whole" even though some parts of it don't. That would seem to be the whole point of taking it as a whole, that the lack of virtue in some passages can be compensated for by virtue in others.

[Gandydancer]

"...a description of, among other things, sexual intercourse is forbidden without further case-by-case inquiry about whether it has serious value."

2(c) says exactly the opposite.
I am puzzled by your blindness to this.

[Sarcastr0]

2c has 2 elements each of which separately are forbidden:

Illicit sex or sexual immorality (defined above to include sexual intercourse)
or
No serious value to minors.

[Michael P]

That’s not what (2)(c) says at all. It sets out a (large) subset of “illicit sex or sexual immorality” that by legal definition never has serious value for minors.

[Sarcastr0]

Yes I misparsed the or. You have it right.

[Josh R]

I agree. However, (2)(a) permits material that when taken as a whole has serious value for minors. Is it possible that the Bible has much material which must be considered as having no serious value to minors per (2)(c), nonetheless when taken as a whole passes muster under (2)(a)?

[Michael P]

I think the law is written such that any part covered by (2)(c) cannot be used in class or kept in school libraries, so in your hypothetical, only censored versions of the Bible could be kept or used.

However, I don't think anyone has found a Bible passage that is explicit enough to actually trigger the law, and the school board in question here agreed the Bible isn't pornographic under this law. It pulled the Bible instead because of "vulgarity or violence", neither word playing any part of this statute. As I remarked below, it's not clear to me what legal basis the review board had to make that decision -- but it's not this law, because then they couldn't keep the Bible in high schools (which they did).

[not guilty]

The Bible contains plenty of scenes where sexual coupling is explicitly referenced.

¨Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain¨. Genesis 4:1 (RSV)

¨[Abram] went in to Hagar, and she conceived¨. Genesis 16:4 (RSV)

King David raped and impregnated Bathsheba. II Samuel 11:3-5

Ammon raped his sister Tamar. II Samuel 13:11-14

The above are just a few examples of many. But for sheer, gratuitous salaciousness, see Ezekiel chapter 23 (RSV):

1 The word of the LORD came to me:
2 "Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother;
3 they played the harlot in Egypt; they played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and their virgin bosoms handled.
4 Oho'lah was the name of the elder and Ohol'ibah the name of her sister. They became mine, and they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Oho'lah is Sama'ria, and Ohol'ibah is Jerusalem
5 "Oho'lah played the harlot while she was mine; and she doted on her lovers the Assyrians,
6 warriors clothed in purple, governors and commanders, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding on horses.
7 She bestowed her harlotries upon them, the choicest men of Assyria all of them; and she defiled herself with all the idols of every one on whom she doted.
8 She did not give up her harlotry which she had practiced since her days in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her and handled her virgin bosom and poured out their lust upon her.
9 Therefore I delivered her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted.
10 These uncovered her nakedness; they seized her sons and her daughters; and her they slew with the sword; and she became a byword among women, when judgment had been executed upon her.
11 "Her sister Ohol'ibah saw this, yet she was more corrupt than she in her doting and in her harlotry, which was worse than that of her sister.
12 She doted upon the Assyrians, governors and commanders, warriors clothed in full armor, horsemen riding on horses, all of them desirable young men.
13 And I saw that she was defiled; they both took the same way.
14 But she carried her harlotry further; she saw men portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chalde'ans portrayed in vermilion
15 girded with belts on their loins, with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them looking like officers, a picture of Babylonians whose native land was Chalde'a.
16 When she saw them she doted upon them, and sent messengers to them in Chalde'a.
17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their lust; and after she was polluted by them, she turned from them in disgust.
18 When she carried on her harlotry so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned from her sister.
19 Yet she increased her harlotry, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt
20 and doted upon her paramours there, whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses.
21 Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.
22 Therefore, O Ohol'ibah, thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I will rouse against you your lovers from whom you turned in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side:
23 the Babylonians and all the Chalde'ans, Pekod and Sho'a and Ko'a, and all the Assyrians with them, desirable young men, governors and commanders all of them, officers and warriors, all of them riding on horses.
24 And they shall come against you from the north with chariots and wagons and a host of peoples; they shall set themselves against you on every side with buckler, shield, and helmet, and I will commit the judgment to them, and they shall judge you according to their judgments.
25 And I will direct my indignation against you, that they may deal with you in fury. They shall cut off your nose and your ears, and your survivors shall fall by the sword. They shall seize your sons and your daughters, and your survivors shall be devoured by fire.
26 They shall also strip you of your clothes and take away your fine jewels.
27 Thus I will put an end to your lewdness and your harlotry brought from the land of Egypt; so that you shall not lift up your eyes to the Egyptians or remember them any more.
28 For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will deliver you into the hands of those whom you hate, into the hands of those from whom you turned in disgust;
29 and they shall deal with you in hatred, and take away all the fruit of your labor, and leave you naked and bare, and the nakedness of your harlotry shall be uncovered. Your lewdness and your harlotry
30 have brought this upon you, because you played the harlot with the nations, and polluted yourself with their idols.
31 You have gone the way of your sister; therefore I will give her cup into your hand.
32 Thus says the Lord GOD: "You shall drink your sister's cup which is deep and large; you shall be laughed at and held in derision, for it contains much;
33 you will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow. A cup of horror and desolation, is the cup of your sister Sama'ria;
34 you shall drink it and drain it out, and pluck out your hair, and tear your breasts; for I have spoken, says the Lord GOD.
35 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you have forgotten me and cast me behind your back, therefore bear the consequences of your lewdness and harlotry."
36 The LORD said to me: "Son of man, will you judge Oho'lah and Ohol'ibah? Then declare to them their abominable deeds
37 For they have committed adultery, and blood is upon their hands; with their idols they have committed adultery; and they have even offered up to them for food the sons whom they had borne to me.
38 Moreover this they have done to me: they have defiled my sanctuary on the same day and profaned my sabbaths
39 For when they had slaughtered their children in sacrifice to their idols, on the same day they came into my sanctuary to profane it. And lo, this is what they did in my house.
40 They even sent for men to come from far, to whom a messenger was sent, and lo, they came. For them you bathed yourself, painted your eyes, and decked yourself with ornaments;
41 you sat upon a stately couch, with a table spread before it on which you had placed my incense and my oil.
42 The sound of a carefree multitude was with her; and with men of the common sort drunkards were brought from the wilderness; and they put bracelets upon the hands of the women, and beautiful crowns upon their heads.
43 "Then I said, Do not men now commit adultery when they practice harlotry with her?
44 For they have gone in to her, as men go in to a harlot. Thus they went in to Oho'lah and to Ohol'ibah to commit lewdness.
45 But righteous men shall pass judgment on them with the sentence of adulteresses, and with the sentence of women that shed blood; because they are adulteresses, and blood is upon their hands."
46 For thus says the Lord GOD: "Bring up a host against them, and make them an object of terror and a spoil.
47 And the host shall stone them and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses.
48 Thus will I put an end to lewdness in the land, that all women may take warning and not commit lewdness as you have done.
49 And your lewdness shall be requited upon you, and you shall bear the penalty for your sinful idolatry; and you shall know that I am the Lord GOD."

[arch1]

Slightly OT though this does bear on the value of the book as a whole: The Ezekiel excerpt illustrates how the Bible, which does so poorly wrt factual accuracy, internal consistency, and epistemology, is at best highly unreliable even as to morality, an area where the spawn of a *truly* omnibenevolent omniscience would shine with the brilliance of the noonday sun.

[Gandydancer]

TLDR. If it contains "(c) A description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality as defined in Subsection (1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iii) has no serious value for minors" feel free to explain why.

Note the examples provided: " Section 76-10-1227 provides, in relevant part, (1) … (a) "Description or depiction of illicit sex or sexual immorality" means:
(i) human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal...[etc.]"

I see no reason to ignore this guidance.

[Frank Drackman]

TLDR

[Zak Meh]

Someone already took that one, so here is another (from the same chapter):

12 Now after a considerable time Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died; and when the time of mourning was ended, Judah went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. 13 And Tamar was told, “Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep.” 14 So she removed her widow’s garments and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in the gateway of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah had grown up, and she had not been given to him as a wife. 15 When Judah saw her, he assumed she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 So he turned aside to her by the road, and said, “Here now, let me have relations with you”; for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said, “What will you give me, that you may have relations with me?” 17 He said, therefore, “I will send you a [o]young goat from the flock.” She then said, “Will you give a pledge until you send it?” 18 He said, “What pledge shall I give you?” And she said, “Your seal and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand.” So he gave them to her and had relations with her, and she conceived by him.

[Michael P]

Specifically which part is the offending "description or depiction"?

[Zak Meh]

That would be "So he gave them to her and had relations with her, and she conceived by him."

[Michael P]

It's describing them playing checkers all evening, and him giving her an idea (conception)?

[Zak Meh]

She later gets accused of prostitution, is almost burned alive as punishment, and gives birth to twins, all because of this game of checkers. 🙂

[Eugene Volokh]

"Game of checkers" -- is that what the kids are calling it these days?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

King, me! Indeed.

[Michael P]

I was reminded of some youth-oriented book discussing the (un-)suitability of Gone With The Wind for schoolchildren, on the basis of the part where Rhett sweeps Scarlet off her feet and carries her into the bedroom. The young lady defending the book pointed out that what happened next is left to speculation -- the pair could have just played a game all evening (I think checkers was the example she used).

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Nowadays I think they find still other things to object to in Gone With the Wind.

[Gandydancer]

No need to speculate. If the "description or depiction" is absent then it is absent.

[bernard11]

Well, there is sometimes jumping involved.

[Gandydancer]

The slats in the bottom of a bedframe once fell to the floor under repeated vibration, but I can't say there's ever been any jumping when I've been involved..

[iowatwo]

is that what the kids are calling it these days?

A while back it was 'netflix and chill'

[Michael P]

Are you suggesting that the law should also ban descriptions or depictions of extrajudicial violence? By your standards, that would ban any discussion of wars….

One of the canons of statutory construction is that you cannot read parts of a law free of the context they are in. They are known by the company they keep. The way that “description or depiction” is used — and even the coupling of those two words — constrains their meaning. The law is not as broad as you suggest.

[grb]

Zak Meh : “So he gave them to her and had relations with her, and she conceived by him”

Racy or not, the story of Tamar is one of my favorite parts of Thomas Mann’s Joseph And His Brothers – a book I like to reread every five or six years.

[ReaderY]

This comment references Zak Meh. It explicitly mentions Zak Meh. Here, it lingers on Zak Meh. It draws attention to Zak Meh. But does it describe Zak Meh? It does not.

A description involves details about the thing described, a discussion of its nature, not simply a statement that it exists or that it occurred.

[Michael P]

I went digging to find case law on the extent of “indecent public displays”, but at least one Utah school district has applied this law to the Bible for primary schools: https://www.wkyt.com/2023/06/02/utah-district-bans-bible-elementary-middle-schools/

On the other hand, “The review committee determined the Bible didn’t qualify under Utah’s definition of what’s pornographic or indecent, which is why it remains in high schools, Williams said.”

[Michael P]

… which is the same case EV linked in his first sentence. Whoops!

Although now I'm confused about the basis for removal. I don't see a hook in the law for vulgarity or violence, only for naked people or sexually tinged material.

[Gandydancer]

...if described or depicted in some fashion akin to the relevant examples. Probably this could have been done better, but excluding the Bible from libraries is just trolling for effect by stupid people.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

but excluding the Bible from libraries is just trolling for effect by stupid people

Including the Bible, especially in the context of children, is just creating a special rule to appease gullible, superstitious people for whom "just because" constitutes a winning argument.

[Theendoftheleft]

Will you seek to exclude the noble Quran too?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why should or would the Quran be treated differently?

[Theendoftheleft]

Good. Now, will you publicly proclaim your belief about how the Quran should be treated, or will you reserve it for treatment in anonymous posts in a 'libertarian' forum?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I certainly think children should be exposed to literature which depicts crime and wickedness…for the explicit purpose of showing that these things are bad. High Noon is a violent movie, but the only good violence is in defense of the community.

If the legislature doesn’t think schools are willing to teach right from wrong (including with content in their libraries), they should reform the schools top to bottom.

Some authors and artists use the vehicle of a moral message to portray wickedness in great detail - to show how bad it is, of course! Sometimes this moral purpose is sincere, sometimes not.

Of course, there will be students who skip any moral lesson of a work and go straight to the naughty bits. But then, who needs a school library to access Shakespeare, the Bible, etc? Some kids have this thing called the Internet.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So, you agree that the Bible should be removed?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

My principles negate the Utah law's principles, so, no, books which *portray* wickedness should not automatically be removed. Use/mention distinction.

[Martinned]

Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

[Dan Schiavetta]

They kinda do.

[Gandydancer]

Are you talking about the trolling and woke Bible banners?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Bring back the stork! Looking forward to regulations on how that story is to be portrayed. Does the beak have to be the same color as the baby?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Captcrisis reads an article about the Bible being removed from schools in an unintended consequence due to a very, very broad stupid law passed by the Utah legislature and apparently reads it while thinking “man, there’s got to be some way to make this about race”.

And this is the best he could do.

[Gandydancer]

I’m not as credulous about the intent of the Bible removers as you are.

[Sarcastr0]

Why does intent of one pointing out how the statute works matter? The text is the text.

[Michael P]

Examining motives helps understand why they misrepresent the text.

[Sarcastr0]

No why about it - Misrepresentation or lack therof should stand it’s own.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is the case -- even a result-driven, partisan case -- for providing a Bible (or why not several flavors of Bibles?) in school without similarly providing the Tanakh, the Quran, Dianetics, the Mahayana Sutras, the Hadith, the Vedas, the Red Volumes, the Green Volumes, the Tafsir, the Paranas, the Tripitaka, the Talmud, the Tao Te Ching, and perhaps a dozen others?

"My fairy tale is better than your fairy tale" seems a weak argument, especially from someone older than 12 or so.

[Frank Drackman]

Ladies & Germs, lets hear it for the "Reverend/Coach Sandusky" experienced at teaching "Fairies" the error of their ways"

Frank

[Theendoftheleft]

'My fairy tale is better than your fairy tale' said the gay liberal who claimed falsely that his morality and political prejudices are predicated upon reason and truth.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

One clinger claims I am Jerry Sandusky.

Other clingers accuse me of abusing children.

Prof. Volokh censors me.

Other clingers say I should be sent to a Zyklon shower, shot in the face, pushed through a woodchipper, raped, or placed face-down in a landfill.

This clinger asserts that I am gay and intends it as an insult.

Another clinger calls me "AIDS."

This white, male, faux libertarian, right-wing blog is a flaming shitstorm of bigotry, ignorance, childish superstition, backwardness, and more bigotry — and, apparently, the best that a group of right-wing law professors can do.

See you down the road apiece, clingers . . . Culture War Road, that is. You’re not going to like the ride.

[Theendoftheleft]

You’ve clung to this site for years. You are a complete loser.

You also misrepresent yourself and your values here repeatedly. You’re a fascist pig, not any sort of true liberal or libertarian.

Your country is furthermore going down the tubes, AIDS. You aren’t even going to survive the ride. Everything you’ve ever fought for and believed will die.

Carry on clinger, till your betters Breivik you.

[Theendoftheleft]

Also, you keep accusing people of bigotry when you’re repeatedly shown to be one yourself. This shows your stupidity and hypocrisy. Why would any other commenters here take you seriously?

How can you win a culture war when you’re being outbred by people who reject your values? You’re being replaced, AIDS. Repeating it to these VC commenters because of the future of their ideology relative to yours is just to miss the forest for the trees. Choose reason, AIDS. (Keep in mind, too, that when you forecast a bumpy road for the VC folks in your domestic culture war that theirs is the side with the guns and they're going to use them on you. And if you try to flee to our countries, AIDS, you will not be tolerated.)

[Drbusybody]

Professor Volokh:

I believe section 2a is sufficient to basically negate the rest of the law and keep the Bible and other serious works from being banned.

(2) (a) Subject to Subsection (2)(c), this section and Section 76-10-1228 do not apply to any material which, when taken as a whole, has serious value for minors.

[PeteRR]

Can I ask a legal question?

If you commit a "crime" in public, say a self defense shooting that the DA is feeling bloody-minded about and you are arrested right then and there, what's the basis for searching your home afterward?

[Michael P]

The typical (theoretical) basis for a search is that there is probable cause to believe the search will find evidence of a crime. It's hard to speculate about the actual logic without more details of the (hypothetical?) situation.

[PeteRR]

Here is the case:
https://abc7ny.com/queens-shooting-kew-gardens-man-charged-charles-foehner/13332122/

Most of the charges are related to the items found in his home after the shooting and after his arrest.

[Michael P]

From the very spare details there and in other media coverage, I would speculate that he didn't lawyer up, and told the police about his unregistered/ unlicensed guns when they interrogated him. Or maybe a judge signed a warrant to seize the guns that the government knew about. In either case, this looks like another case where NYC's hoplophobia will lead to injustice; even the dead munger's relatives sympathize with the shooter.

[PeteRR]

Thanks for this. A million years ago now, I was told by a NJ defense lawyer who specialized in firearms cases to adhere to S.A.C.

keep Silent
Ask for a lawyer.
never Consent to a search

He told me that if I stuck to these rules he had a very good chance of keeping me out of prison.

[Kazinski]

I am not going to defend the law on common sense grounds, but I will say the law is not-unconstitutional since it is government regulating government speech.

[Frank Drackman]

"Not-unconstitutional"??
so it's "Constitutional",
Jeez, miss "Brevity is the soul of wit" Day??, umm obviously, dammit,
now I'm not being "Brevi-tous"

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

Does anyone know if there are many instances from more than 2 generations ago of moral panics about children and sexual information? Before they ban the birds and the bees from the beehive state, seems like they ought to ask the grandmothers there who grew up on farms with barnyards. Time was when almost everyone lived rurally, and got exposed to explicit animal sex at an age earlier than they would subsequently be able to remember. I doubt many of them had difficulty generalizing such universal and ordinary experience to people.

[ReaderY]

This is silly. Where in the Bible is sexual intercourse described?

Referred to, yes. But described?

This is no different from opponents of environmental laws arguing for striking them down because it’s impossible to construct an exact boundary of a body of water, therefore nobody can ever know if they’re engaging in water pollution or not. Almost everything in life has some ambiguities, and determined opponents can justify striking anything down on that basis.

As noted above, government has every right to set rules for its own speech.

[ReaderY]

Looking at the text of the statute, this is language the Supreme Court has routinely upheld for obscenity-as-applied-to-minors. There’s nothing particularly unusual about this statute.

It’s been a standard tactic in the election scare to claim that routine election procedures, say, locking ballots in boxes or transporting them in vans, are somehow evidence of a grand criminal conspiracy. This is is very similar to a big scare they-stole-the-election headline, just on the liberal side.

You would think that Professor Volokh, as a law professor focusing on speech and First Amendment issues, would have some familiarity with how obsenity-as-applied-to-minors statutes have been worded for decades and would realize that the complaint that the Bible is obscene under the definition is just as frivolous as claims that routine election practices represent a conspiracy to steal the election.

This is directed ignorance, ignorance weaponized and used towards a goal. It’s willful ignorance. That can be understood if not respected in ordinary people like the parents who complained. But in a law professor?

[Toranth]

It's Twitter lawyering.
Never assume that government is immune to stupid and childish behavior, especially local government like school boards.

[Commenter_XY]

Maybe the question to ask: Do you want the bible removed from schools?

My answer is: No

I want to know what the legislators had in mind when they wrote this law.

[Theendoftheleft]

How about the Quran's mention of the Prophet (pbuh)'s marriage to a six year-old, and the Hadith's mention of his consumating that marriage upon the bride's turning nine?

Should the Quran and the Hadiths therefore be banned from American schools? Are you that authoritarian and Islamophobic?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why should a school provide a Bible?

If a student wishes to bring a Bible to school, the student should be permitted to do so. But there is no reason a school should provide a Bible.

[bernard11]

I think it's fine to have the Bible in the school library. I also think 9t's fine to have other books that might be barred by this statute.

In Othello we have Iago telling Desdemona's father that,

*"an old black ram is tupping your white ewe."

Should the play be out.

*The Shakepeare that we read in high school had footnotes explaining obsolete or unclear words and phrases. "Tupping," I recall to this day, was "translated" as "covering." No one was fooled.

[Longtobefree]

So exactly what is the "female breast" they speak of?
Surely they know that men and women are the exact same in every way!

[Gandydancer]

You. Are. A. Loon.

The Bible is quoted all over the place and having several versions in the library is helpful to gain context for those quotes.

(Also applies to Korans, etc.)

[Gandydancer]

Not seeing the ""[d]escription or depiction" there. And the "any material which, when taken as a whole, has serious value for minors” exception, etc., also applies.

[Krayt]

So erotic touching of the male breast is ok?

[Michael P]

(2)(c) says a description or depiction of sexual intercourse never has serious value for minors. It leaves very little scope of material that is eligible for the (2)(a)/(2)(b) analysis of value.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Animal House is quoted quite frequently. As are The Terminator, Jaws, The Godfather, Star Wars, Caddyshack, and Scarface.

Most students are more interested in, familiar with, and informed by those movies than they are in, with, or by the Bible. Should those movies be in all libraries?

[CocoN8]

It’s not just about quotations from the bible. That’s about as surface level as you can get. Rather it’s about biblical allusions that pop up in nearly every great literary work. For example, in Hamlet the titular character accepts that God will decide his fate by saying “There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow.”

Or take the book “Crime and Punishment,” like, the whole entire thing. It’s considered a parallel to the Gospel of John. Or the entirety of “The Grapes of Wrath,” which is shot through with biblical symbolism.

Ignoring the Bible as literature doesn’t just mean you miss out on fan-servicey quotes here and there. Entire works of literature open up new meanings and depths when the biblical backdrop is understood.

Whatever value YOU personally place on the Bible is irrelevant when great authors for 2,000 years have valued it and have allowed it to shape their works in both obvious and subtle ways.

[Gandydancer]

The comparison you are making is absurd.
I have no particular objection to the movies you mentioned being in appropriate libraries, but how much context do you need for "I'll be back"?

[Gandydancer]

It would not if "description or depiction" had the expansive definition you and EV are inclined to give it, but I demur.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nobody needs a Bible any more than anyone needs any other work of fiction. Silly, superstitious, childish fiction.

People should be entitled to read and cherish the Bible. But it doesn't belong in schools, at least not a bit more than any other old-timey work of fiction that some people mistake for nonfiction.

[Gandydancer]

As I said: You. Are. A. Loon.

Also an ignoramus.

[Michael P]

I strongly disagree with the post and comments here that the Bible passages people have quoted contain a single “description or depiction” of sexual intercourse. See, for example, my rejection of a broad reading at https://reason.com/volokh/2023/06/02/utah-law-forbids-public-school-libraries-from-having-any-books-that-describe-sexual-intercourse-etc/?comments=true#comment-10091384 .

You later made the same point: the level of explicitness must be similar for clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). That’s all the more so given that the original “indecent public displays” law is primarily aimed at visual representations. See section 76-10-1228 of the state code.

However, among items that contain "illicit sex or sexual immorality", almost all of them are banned because the law defines them as never having serious value for minors.

[Longtobefree]

It should either be forbidden, or allowed, for all breasts on all genders and/or sexes.
Anything else, like this misguided law, is unconstitutional.