The GOP War on Books

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2024, 08:06 AM)pally Wrote: Policies are are local either to the individual library or library system.  Exactl whre it should be.  Let each community decide for itself

Can you name any books that would be banned by this potential legislation?

[GMDino]

(06-07-2024, 09:58 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Can you name any books that would be banned by this potential legislation?

I'm going to guess probably not.  But I can also guess that based on these type of laws around the country it will focus on anything that is about homosexuality, racism, or US history that doesn't portray the US as God's Favorite that never made a mistake. 

All seriousness aside I think that's the other problem with laws like this:  They are performative while just creating vague descriptions so people will fight over what should be banned or not.  Meanwhile the lawmakers can say they are "fighting for the children".

[*pally*]

(06-07-2024, 09:58 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Can you name any books that would be banned by this potential legislation?

No, because the law is so broadly wriiten it can be applied to just about anything

I would suspect, though, that the books at the top of list would be similar to the list of books attacked by school library opponent.  Those tend to be challenged based on the following criteria

-violence
-sexual content
-LGBTQ themes
-civil rights

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2024, 10:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm going to guess probably not.  But I can also guess that based on these type of laws around the country it will focus on anything that is about homosexuality, racism, or US history that doesn't portray the US as God's Favorite that never made a mistake. 

All seriousness aside I think that's the other problem with laws like this:  They are performative while just creating vague descriptions so people will fight over what should be banned or not.  Meanwhile the lawmakers can say they are "fighting for the children".

As I read in the article posted by the OP, all this really does is allow a parent to raise a complaint to the State Literary Board, who will then review the material in question and make a decision. Another section of the bill requires that local boards of library trustees to abide by the decisions handed down by the State Literary Board.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2024, 10:22 AM)pally Wrote: No, because the law is so broadly wriiten it can be applied to just about anything

I would suspect, though, that the books at the top of list would be similar to the list of books attacked by school library opponent.  Those tend to be challenged based on the following criteria

-violence
-sexual content
-LGBTQ themes
-civil rights

Nice try, Ohio already has laws defining what is to be construed as obscene material. If you actually read the article in the OP, you will see that all this bill allows for is parents to raise a complaint to the State Literary Board, and requires that local libraries must adhere to the decisions of the State Literary Board.

[*pally*]

(06-07-2024, 10:28 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Nice try, Ohio already has laws defining what is to be construed as obscene material. If you actually read the article in the OP, you will see that all this bill allows for is parents to raise a complaint to the State Literary Board, and requires that local libraries must adhere to the decisions of the State Literary Board.

so why do we need another vaguely written law?

Citizens already have the right to challenge books

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2024, 10:43 AM)pally Wrote: so why do we need another vaguely written law?

Citizens already have the right to challenge books

It's not vague at all. It specifically says that a parent (i.e. a member of the community) can file a complaint for the State Literary Board to make a decision upon. This proposed law isn't vaguely describing anything, it's establishing a process and defining who must adhere to said process.

[GMDino]

(06-07-2024, 10:25 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As I read in the article posted by the OP, all this really does is allow a parent to raise a complaint to the State Literary Board, who will then review the material in question and make a decision. Another section of the bill requires that local boards of library trustees to abide by the decisions handed down by the State Literary Board.

So one parent can get a book reviewed and possibly removed.

That is the same as most states passing these laws and they ended up with parents that were not from the towns making the complaints.  And were talking LOTS of complaints because LOTS of individuals have LOTS of different ideas about what is "good" or "bad. 

That's why it was such a big deal when someone complained about the bible.

I'm personally not for banning any books from anywhere.  And I know that would lead to lots of awful books getting int he hands of people who will use them to do awful things.  But it's not something I would ever support.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2024, 11:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: So one parent can get a book reviewed and possibly removed.

That is the same as most states passing these laws and they ended up with parents that were not from the towns making the complaints.  And were talking LOTS of complaints because LOTS of individuals have LOTS of different ideas about what is "good" or "bad. 

That's why it was such a big deal when someone complained about the bible.

I'm personally not for banning any books from anywhere.  And I know that would lead to lots of awful books getting int he hands of people who will use them to do awful things.  But it's not something I would ever support.

Here's the thing, even if material were deemed inappropriate to be displayed on the open shelves, a parent can still check out the book for the juvenile to read if they so choose. So in reality, no books will be outright "banned".

[GMDino]

(06-07-2024, 11:20 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Here's the thing, even if material were deemed inappropriate to be displayed on the open shelves, a parent can still check out the book for the juvenile to read if they so choose. So in reality, no books will be outright "banned".

It is still "hiding" a book/information from people.  I'm against it.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2024, 11:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: It is still "hiding" a book/information from people.  I'm against it.

So you're also against the motion picture rating system, FCC guidelines, not allow children to hold driver licenses until the age of 16, not allowing them to purchase and consume nicotine, alcohol, pornography, guns etc. until an appropriately deemed age of consent is reached, as well?

And if you're not against any or all of those other regulations upon our minor children, why pick this as the bridge too far?

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-06-2024, 10:22 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: so you are for grooming of children?

Is he a pastor ? Never heard him mentionning this ? 

[GMDino]

(06-07-2024, 12:08 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So you're also against the motion picture rating system, FCC guidelines, not allow children to hold driver licenses until the age of 16, not allowing them to purchase and consume nicotine, alcohol, pornography, guns etc. until an appropriately deemed age of consent is reached, as well?

And if you're not against any or all of those other regulations upon our minor children, why pick this as the bridge too far?

I'm against censorship.  Not sure what driving and smoking and drinking have to do with it.  

For example how many of you were sneakily watching "skinamax" and reading your dad's playboys underage?  All this is, and other attempts like it, is try and show how people "care" while ignoring what happens in the real world.  And (before it comes up), yes, the same goes for a lot gun laws that duplicate what is already on the books, or want to arm teachers, or whatever "caring" law either side proposes to try and deter gun violence.

No, I don't like the rating system for movies.  Never did.  All it is is one group saying THEIR morals and values are more important that everyone else.  Like in countries where women are forced to cover up their bodies so they don't "tempt" the men.  Men can't control themselves so they control the women.  

I might buy into it if these self-serving people didn't so often get exposed for all the things they do in their private lives while pushing their views on the rest of us.

FTR, movies are self-regulated too, although with some "rules" like how many times you can say the "F" word...because two is ok for a 13 year old but three is a "bridge too far". 

[SunsetBengal]

(06-07-2024, 12:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm against censorship.  Not sure what driving and smoking and drinking have to do with it.  

All of those things were put in place to protect vulnerable minor children. The spirit behind this bill is simply add enforceability to already existing laws to protect children from being pandered to with obscene literature.

[GMDino]

(06-07-2024, 12:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: All of those things were put in place to protect vulnerable minor children. The spirit behind this bill is simply add enforceability to already existing laws to protect children from being pandered to with obscene literature.

Driving laws are to protect everyone.

Smoking laws came about because, well, it kills people.    

Drinking laws varied from state to state. In many countries alcohol is part of family dinner.

But, again, are they stopping kids from smoking or drinking?  No.  It creates a air of making them something to sneak and, IMHO, lead to more problems.

Now if you want to talk about laws that prevent people from marrying 13 year old children I'd be more in agreement.  That reeks of people taking advantage of a minor, which isn't the same with a book, or movie, or if they get their own booze.

However republicans (men) don't like those laws.

https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/13/last-ditch-push-to-ban-child-marriage-in-missouri-must-overcome-resistance-in-house/
https://www.newsweek.com/jess-edwards-teen-child-marriage-opposed-republican-ripe-fertile-age-1897512
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/child-marriage-ban-struck-down-west-virginia-republicans-1234693670/
https://www.newsweek.com/wyoming-ending-child-marriage-sparks-republican-outrage-1780501

So add that to the reasons I'm leaning against such a caring law like the one in the OP.

[*pally*]

The whole idea of a library, is that they espose you to books and other media that you might have sought out yourself. Hiding books is no different from hiding ideas or spoken speech.

Let each parent patrol their own child's reading material. Why should my child lose easy access to a book just because Evnagelical conservative mom and dad doesn't like it. If they don't like it, fine don't let your kid check it out.

No child has ever been harmed by a cover of a book

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-07-2024, 01:29 PM)pally Wrote: The whole idea of a library, is that they espose you to books and other media that you might have sought out yourself. Hiding books is no different from hiding ideas or spoken speech.  

Let each parent patrol their own child's reading material.  Why should my child lose easy access to a book just because Evnagelical conservative mom and dad doesn't like it.  If they don't like it, fine don't let your kid check it out.

No child has ever been harmed by a cover of a book

Well according to Dill, if there is enough opinions on a matter, it can become Law. 

So if each community is policing itself and gets enough opinions on a particular book, then it can be banned right?

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-07-2024, 11:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: It is still "hiding" a book/information from people.  I'm against it.

There is no "hiding" anymore than they were "hiding" the LEXX sci-fi series from the public.

I am against them hiding LEXX all this time, where were you?

Or maybe like LEXX, some books are not in high demand, and thus not showcased/displayed?

What's more likely...

[GMDino]

(06-07-2024, 05:14 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: There is no "hiding" anymore than they were "hiding" the LEXX sci-fi series from the public.

I am against them hiding LEXX all this time, where were you?

Or maybe like LEXX, some books are not in high demand, and thus not showcased/displayed?

What's more likely...

If they were deliberately keeping it hidden due to the content of the series I am against it.

Of course they can't display EVERY book all the time but to chose to not do so because one person decided they didn't like it is wrong.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-07-2024, 09:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: If they were deliberately keeping it hidden due to the content of the series I am against it.

Of course they can't display EVERY book all the time but to chose to not do so because one person decided they didn't like it is wrong.

Then the burden is on you to prove it?

I have never seen LEXX displayed, but I am also not imagining windmills to tilt.

Sometimes unpopular items are not displayed, it is life. Those who cannot accept it make up other reasons.

Predictable.