+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: The GOP War on Books (/Thread-The-GOP-War-on-Books)
The GOP War on Books - NATI BENGALS - 06-05-2024
Comes to Ohio.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-gop-proposes-bill-that-would-defund-libraries-over-materials-government-deems-harmful
“An Ohio Republican lawmaker just introduced a bill that would defund public libraries if they don't remove or hide so-called "harmful" materials to juveniles.”
Here I thought guys like Epstein and his old friends were what we needed to protect kids from. Leave it to the GOP to show me, the real problem is libraries.
What’s worse. A kid having freedom and reading a book of their choosing? Or a bunch of adults telling kids that a pathological lying, narcissist, serial sexual assaulter, who is a convicted felon is the greatest president ever?
RE: The GOP War on Books - Dill - 06-05-2024
(06-05-2024, 06:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Comes to Ohio.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-gop-proposes-bill-that-would-defund-libraries-over-materials-government-deems-harmful
“An Ohio Republican lawmaker just introduced a bill that would defund public libraries if they don't remove or hide so-called "harmful" materials to juveniles.”
Here I thought guys like Epstein and his old friends were what we needed to protect kids from. Leave it to the GOP to show me, the real problem is libraries.
What’s worse. A kid having freedom and reading a book of their choosing? Or a bunch of adults telling kids that a pathological lying, narcissist, serial sexual assaulter, who is a convicted felon is the greatest president ever?
Spreading from Florida.
There's a lot of that censorship thing going around. It's not just in schools. Our MAGA friends will remind us that Conservative speakers have been shouted down and prevented from speaking on college campuses, though the woksters don't have the power to call in the police or expel student protesters they don't like.
Re: Congress apparently listing Trump's indictments falls under the GOP definition of "engaging personalities," so mention of charges against him is equated to "accusation" of criminal activity and a personal attack. Jim McGovern was silenced for a day after reminding Congress of Trump indictments. If this forum were run on House rules, you'd be banned from posting for the rest of the day, given your final comments on Trump. Guess I would be too for calling your attention to this.
Democrat ruled 'out of order' after listing off Trump's legal woes on the House floor
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrat-ruled-order-listing-trumps-legal-woes-house-floor-rcna153624
...The situation started when McGovern, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, referred to the Republican members of Congress who have attended Trump’s hush money trial in New York. “Maybe they want to distract from the fact that their candidate for president has been indicted more times than he’s been elected,” he said.
Rep. Jerry Carl, R-Ala., who was in the chair presiding over debate, reminded McGovern to “refrain from engaging in personalities” toward the presumed presidential nominees.
McGovern shot back, asking whether it was “unparliamentary to state a fact.”
He then asked why a Republican member last week could call the Trump trial a “sham” on the House floor and not face the same admonishment by the chair. During a [/url]floor speech[url=https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-170/issue-84/house-section/article/H3266-1?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22%5C%22sham+trial%5C%22%22%7D&s=10&r=2] May 15, Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, repeatedly referred to the “sham trial against the former president in New York,” which he said “relies on an [/url]unreliable witness being presided over by a biased judge.”
While Carl said he would not weigh in on that, McGovern started going through Trump’s legal situation.
"He's also charged with [url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-indicted-jan-6-grand-jury-2020-election-rcna95199]conspiring to overturn the election,” he said of Trump. “He’s also charged with stealing classified information, and a jury has already found him liable for rape and in a civil court. And yet, in this Republican-controlled House, it’s OK to talk about the trial, but you have to call it a 'sham.'”
At that point, Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., interjected, asking that McGovern’s “words be taken down.” Representatives can make such a request if they feel one of their colleagues has used disorderly language.
After more than an hour as staff members huddled on the floor, Carl ruled that McGovern’s "offensive words" were out of order, citing past rulings by House speakers.
Specifically, Carl pointed to rules that prohibit members from using "personally offensive" language about the president.
"The accusation that the president has committed a crime or even that the president has done something illegal is not in order," Carl said.
RE: The GOP War on Books - michaelsean - 06-05-2024
“Under Ohio law, "harmful to juveniles" has a broad meaning, including material describing or showing nudity, sexual conduct or obscene behavior.“
I mean if that’s all it is, I can’t argue too much except if they are talking about not even carrying books meant for adults that have some sort of sexual passages.
RE: The GOP War on Books - SunsetBengal - 06-05-2024
Lol, I love how the word "censorship" is thrown around like grown people's rights are being infringed upon, when the policy in question is in regard to underage minors, students in an educational setting.
RE: The GOP War on Books - Mike M (the other one) - 06-05-2024
(06-05-2024, 07:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lol, I love how the word "censorship" is thrown around like grown people's rights are being infringed upon, when the policy in question is in regard to underage minors, students in an educational setting.
Shhhhhhh Dill is just getting warmed up, you could have waited a few pages before posting that.
RE: The GOP War on Books - NATI BENGALS - 06-05-2024
(06-05-2024, 07:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lol, I love how the word "censorship" is thrown around like grown people's rights are being infringed upon, when the policy in question is in regard to underage minors, students in an educational setting.
This is to defund public libraries that have books they don’t like.
RE: The GOP War on Books - NATI BENGALS - 06-05-2024
(06-05-2024, 07:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: “Under Ohio law, "harmful to juveniles" has a broad meaning, including material describing or showing nudity, sexual conduct or obscene behavior.“
I mean if that’s all it is, I can’t argue too much except if they are talking about not even carrying books meant for adults that have some sort of sexual passages.
I'd start by burning all the sexual education books.
RE: The GOP War on Books - SunsetBengal - 06-05-2024
(06-05-2024, 08:46 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I'd start by burning all the sexual education books.
Only if they make inappropriate materials available to juveniles...
Nice try.
RE: The GOP War on Books - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-05-2024
Here's the thing. I think we all can agree that certain materials should not be made available to those who are not adults. The question becomes where do you draw the line, are there different lines for different ages groups, e.g 16-17 or 14-15, those under ten, etc. So a good starting place would be to narrow the outrage to what exact materials are being exempted and why. A broad, "they're banning books!" accusation does the conversation no good at all.
RE: The GOP War on Books - michaelsean - 06-05-2024
(06-05-2024, 09:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing. I think we all can agree that certain materials should not be made available to those who are not adults. The question becomes where do you draw the line, are there different lines for different ages groups, e.g 16-17 or 14-15, those under ten, etc. So a good starting place would be to narrow the outrage to what exact materials are being exempted and why. A broad, "they're banning books!" accusation does the conversation no good at all.
Yes. The devil is in the details. I have no problem with keeping say sexually explicit material away from kids. If the intention is a back door attempt to ban certain books then I’m against it.
RE: The GOP War on Books - NATI BENGALS - 06-06-2024
(06-05-2024, 09:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing. I think we all can agree that certain materials should not be made available to those who are not adults. The question becomes where do you draw the line, are there different lines for different ages groups, e.g 16-17 or 14-15, those under ten, etc. So a good starting place would be to narrow the outrage to what exact materials are being exempted and why. A broad, "they're banning books!" accusation does the conversation no good at all.
Sounds like a good topic for the parent or guardian of the child. Not a thought police political party that wants to control what books are at your local library.
I’m pretty sure there are laws already banning actual porn. Or else I would have known about it.
RE: The GOP War on Books - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-06-2024
(06-06-2024, 12:54 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sounds like a good topic for the parent or guardian of the child. Not a thought police political party that wants to control what books are at your local library.
So, let the local library be a free for all subject to parental discretion?
Quote:I’m pretty sure there are laws already banning actual porn. Or else I would have known about it.
You're admitting to more than you think you are here.
RE: The GOP War on Books - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-06-2024
More hand wringing and chicken little behavior from the left. Reading is important, as is comprehension, which is why libraries are so important.
There is no book ban nonsense going on. Nor are books being removed from libraries in the proposal.
Here is the section being discussed,
to require each
board of public library trustees to adopt a
policy that prohibits its libraries from
displaying matter harmful to juveniles and to
redistribute the public library funds of
libraries that fail to do so.
So the books are allowed in the library, but cannot be displayed. They can be obtained or requested, same as any other piece of library material.
But the left make it out like books are being banned, burned, and the a bunch of other disinformation.
Amazing so many people fell for the disinformation. Sad state of affairs...
RE: The GOP War on Books - GMDino - 06-06-2024
(06-06-2024, 12:54 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sounds like a good topic for the parent or guardian of the child. Not a thought police political party that wants to control what books are at your local library.
I’m pretty sure there are laws already banning actual porn. Or else I would have known about it.
No, no. when the gop talks about "small government" they mean small enough to live in your pocket and tell you what to do when it isn't what they want.
All seriousness aside I tend to lean toward the idea that banning a book just encourage people to find the book elsewhere. I think these people are hoping people won't even know the books exist and won't look for them, which is why the also target anything that makes gay people feel better about themselves or discusses tough topics.
I'm old enough to remember when underage people couldn't buy porn and most of them had porn anyway.
But wait until the gop finds out about the stuff people and kids can find on the internet.
RE: The GOP War on Books - pally - 06-06-2024
(06-05-2024, 07:31 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lol, I love how the word "censorship" is thrown around like grown people's rights are being infringed upon, when the policy in question is in regard to underage minors, students in an educational setting.
censorship is censorship regardless of age.
Who gets to decide what is obscene? Lets make it simple. If a parent doesn't want their kids reading a specific book then it is up to them to police their child in the public library.
Age appropriate? again who gets to decide at what age every single child has the maturirty and reading skills to read a specific book? Is it thegovernments responsibility to parent a child or their parents. This is why libraries offer a wide variety of books.
Conservatives love to throw around the term "parents rights". Yeah, they are all for that until anothe parent might make a decision concerning their child that differs from the decision they would make.
My father was a conservative career military officer from rural Oklahoma. There was not a liberal bone in his body. He would be appalled at the idea of legislation like this. He was a lifeliong reader who taught his children to be lifelong readers. At no time in our lives was any book restricted
RE: The GOP War on Books - XenoMorph - 06-06-2024
(06-05-2024, 06:13 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Comes to Ohio.
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-gop-proposes-bill-that-would-defund-libraries-over-materials-government-deems-harmful
“An Ohio Republican lawmaker just introduced a bill that would defund public libraries if they don't remove or hide so-called "harmful" materials to juveniles.”
Here I thought guys like Epstein and his old friends were what we needed to protect kids from. Leave it to the GOP to show me, the real problem is libraries.
What’s worse. A kid having freedom and reading a book of their choosing? Or a bunch of adults telling kids that a pathological lying, narcissist, serial sexual assaulter, who is a convicted felon is the greatest president ever?
so you are for grooming of children?
RE: The GOP War on Books - pally - 06-06-2024
(06-06-2024, 07:57 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: More hand wringing and chicken little behavior from the left. Reading is important, as is comprehension, which is why libraries are so important.
There is no book ban nonsense going on. Nor are books being removed from libraries in the proposal.
Here is the section being discussed,
to require each
board of public library trustees to adopt a
policy that prohibits its libraries from
displaying matter harmful to juveniles and to
redistribute the public library funds of
libraries that fail to do so.
So the books are allowed in the library, but cannot be displayed. They can be obtained or requested, same as any other piece of library material.
But the left make it out like books are being banned, burned, and the a bunch of other disinformation.
Amazing so many people fell for the disinformation. Sad state of affairs...
who gets to decide what is harmful? We have seen by actions of many people throughout the country that simply including books that have gay themes or characters are enough to set them off. We have seen commnunity boards threaten to close their libraries becasuse they dared to disply LGBTQ focused books. Evangelical parents could protest because their are books favorable to Islam
Libraries are designed to cater to a variety of tastes, ages, beliefs, etc The probelm too many of these proposed laws are so broadly written that might offend or be disagreed with is considered inappropriate
RE: The GOP War on Books - pally - 06-06-2024
(06-06-2024, 10:22 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: so you are for grooming of children?
that is a bogus argument
Words don't groom...people do.
You want to protect your child from grooming....dont take them to church, avoid putting them in sports especially that which requires one on one training, don't let them join scouting or other children organizations,
RE: The GOP War on Books - GMDino - 06-06-2024
(06-06-2024, 10:35 AM)pally Wrote: that is a bogus argument
Words don't groom...people do.
You want to protect your child from grooming....dont take them to church, avoid putting them in sports especially that which requires one on one training, don't let them join scouting or other children organizations,
Or work with elected republican officials.
RE: The GOP War on Books - CKwi88 - 06-06-2024
(06-05-2024, 07:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: “Under Ohio law, "harmful to juveniles" has a broad meaning, including material describing or showing nudity, sexual conduct or obscene behavior.“
I mean if that’s all it is, I can’t argue too much except if they are talking about not even carrying books meant for adults that have some sort of sexual passages.
Here is the full definition of "harmful to juveniles" in accordance with Ohio law:
Quote:ORC 2907.01
(E) "Harmful to juveniles" means that quality of any material or performance describing or representing nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse in any form to which all of the following apply:
(1) The material or performance, when considered as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of juveniles in sex.
(2) The material or performance is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for juveniles.
(3) The material or performance, when considered as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value for juveniles.
The definition is far too broad to apply equitably, especially in today's political atmosphere. Like Pally has mentioned. Who decides what is "patently offensive"? Or "lacks serious.....value for juveniles"?