4 ms·

What does that point have to do anything? They are also available in schools, because the judge here enforced the US constitution. The article is about Florid

What does that point have to do anything? They are also available in schools, because the judge here enforced the US constitution. The article is about Florida politicians trying to censor books in public schools, literal government censorship.

bigfishrunning 1y ago
I think the problem with these laws is that they're too general. I think we can all agree that there are topics that should not be in elementary school libraries -- I don't think my 7 year old needs to be reading about oral sex for instance, regardless of the gender or sexuality of the participants. The real problem is the nature of the wording of "pornographic", which is poorly defined as "I know it when i see it", and stretched by disingenuous people with an agenda. As a "Free Speech Absolutionist", I think as much material as possible should be in public libraries, including material that some people object to. I also think that school libraries should be curated to what is appropriate for the audience. The rub here is defining what is "appropriate". Silencing minority literature is bad. Also allowing my elementary school kids to check out "the turner diaries" is bad. There needs to be a balance.
- fknorangesite 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bigfishrunning 1y ago
    The point I'm trying to make is that panicing about book bans is not how you combat these bad-faith actors. It's defining rules to satiate their stated aims, and force them to bring their other motives to light, thus nullifying their arguments.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      Their stated aims are banning any visibility of trans people in all media.
- alistairSH 1y ago
  My (completely inadequate) test... would the people banning books in FL (or wherever else) apply those same rules to the Bible? If not, they're not interested in protecting the children from explicit, but rather forcing their religious ideology on the rest of us.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    No worries, the Bible is safe in Florida schools. https://www.christianpost.com/news/florida-school-board-votes-unanimously-to-keep-bible.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/florida-school-board-vote...
- epistasis 1y ago
  In what way would you consider yourself an "absolutist" with views like these? It seems that free speech has quite a few limitations in your view.
  - bigfishrunning 1y ago
    Let's take the opposite approach -- should schools stock back-issues of "Hustler" magazine? What about the "Anarchists Cookbook"? should we print it and put it on the shelf of a middle school? You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it a good idea to stock a school with it.
    - epistasis 1y ago
      I'm asking about "absolutist" and it's meaning. You replied with something different, about which books should or should not be in a school library. What does "absolutist" mean to you if you think that limits to what's in a library are a "good idea"? Remember, I'm not talking about whether there should be limits or not, I'm asking about your self-description of "absolutist" and why absolutism still has fuzzy definitions of what is allowed or not.
      - bigfishrunning 1y ago
        There's a difference between allowing you to say something and hiring you to say it to my kids.
        epistasis 1y ago
        Got it, you have made that abundantly clear (and not that it matters but I agree.) Again: how is your belief in this compatible with being an "absolutist"? I don't know how I can phrase this more clearly, yet you repeatedly doge the question.
        bigfishrunning 1y ago
        You are allowed to say absolutely whatever you want, Write it down, and sell that material without fear of repercussion. I don't know how to be more clear about this.
- wnoise 1y ago
  Topics? No, I don't agree with that. Almost any subject can be treated in an age-appropriate manner. A 7-year-old doesn't need to read about nearly any topic. Excluding any mention of all of those subjects from the school library leaves a nearly empty library. For that heavy-handed of a response to be _legally mandated_ requires not just "no need", but some strong evidence of harm. Mentions of sex, oral or otherwise, doesn't actually have much evidence of harm. Certain treatments of it might -- but that's not what the law targets, nor can effectively target. It covers mere mentions or small bits of explicit language, even where that is necessary for the effect of the book. These can and do make parents profoundly uncomfortable, though, and that is worth taking into consideration. I would think that the usual approach of professional librarians curating based on their own judgement, subject to some oversight from the local school boards to take into account these valid discomforts, but largely baseless fears would be a far better approach.
Levitz 1y ago
Aren't public schools part of government? This looks like a bizarre state of affairs to me if the government can't regulate speech from the government. Say someone in the police department takes the public stance, as a police officer, that black people are subhuman degenerates, is any pushback from the government a first amendment issue? Note this is an ideological stance and doesn't involve any of their duties. EDIT: I should have done better than to comment this without the very relevant input from the article. Better late than never I guess: >A second key component of this ruling is on whether or not regulating books in school libraries constituted “government speech.” Officials for the state argued that they were empowered to make decisions about the materials in those collections because it constituted “government speech” and thus, was not subject to the First Amendment. >Judge Mendoza disagreed. >“*A blanket content-based prohibition on materials, rather than one based on individualized curation, hardly expresses any intentional government message at all.* Slapping the label of government speech on book removals only serves to stifle the disfavored viewpoints,” he wrote. While parents have the right to object to “direct the upbringing and education of children,” the government cannot then “repackage their speech and pass it off as its own.” Emphasis mine. This is frankly even weirder to me. If the government made a blanket, content-based prohibition of any material with a black character, that wouldn't express any intentional government message at all? Really?
- epistasis 1y ago
  Stocking a book in a library is not speech from the government. If it were, we couldn't have religious books in school libraries, but we do.
  - poplarsol 1y ago
    If stocking a book is not speech then it is not a restriction on speech to decide not to stock a book.
    - epistasis 1y ago
      Any individual decision, no. A systematic bias over many decisions could be a restriction on speech. (Edit: some systematic biases over the decisions are restrictions on speech that are unconstitutional, but not all.) A law of the sort that was struck down is clearly an unconstitutional restriction on speech.

bigfishrunning 1y ago

I think the problem with these laws is that they're too general. I think we can all agree that there are topics that should not be in elementary school libraries -- I don't think my 7 year old needs to be reading about oral sex for instance, regardless of the gender or sexuality of the participants. The real problem is the nature of the wording of "pornographic", which is poorly defined as "I know it when i see it", and stretched by disingenuous people with an agenda. As a "Free Speech Absolutionist", I think as much material as possible should be in public libraries, including material that some people object to. I also think that school libraries should be curated to what is appropriate for the audience. The rub here is defining what is "appropriate". Silencing minority literature is bad. Also allowing my elementary school kids to check out "the turner diaries" is bad. There needs to be a balance.

fknorangesite 1y ago
[flagged]
- bigfishrunning 1y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is that panicing about book bans is not how you combat these bad-faith actors. It's defining rules to satiate their stated aims, and force them to bring their other motives to light, thus nullifying their arguments.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    Their stated aims are banning any visibility of trans people in all media.
alistairSH 1y ago
My (completely inadequate) test... would the people banning books in FL (or wherever else) apply those same rules to the Bible? If not, they're not interested in protecting the children from explicit, but rather forcing their religious ideology on the rest of us.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  No worries, the Bible is safe in Florida schools. https://www.christianpost.com/news/florida-school-board-votes-unanimously-to-keep-bible.html https://www.christianpost.com/news/florida-school-board-vote...
epistasis 1y ago
In what way would you consider yourself an "absolutist" with views like these? It seems that free speech has quite a few limitations in your view.
- bigfishrunning 1y ago
  Let's take the opposite approach -- should schools stock back-issues of "Hustler" magazine? What about the "Anarchists Cookbook"? should we print it and put it on the shelf of a middle school? You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it a good idea to stock a school with it.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    I'm asking about "absolutist" and it's meaning. You replied with something different, about which books should or should not be in a school library. What does "absolutist" mean to you if you think that limits to what's in a library are a "good idea"? Remember, I'm not talking about whether there should be limits or not, I'm asking about your self-description of "absolutist" and why absolutism still has fuzzy definitions of what is allowed or not.
    - bigfishrunning 1y ago
      There's a difference between allowing you to say something and hiring you to say it to my kids.
      - epistasis 1y ago
        Got it, you have made that abundantly clear (and not that it matters but I agree.) Again: how is your belief in this compatible with being an "absolutist"? I don't know how I can phrase this more clearly, yet you repeatedly doge the question.
        bigfishrunning 1y ago
        You are allowed to say absolutely whatever you want, Write it down, and sell that material without fear of repercussion. I don't know how to be more clear about this.
wnoise 1y ago
Topics? No, I don't agree with that. Almost any subject can be treated in an age-appropriate manner. A 7-year-old doesn't need to read about nearly any topic. Excluding any mention of all of those subjects from the school library leaves a nearly empty library. For that heavy-handed of a response to be _legally mandated_ requires not just "no need", but some strong evidence of harm. Mentions of sex, oral or otherwise, doesn't actually have much evidence of harm. Certain treatments of it might -- but that's not what the law targets, nor can effectively target. It covers mere mentions or small bits of explicit language, even where that is necessary for the effect of the book. These can and do make parents profoundly uncomfortable, though, and that is worth taking into consideration. I would think that the usual approach of professional librarians curating based on their own judgement, subject to some oversight from the local school boards to take into account these valid discomforts, but largely baseless fears would be a far better approach.

Levitz 1y ago

Aren't public schools part of government? This looks like a bizarre state of affairs to me if the government can't regulate speech from the government. Say someone in the police department takes the public stance, as a police officer, that black people are subhuman degenerates, is any pushback from the government a first amendment issue? Note this is an ideological stance and doesn't involve any of their duties. EDIT: I should have done better than to comment this without the very relevant input from the article. Better late than never I guess: >A second key component of this ruling is on whether or not regulating books in school libraries constituted “government speech.” Officials for the state argued that they were empowered to make decisions about the materials in those collections because it constituted “government speech” and thus, was not subject to the First Amendment. >Judge Mendoza disagreed. >“*A blanket content-based prohibition on materials, rather than one based on individualized curation, hardly expresses any intentional government message at all.* Slapping the label of government speech on book removals only serves to stifle the disfavored viewpoints,” he wrote. While parents have the right to object to “direct the upbringing and education of children,” the government cannot then “repackage their speech and pass it off as its own.” Emphasis mine. This is frankly even weirder to me. If the government made a blanket, content-based prohibition of any material with a black character, that wouldn't express any intentional government message at all? Really?

epistasis 1y ago
Stocking a book in a library is not speech from the government. If it were, we couldn't have religious books in school libraries, but we do.
- poplarsol 1y ago
  If stocking a book is not speech then it is not a restriction on speech to decide not to stock a book.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    Any individual decision, no. A systematic bias over many decisions could be a restriction on speech. (Edit: some systematic biases over the decisions are restrictions on speech that are unconstitutional, but not all.) A law of the sort that was struck down is clearly an unconstitutional restriction on speech.