I’m interested how this works, technically. I’m against banning books. I’m also against elementary school kids picking up Naked Lunch in the school library and leaving through it. I presume no librarian would elect to have that book anyway, so it will never be tested whether it can be barred somehow. There are also probably soft mechanisms that get used like “it’s in the library and you can check it out with a parental permission form.” Anyway how to handle obscene material has been a question since the beginning of time.
The bill permits restriction in the case of “developmentally inappropriate material” for certain age groups. The measure also requires local school boards and the governing bodies of public libraries to set up policies for book curation and the removal of library materials, including a way to address concerns over certain items.
Leaving a gap open for “developmentally inappropriate” makes sense in the face of it, but when Evangelicals try to ban any book that has a depiction of a gay character, this is the rationale they use: that kids should not be subjected to sexual material. I’m not saying their argument holds water, just that the gap left open by this prohibition is the exact favorite entry point of book ban abusers.
The school would still have to be the one buying the books so they just won’t buy any book they deem inappropriate. I’m sure this is mainly just to stop zealots from banning everything related to evolution. Also, I haven’t read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can’t get on the Internet nowadays.
From the article:
The bill permits restriction in the case of “developmentally inappropriate material” for certain age groups. The measure also requires local school boards and the governing bodies of public libraries to set up policies for book curation and the removal of library materials, including a way to address concerns over certain items.
So you took one sentence out of context and used it to dismiss the rest of the comment with objections that had already been addressed by the parts you dismissed?
The part where you implied something must be wrong in my personal life because I didn’t give your comment the response you think it deserves? You’re right - that too.
I’m interested how this works, technically. I’m against banning books. I’m also against elementary school kids picking up Naked Lunch in the school library and leaving through it. I presume no librarian would elect to have that book anyway, so it will never be tested whether it can be barred somehow. There are also probably soft mechanisms that get used like “it’s in the library and you can check it out with a parental permission form.” Anyway how to handle obscene material has been a question since the beginning of time.
Leaving a gap open for “developmentally inappropriate” makes sense in the face of it, but when Evangelicals try to ban any book that has a depiction of a gay character, this is the rationale they use: that kids should not be subjected to sexual material. I’m not saying their argument holds water, just that the gap left open by this prohibition is the exact favorite entry point of book ban abusers.
I don’t really understand what this bill changes either :/
The school would still have to be the one buying the books so they just won’t buy any book they deem inappropriate. I’m sure this is mainly just to stop zealots from banning everything related to evolution. Also, I haven’t read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can’t get on the Internet nowadays.
From the article:
Doesn’t know the book: check Casually dismisses the entire topic of moderating children’s content intake: check
It’s pretty clear you don’t know what you’re talking about on any level here.
Sounds like you’re having a bad day. I even gave you a quote from the article that answers your exact question. Everything okay at home?
I’m responding to this:
So you took one sentence out of context and used it to dismiss the rest of the comment with objections that had already been addressed by the parts you dismissed?
I may be over focusing on that one part of your comment but it does stand out from the rest as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point.
Nah, mate. Wanna take a guess at what actually does stand out as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point?
The part where you implied something must be wrong in my personal life because I didn’t give your comment the response you think it deserves? You’re right - that too.