| ▲ | bigfishrunning 3 days 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. |
|
| ▲ | wnoise 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | epistasis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 3 days ago | parent [-] | | There's a difference between allowing you to say something and hiring you to say it to my kids. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You are both completely clear yet not understanding one another. Let me try to break the deadlock: epistasis is getting at the fact that you can't call yourself an "absolutist" on free speech because your position is not absolute, but qualified -- all speech is free except speech you find problematic, which shall be regulated. That's pretty much everyone's definition of free speech, not an absolutist take. An absolutist would say there should be absolutely no content-based restrictions on what is in the library regardless of the ages of the patrons. Hustler, Anarchist Cookbook, whatever. They might justify that by saying "free speech is so important we can't place any limits on it. If you as a parent find the idea your child might access speech you find distasteful, it's up to you to prevent your child from seeing it, not the library or the government". > without fear of repercussion Let's say you write a book about being a kid and finding it uncomfortable to grow up who you are. You're free to write it, free to talk about it, free to to sell it. But then the government adds your book to a list of books they deem "pedophilic and a danger to children." Do you think you would be free from repercussions from the government publishing your book on the harmful to kids list? Can free speech thrive in such an environment? | |
| ▲ | epistasis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The government banning your book from a school library is clearly a repercussion. That's what free speech has always been about, limit the ability of the government to enact repercussions. What is "absolute" about this? Do you want your own speech to be absolutely free of repercussions to you, be they government or not? Is that it? I really have trouble trying to put some sort of consistent framework in this, unless it's dividing the world into two classes of people: those who will not experience repercussions and those who will experience repercussions for their speech. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | komali2 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's not really anything in the anarchist cookbook that isn't everywhere on the internet at this point, or even youtube. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | alistairSH 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
|
| ▲ | fknorangesite 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | bigfishrunning 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Their stated aims are banning any visibility of trans people in all media. |
|
|
