Has anyone noticed the proglodytes bringing their kids to bars and strip clubs or helping them pick out a glossy porn mag at the local (wherever you can buy those these days)? Have ’em grab a fifth and some smokes and off to the playground.
No?
Probably not. Those are all illegal, whether you think your kid can “handle it” or not. Want to test it? Throw a beer party for minors, or give the neighbor kid some sexually explicit material with your business card in it so the police know who to visit when the kid’s parents find out.
Preventing kids from having access to any of that is not banning it, but the word ban carries a lot of emotional baggage (unless we’re talking COVID-era tyranny, and then banning was a public health necessity regardless of the education, physical, mental, or economic health downsides). Ensuring children have access to explicit material in schools and public libraries is some sort of civil right, but if a private citizen was giving a kid those same books on a street corner through the half-cranked-down passenger-side window of an idling Torino, that’d be grooming.
Just take the book, kid, it’s free!
News flash. It’s grooming every way you slice it. The fact that we’re using public money to craft an exception to this illegal behavior is just good marketing by Democrats. They get to groom your kids, and if you object, you’re a book banner. But there’s no ban and never was, and two things prove this beyond a doubt if you can get the words in edgewise past the gesticulating Karen’s screeching diatribe.
- Every book is available in print or digital, with a few clicks, delivered immediately or the next day.
- The First Amendment can’t be invoked to challenge a library’s decision “about which books to buy, which books to keep, or which books to remove.
“It is one thing to tell the government it cannot stop you from receiving a book,” the court said. “The First Amendment protects your right to do that.” “It is another thing for you to tell the government which books it must keep in the library. The First Amendment does not give you the right to demand that.” ..
The “plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to read books. They don’t have a First Amendment right to force a public library to provide them.” “It’s the First Amendment, not FOIA.”
That’s settled law, as defined by the Fifth Circuit, last year. Taxpayers can decide what gets “shelved” in the libraries and schools they fund, including removing titles that are age-inappropriate. You see, you say “banned”; we say “age-inappropriate,” which doesn’t evoke the same visceral reaction. But it’s selective.
The Biden White House tried to get Amazon.com to ban books. Amazon is not taxpayer-funded, so it can add or remove whatever it likes, but when the Office of the Chief Executive suggests titles it doesn’t like and maybe even threatens investigations or indictments for whatever it can come up with if you don’t make them unavailable, well – that’s banning books. It’s Censorship. And the Biden White House engaged in lots of that, from the Twitter files to “government grants to universities to create AI products that censor Americans.”
You’re a book banner!
You mean like the way Biden tried to pressure Amazon to ban books or how Democrats offered grants to universities to use AI to censor Americans? Like that?
Like the Twitter Files?
Like the way taxpayer-funded libraries and schools “Ban” millions of titles made unavailable or inaccessible in their systems, many of which offer real educational value but have ‘shelf space’ for age-inappropriate books about gay sex, queering, cutting, suicide, drug use, smoking, or sex with adults?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
By the way, Ian Underwood had some helpful hints for addressing the issue here.
- One option is to stop accepting state funding, which is the right thing to do anyway, law or no law.
- Another option is to hire — or better still, elect — librarians whose views are consonant with theirs. Because ‘trusting the experience and education of our librarians’ is what has led to all the problems in the first place. The idea that their judgment isn’t partisan or doctrinal is absurd.
- For better or worse, librarian and public school teacher have evolved into political positions. (The idea that they are not political is as outdated as the idea that diseases are caused by evil spirits.) It’s time we started treating them as such.
- A third option — for communities who want to continue to get state funding — would be to change the way books are selected.
- No library can include every book. Decisions have to be made about which books to include in a library’s collection.
More at the link.
