[rayiner]

Nobody is "manipulating the debate." The book linked above is the most challenged book in these efforts: https://www.npr.org/2022/04/04/1090067026/efforts-to-ban-boo.... The American Library Association gave that book its Alex Award in 2020, for books for children 12-18. It's not some random book cherry-picked out of nowhere.

None of the books are "being banned." States are deciding what taxpayer-funded school libraries are making available to children. No decision has been made regarding the specific book you linked. An entire set of books approved in 2021 are being reviewed for appropriateness. Of course valid books are going to be pulled in the meantime while the government does its review. It's like a product recall--you pull the batch while you figure out how bad stuff made it through the filter.

I can’t help but notice your attempt to imply that Florida educators were somehow trying to suppress “Venezuelan, Cuban, and Puerto Rican” authors with your example. DeSantis won 68% of Cubans, and the majority of Puerto Ricans and Venezuelans. Which circles back to my point above--the librarians pushing pornographic content in schools are overwhelmingly (80%) white. It's a cultural thing--on average, white people are the ones in this country okay with adolescents having sex, and the ones who put the heaviest emphasis on kids "finding themselves."

[themitigating]

"I can’t help but notice your attempt to imply that Florida educators were somehow trying to suppress “Venezuelan, Cuban, and Puerto Rican” authors with your example"

I don't know how you are noticing anything when I seriously just picked a random book and said nothing about their ethnicity. No where in my argument did I use that as an argument.

"None of the books are "being banned." States are deciding what taxpayer-funded school libraries are making available to children."

That's still a form of a ban. You highlighted that it's taxpayer funded, which to me means it's a violation of the first amendment. If it was a private library then that would be fine.

"Of course valid books are going to be pulled in the meantime while the government does its review. It's like a product recall--you pull the batch while you figure out how bad stuff made it through the filter."

Was there some imminent danger that they need to be pulled before reviewed? How long is a review going to take and who gets to make the decision about what is appropriate? However you're right that my example was under review. I didn't notice that the list was of books was of those both under review or banned. So let's check out another book that was banned.

"And Tango Makes Three"[1] is banned in the Lake Country School District for K-3 [2]

The stated reason is: "Administrative removal as per HB 1557 due to sexual orientation/gender identification". The book is a children's book about gay penguins. There's no sex in it and therefore it's not pornographic. Why is this justified?

The parent comment also stated "it is baffling to me how the media depicts this as "anti trans" or "anti lgbt" book banning while managing to never mention the specifics of the books."

Well there's a specific book and it's Anti-LGBT. How does this protect kids.

-----------------------------------------

Finally what about the bible? It contains descriptions of sex acts, incest, prostitution. It also is a religious book that pushes its own moral values and agenda. Why is that allowed but not books about gays?

I believe the true purpose of this law is to enforce moral values on the community and attack gays/etc by hiding their existence. The goal being to appease conservative Republicans and/or evangelicals who consistently vote Republican.

Why doesn't the 1st amendment apply here? The safety of children? How is hearing that gay people exist unsafe for kids? If you are willing to make exceptions to the 1st amendment for the safety of children that is questionable then are willing to make exceptions for one amendment why not the 2nd amendment? Guns are the leading cause of death for children between 1 and 19 in the US [3]?

[2] https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2023/02/07/heres-a-l... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Tango_Makes_Three

[3]https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/child-a...

[rayiner]

> That's still a form of a ban. You highlighted that it's taxpayer funded, which to me means it's a violation of the first amendment. If it was a private library then that would be fine.

It doesn't violate the first amendment for the same reason it would violate the first amendment for the government to tell Barnes and Noble that it can't stock those books. When the government buys books with taxpayer money and makes them available in a taxpayer-financed public library, the government is the speaker. The first amendment permits the government to have a particular viewpoint when it acts as a speaker and provider of services.

> "And Tango Makes Three"[1] is banned in the Lake Country School District for K-3 [2] The stated reason is: "Administrative removal as per HB 1557 due to sexual orientation/gender identification". The book is a children's book about gay penguins. There's no sex in it and therefore it's not pornographic. Why is this justified?

As you admit, that is a book directed at children. Children don't think about penguins as having any sexual orientation. Sexual attraction is not a concept that's appropriate to introduce to young children.

> I believe the true purpose of this law is to enforce moral values on the community and attack gays/etc by hiding their existence. The goal being to appease conservative Republicans and/or evangelicals who consistently vote Republican.

Yes, but the moral value that's being enforced is sheltering children from being exposed to concepts of sex, sexuality, and sexual attraction. Conservative Republicans and evangelicals support that goal, but so do most people. I have literally never heard my Biden-voting Muslim-immigrant parents say the word "sex" or the Bangladeshi equivalent. And I'm married with three kids! The subject is nonetheless completely taboo. That's even though all of us support same-sex marriage in the abstract.

[themitigating]

"Sexual attraction is not a concept that's appropriate to introduce to young children"

Valentine's day is celebrated in schools, countless movies and books talk about marriage, love, and attraction between a man and a woman. You're trying to make same sex attraction a "sex act" instead emotional.

Yes, but the moral value that's being enforced is sheltering children from being exposed to concepts of sex, sexuality, and sexual attraction. Conservative Republicans and evangelicals support that goal, but so do most people

I don't care how many people support it. The majority does not mean you can ignore the constitution.

I have literally never heard my Biden-voting Muslim-immigrant parents say the word "sex" or the Bangladeshi equivalent. And I'm married with three kids!

1.Your personal experience has no value in this conversation.

2. You having a repressed upbringng doesn't prove the opposite. I've never worn a seatbelt and have never been in a crash isn't proof that seat belts don't work.

Finally you come from a country with less rights, especially for woman and you come here and have no issue with taking the rights of another smaller group of people shows your ignorance. Not to mention the people you support along with this would remove muslims from this country if they could. You should be ashamed of yourself

[selimthegrim]

You realize Bangladesh and West Bengal have extremely open prostitution and that BD is the only country in the region with legalized prostitution? Ever heard of Sonagachi in Calcutta or Kandapara near Dhaka?