[bigfishrunning]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There's a difference between allowing you to say something and hiring you to say it to my kids.

[epistasis]

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]

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.

[komali2]

There's not really anything in the anarchist cookbook that isn't everywhere on the internet at this point, or even youtube.

[alistairSH]

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]

No worries, the Bible is safe in Florida schools.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/florida-school-board-vote...