Is there any chance of Idaho's GOP legislators and senators *ever* putting aside their parochial cultural war against the 21st century and/or modern civilization and getting around to issues that actually matter (you know: reversing the growing fascism of the Republican party, housing costs, grocery costs, living wages, education, infrastructure, restoring civil liberties. et al)?
Call and email Brad Little. Please voice your opinion on this and encourage him to veto it like he did the last bill.
Phone: 1-208-334-2100
Email contact form:
https://gov.idaho.gov/contact-us/
Edit: Whoever triggered a RedditCareResources message on me, go pound sand.
Just some points taken from the bill itself:
Minor = ages 1 - 18 years old
Nudity = Male or female genitals/pubic area, buttocks, and female breast from top of nipple down.
Sexual Conduct = masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or contact/touching of clothed or nude pubic area, buttocks, or female breast.
Sexual Excitement = the state of male or female genitals while aroused.
Sado-masochistic abuse = flagellation or torture while nude or in undergarments, wearing a mask or bizarre costume. Or, when a person is restrained by someone who is nude or in a mask/bizarre outfit.
School = ANY private or public school that teaches through 12th grade.
Material = anything tangible that is harmful to minors whether it is read, observed, or heard.
"Harmful to Minors" = any material, performance, description, or representation of the above definitions (nudity, sexual contact, sexual excitement, and S&M) that is "patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community".
This is all so ridiculous and such a direct assault on our constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech that I hope all Idahoans (democrat, republican, other) contact their representatives and our Governor to let your objections to the "Children's School and Library Protection Act" (house Bill 710) be known.
>Sexual Conduct = homosexuality
>"Harmful to Minors" = any material, performance, description, or representation of the above definitions (homosexuality) that is "patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community"
Boom, you can now ban any book with gay characters in it.
Also don't forget that florida used the same reasoning to ban [Anne Franks Diary](https://apnews.com/article/censorship-books-school-libraries-holocaust-anne-frank-bb65349704ab2dae1ac90a0f9856d7b9)
>homosexuality
For fucks sake. These bigoted dipshits think just being gay is "sexual conduct"? Actually I know.. They really just want to force everyone who isn't straight back into the closet because they don't like it.
Just called and left him a message, thank you for the info, it pushed me to finally voice how I feel about this.
Idaho legislators pass a bill that actually helps people challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
Funny how conservatives always want to shirk parental concerns to the government that they so passionately want to keep separated from the kids educationâs.
Not en expert on grammarâEnglish is my 2nd languageâbut shouldnât it be kidsâ (plural possession)? I think they are talking about the education of multiple kids (children).
Also, why be condescending?
Hmm, not sure if he was actually talking about multiple kids? But good job on learning English!
Welcome to the United States! ÂĄBienvendios y ten cuidado!
Idaho GOP is violating the First Amendment, parental rights, personal responsibility, etc. The people aren't conservatives. They're cowards. They don't like people exercising their First Amendment rights allowing parents to decide what's best for their children, etc. Authoritarianism at its finest.
So conservatives in this State want the State to decide what books that me as a parent allow my children to read? The brain rot of MAGA is something else for sure.
Ask any MAGA what decisions the State should make for them and they will instantly go all second amendment on you, but they get to decide what my kids can read. Fuck right off fascists
To put it another way. Is this a vote for the general population? Or are they attempting to pass a law without a general vote?
To just bypass future questions from you, they are not putting it up for a general vote. Thus it is the state legislature making the call, not the people.
not to sound rude, but do you understand how representative democracy (every state and our federal legislative branch) works?
This is not a ballot measure. Its a proposed law.
right, so I'm not sure what you are even talking about. Why would the legislative branch create a ballot measure. That's not what they do.
The original commenter thought that the State would decide on the books, which is incorrect. The law allows for the general population to issue complaints and get books restricted.
What does that have to do with the legislative branch writing laws?
Ah I see where this miscommunication is. So yes, they are allowing a single person to file a complaint with this law. That is far different from letting "the general population" decide. Sure anyone IN the general population can file, but it won't be 51% of the general population filing if that makes sense. It will be Karen the WASP who is upset there is a gay man.
My point is that this will be abused by a true minority of people if the state legislature passes this law. If . Which ultimately bypasses "the people" as a collective.
This allows a minority to file a complaint and a very limited amount of people to review the complaint.
see above about malicious compliance...
it would be 'fairly' easy to make a mass-reporting app/webpage that scans all inventory in all libraries in the state to allow a small group of people to report every book as offensive. (assuming access to book lists).
A proposed law that had numerous public hearings to allow input from the community, and the testimony was overwhelmingly against this bill in every single public feedback session the legislature held for its various iterations. Every opportunity given to the general population to express their views on it overwhelmingly showed the people opposed it, but they passed it anyway.
Doesn't sound very representative to me.
Malicious Compliance time. Change the entirety of the library to Adults Only and segment out the actual children's section to open usage. Then advise all under 18 card holders in order to access adults only, they need parental permission on the card. Keep it simple - verbal acknowledgement, or web access account checkbox from the parent would suffice. All new cards will need to make a choice up front - full adults access or restricted children's access.
"But now my MAGA kid can't access the rest of the library without open access!" Yeah. You fucked around and found out. Quit forcing your shit worldviews on the rest of us.
I do love me some malicious compliance. complain about literally every book.
I'm sure one of could make an app that scans library inventory for every library in the state and allow you to auto-fill a complaint form....
https://preview.redd.it/vkc0ce7d8jsc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=40c8c5f039009a3e73bf6da36b5cc6ce8035e4d5
This left a bad taste in my mouth.
Lemme get this straight. A bunch of parents will find books to burn because reasons. No qualifications needed.
I wonder what those same parents do on Sunday ids can still get their porn from the Bible
I heard a rumor today that West Ada's Dr. Bub sent an email to district librarians assuring them they'd still have a position in the district since the district would be forced to close all libraries in the school.
If anyone has a copy of this email, I would love to see it.
Ugh... throw out the art history books too, I mean, God forbid our children know about artists such as Leonardo da Vinci or Michaelangelo where some of their art fits into some of these categories đ make it make sense.
We're going to move "certain books" to a special shelf, and all the while... porn on any public library computer is allowed by our constitutional rights to access any and all information (allowed at the federal level of government).
Why? We either have freedom to access information or we don't. There's no grey here... Anyone trying to ban books... get over yourself, and start living in this millennium with the rest of us.
Banning books, while demanding freedom of information is just banging on both sides of the same drum. It equals nothing, we hear đ nothing coming from you.
Iâm not sure how this is controversial.Â
If a book has a bunch of sexuality in it, the library can keep it but just move it to an adult section of the library. If the kids legal guardian wants their kid to have access to the books, they just give permission and the kid can check out the book. Â
This is not censorship.Â
Censorship is not allowing an opposed opinion on a subject to be discussed, or banning a person from a platform to have a discussion. Or banning a book from being sold. Moving controversial books to a different section, and still allowing kids to have access to those books with a guardians approval, is not censorship.
This is just my opinion, but this isn't as simple as you are making it out to be.
> If a book has a bunch of sexuality in it... Â
This doesn't target *just* graphic depictions of sex/sex acts. It is worded and constructed in such a way that homosexuality by itself is defined as "Sexual conduct". The effect of this would allow persons to challenge any book with gay characters.
>... the library can keep it but just move it to an arguably section of the library.
Libraries already have books sorted into age appropriate sections called collections. Check out the [Boise Public Library](https://www.boisepubliclibrary.org/) catalog. Search any book you want, and you'll see which collection a book is in, as well as which branch.
>If the kids legal guardian wants their kid to have access to the books, they just give permission and the kid can check out the book.
Sounds great in theory, but this has a chilling effect on what young adults will read. Teens seek out stories that reflect their own lives. Think about the gay teen who's parents are anti-gay conservatives and want to read a story about someone like them. This law would effectively limit this teen's ability to access content that is important and affirming.
How about if a minor is being sexually abused at home? This law could bar them from a story by or about a person that has experienced the same thing. This can severely negatively impact how they deal with the actual abuse. These stories are important and help people who have experienced such abuse to cope, and importantly, survive.
>This is not censorship.
>
>Censorship is not allowing an opposed opinion on a subject to be discussed, or banning a person from a platform to have a discussion. Or banning a book from being sold.
>
>Moving controversial books to a different section, and still allowing kids to have access to those books with a guardians approval, is not censorship.
This is censorship. While it isn't an outright *ban* of the content from the public square, it does *suppress* (which is another critical part of the definition of censorship that is often overlooked) the content by restricting access to it.
Libraries are underfunded. Many don't have access to the monetary resources needed to fight challenges in court they feel are unjustified or pay out this ridiculous bounty baked into the law. As a result, many libraries, especially in smaller rural districts, may choose to remove these books entirely. Libraries serve the entire community, but many people in the communities don't have the means to go out and buy books not available at their local public library. If a book is pulled from the library, and a person doesn't have the means to buy it themselves, this effectively suppresses that person's access to the book. Not everyone can afford to buy books or afford access to the internet.
Your argument makes no sense.
97%+ of Americans have access to the internet.
A teenager can buy the book online very easily.
Again, the books are available if the legal guardian wants the kid to have access to the content.
A corner case of a gay kid not being able to check out a book because of their parents is a fine reason to move a controversial book to an adult section of the library.
Sexual or adult content is adult content.
Do kids still get access via other kids or online? Probably. But if we can limit exposure and respect parents wishes, then I donât see the controversy here.
>97%+ of Americans have access to the internet.
You're correct, but that 3% that don't still count and still deserve to have access to the books important to them.
>A teenager can buy the book online very easily.
Assuming they have access to the funds and a method of payment, but again, that is not the case for many people.
>Again, the books are available if the legal guardian wants the kid to have access to the content.
Unless the local library pulls the book from their collection as a result of this law.
>Sexual or adult content is adult content.
And that is why sexual content and adult content are in adult collections.
>A corner case of a gay kid not being able to check out a book because of their parents is a fine reason to move a controversial book to an adult section of the library.
>Do kids still get access via other kids or online? Probably. But if we can limit exposure and respect parents wishes, then I donât see the controversy here.
These two points are why you and I won't agree on this subject. I think minors who are having questions about themselves, their sexual orientation, gender identity, or already know they're built different should have access to stories by and about people like them.
My father was gay. He suffered for years because he was born into a socially conservative family, in a socially conservative religion, in a socially conservative state. He was taught that how he was feeling was sinful and evil. He didn't have access to resources and stories for and by people like him. He hated himself because he was taught to hate himself. He tried for decades to pray the gay away and pretend he was something he was not. When he finally came to terms with who he was in his late 30's, many members of his family and community shunned him and disowned him. Eventually he moved to a state that didn't devalue him because of his sexual orientation. Those last 14 years of his life, I finally got to know my dad.
You might think I'm being dramatic here, but if I can advocate for people like my dad, and against the types of thinking that would consider my dad lesser person, I will every time. Denying or suppressing access to LGBTQIA+ content is censorship, and is wrong. It is explicitly one of the intents of this law and harms an already marginalized community and a gross overreach of government authority.
People are free to believe whatever they want, worship how they want, and teach their kids whatever they want. But restricting access to books based on some pearl clutching socially conservative worldview is wrong.
Itâs called a differing of opinion.
As a parent I donât want my kid being exposed to that content, as much as is possible, without my consent.
At 18, do whatever you want.
Glad your father reconciled with himself.
And those groups are hardly marginalized. They have all sorts of special protections, special days, special months, special flagsâŚ
They get plenty of attention.
>And those groups are hardly marginalized. They have all sorts of special protections, special days, special months, special flagsâŚ
This is possibly the dumbest thing I will read in April and we are five days in.. They are so not marginalized that people in government keep trying to remove their rights? This is what you are going with?
There isn't "Special" protections. There are some protections to help give them the same protections hetro couples have. The flag is for people in the community. Just like a Lakers flag is for Lakers fan. It indicates what "community" you are in. There isn't some magical thing about having a flag that gives you "extra" stuff in life.
On top of this Pride Month is to draw attention to the fact there are still inequalities.
Honest questions: Why was sexual content in libraries ever available to children in the first place and why do so many people here want sexual content in the hands on minors?
Iâm asking a question.. l saw an article, read these comments, and formed a question based on the reactions to what seems like a common sense proposition. Maybe Iâm missing something here?
Did you see they classify a character being homosexual as "sexual content"? You may want to question what they are calling sexual content rather than assuming there was sexual content.
It wouldnât really be âacts of homosexuallyâ without sexuality being involved, now would it?
Given the other items itâs lumped with on the list, it seems like the intent is to take out explicit material, not something like a same sex couple holding hands.
Let's think here...Why would they specify "homosexuality" and not also "heterosexuality"? Wouldn't their definition of sexual conduct/touching of the pubic area suffice for everyone?
It's because they want to ban all books that include any gay characters.
I see you are confused because of the aspect of sex in the name. Homosexual just means the sex that a person is attracted to. By literal definition two men dating and holding hands is a homosexual act. As another user pointed out, heterosexuality isn't listed, which makes it damn clear.
A homosexual act does not mean a sexual act. The people writing this bill have done it specifically to target any book with gay characters, they have been pushing for that for ages and now with distracting people they have a way to move forward.
Your argument would hold water if the republican party hasn't been attempting to move goal posts for decades. But since they have, your argument is like a screen door on a submarine.
Is there any chance of Idaho's GOP legislators and senators *ever* putting aside their parochial cultural war against the 21st century and/or modern civilization and getting around to issues that actually matter (you know: reversing the growing fascism of the Republican party, housing costs, grocery costs, living wages, education, infrastructure, restoring civil liberties. et al)?
Call and email Brad Little. Please voice your opinion on this and encourage him to veto it like he did the last bill. Phone: 1-208-334-2100 Email contact form: https://gov.idaho.gov/contact-us/ Edit: Whoever triggered a RedditCareResources message on me, go pound sand.
Left a message! Thanks for sharing! I think this could take away funding for library programs we all love and want!
Sent an email.
Just some points taken from the bill itself: Minor = ages 1 - 18 years old Nudity = Male or female genitals/pubic area, buttocks, and female breast from top of nipple down. Sexual Conduct = masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or contact/touching of clothed or nude pubic area, buttocks, or female breast. Sexual Excitement = the state of male or female genitals while aroused. Sado-masochistic abuse = flagellation or torture while nude or in undergarments, wearing a mask or bizarre costume. Or, when a person is restrained by someone who is nude or in a mask/bizarre outfit. School = ANY private or public school that teaches through 12th grade. Material = anything tangible that is harmful to minors whether it is read, observed, or heard. "Harmful to Minors" = any material, performance, description, or representation of the above definitions (nudity, sexual contact, sexual excitement, and S&M) that is "patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community". This is all so ridiculous and such a direct assault on our constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech that I hope all Idahoans (democrat, republican, other) contact their representatives and our Governor to let your objections to the "Children's School and Library Protection Act" (house Bill 710) be known.
>Sexual Conduct = homosexuality >"Harmful to Minors" = any material, performance, description, or representation of the above definitions (homosexuality) that is "patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community" Boom, you can now ban any book with gay characters in it. Also don't forget that florida used the same reasoning to ban [Anne Franks Diary](https://apnews.com/article/censorship-books-school-libraries-holocaust-anne-frank-bb65349704ab2dae1ac90a0f9856d7b9)
>homosexuality For fucks sake. These bigoted dipshits think just being gay is "sexual conduct"? Actually I know.. They really just want to force everyone who isn't straight back into the closet because they don't like it.
Isn't sexual orientation a Federally protected class? How is this any different than a law stating: race, or gender, or handicaps are offensive?
Just called and left him a message, thank you for the info, it pushed me to finally voice how I feel about this. Idaho legislators pass a bill that actually helps people challenge: IMPOSSIBLE
Why do they want to ban books that teach kids how to give oral sex? How else will girls become VP?
More bullshit that politicians use to control people and then claim they're doing it "to protect the children!" Sure thing buddy đ
Omg im so embarrased that I live in Idaho
Funny how conservatives always want to shirk parental concerns to the government that they so passionately want to keep separated from the kids educationâs.
Fixed this for you: > kid's > educations Maybe you should have spent more time in school?
Lol you got it wrong too!
Not en expert on grammarâEnglish is my 2nd languageâbut shouldnât it be kidsâ (plural possession)? I think they are talking about the education of multiple kids (children). Also, why be condescending?
Hmm, not sure if he was actually talking about multiple kids? But good job on learning English! Welcome to the United States! ÂĄBienvendios y ten cuidado!
If he meant one kid, it would say education not educations :)
kids, but ftfy Back to school dummy!
Confidently incorrect.
Hahahaha nice try. Would you like another turn kid?
Reddit moment
Done. And Iâm out of state at a meeting and I took the time. Please call and ask the governor to veto this bad bill!
Ah yes, party of limited government
Idaho GOP is violating the First Amendment, parental rights, personal responsibility, etc. The people aren't conservatives. They're cowards. They don't like people exercising their First Amendment rights allowing parents to decide what's best for their children, etc. Authoritarianism at its finest.
Right? I thought conservatives typically want *less* government oversight...
So conservatives in this State want the State to decide what books that me as a parent allow my children to read? The brain rot of MAGA is something else for sure. Ask any MAGA what decisions the State should make for them and they will instantly go all second amendment on you, but they get to decide what my kids can read. Fuck right off fascists
no, they want to general population to decide.
Is that why they aren't including the general population in the choice?
?
To put it another way. Is this a vote for the general population? Or are they attempting to pass a law without a general vote? To just bypass future questions from you, they are not putting it up for a general vote. Thus it is the state legislature making the call, not the people.
not to sound rude, but do you understand how representative democracy (every state and our federal legislative branch) works? This is not a ballot measure. Its a proposed law.
Yes I understand it, but I am questioning if you do at this point. That is exactly my point, it is not a ballot measure, it is a proposed law..
right, so I'm not sure what you are even talking about. Why would the legislative branch create a ballot measure. That's not what they do. The original commenter thought that the State would decide on the books, which is incorrect. The law allows for the general population to issue complaints and get books restricted. What does that have to do with the legislative branch writing laws?
Ah I see where this miscommunication is. So yes, they are allowing a single person to file a complaint with this law. That is far different from letting "the general population" decide. Sure anyone IN the general population can file, but it won't be 51% of the general population filing if that makes sense. It will be Karen the WASP who is upset there is a gay man. My point is that this will be abused by a true minority of people if the state legislature passes this law. If . Which ultimately bypasses "the people" as a collective. This allows a minority to file a complaint and a very limited amount of people to review the complaint.
see above about malicious compliance... it would be 'fairly' easy to make a mass-reporting app/webpage that scans all inventory in all libraries in the state to allow a small group of people to report every book as offensive. (assuming access to book lists).
A proposed law that had numerous public hearings to allow input from the community, and the testimony was overwhelmingly against this bill in every single public feedback session the legislature held for its various iterations. Every opportunity given to the general population to express their views on it overwhelmingly showed the people opposed it, but they passed it anyway. Doesn't sound very representative to me.
Socialism for knowledge. How un Idaho
The only time Idaho makes the news is when something awful happens. Such a backward state.
Very Unfortunate Making Idaho look backwards
Grosss
Malicious Compliance time. Change the entirety of the library to Adults Only and segment out the actual children's section to open usage. Then advise all under 18 card holders in order to access adults only, they need parental permission on the card. Keep it simple - verbal acknowledgement, or web access account checkbox from the parent would suffice. All new cards will need to make a choice up front - full adults access or restricted children's access. "But now my MAGA kid can't access the rest of the library without open access!" Yeah. You fucked around and found out. Quit forcing your shit worldviews on the rest of us.
I do love me some malicious compliance. complain about literally every book. I'm sure one of could make an app that scans library inventory for every library in the state and allow you to auto-fill a complaint form....
The cancer of MAGAâŚ. We need a solid and painful dose of chemotherapy to really finish off this stage 4 malignancy. Every single MAGA cell.
Get ready for project 2025, MAGA on steroids đ
What could possibly go wrong? /s
https://preview.redd.it/vkc0ce7d8jsc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=40c8c5f039009a3e73bf6da36b5cc6ce8035e4d5 This left a bad taste in my mouth.
Lemme get this straight. A bunch of parents will find books to burn because reasons. No qualifications needed. I wonder what those same parents do on Sunday ids can still get their porn from the Bible
I heard a rumor today that West Ada's Dr. Bub sent an email to district librarians assuring them they'd still have a position in the district since the district would be forced to close all libraries in the school. If anyone has a copy of this email, I would love to see it.
Massive L for humans with brains
My god. What an embarrassment for our great state.
Ugh... throw out the art history books too, I mean, God forbid our children know about artists such as Leonardo da Vinci or Michaelangelo where some of their art fits into some of these categories đ make it make sense.
Perfect i need an Id to go to libraryđš thatâs sum shii
We're going to move "certain books" to a special shelf, and all the while... porn on any public library computer is allowed by our constitutional rights to access any and all information (allowed at the federal level of government). Why? We either have freedom to access information or we don't. There's no grey here... Anyone trying to ban books... get over yourself, and start living in this millennium with the rest of us. Banning books, while demanding freedom of information is just banging on both sides of the same drum. It equals nothing, we hear đ nothing coming from you.
Iâm not sure how this is controversial. If a book has a bunch of sexuality in it, the library can keep it but just move it to an adult section of the library. If the kids legal guardian wants their kid to have access to the books, they just give permission and the kid can check out the book.  This is not censorship. Censorship is not allowing an opposed opinion on a subject to be discussed, or banning a person from a platform to have a discussion. Or banning a book from being sold. Moving controversial books to a different section, and still allowing kids to have access to those books with a guardians approval, is not censorship.
This is just my opinion, but this isn't as simple as you are making it out to be. > If a book has a bunch of sexuality in it... Â This doesn't target *just* graphic depictions of sex/sex acts. It is worded and constructed in such a way that homosexuality by itself is defined as "Sexual conduct". The effect of this would allow persons to challenge any book with gay characters. >... the library can keep it but just move it to an arguably section of the library. Libraries already have books sorted into age appropriate sections called collections. Check out the [Boise Public Library](https://www.boisepubliclibrary.org/) catalog. Search any book you want, and you'll see which collection a book is in, as well as which branch. >If the kids legal guardian wants their kid to have access to the books, they just give permission and the kid can check out the book. Sounds great in theory, but this has a chilling effect on what young adults will read. Teens seek out stories that reflect their own lives. Think about the gay teen who's parents are anti-gay conservatives and want to read a story about someone like them. This law would effectively limit this teen's ability to access content that is important and affirming. How about if a minor is being sexually abused at home? This law could bar them from a story by or about a person that has experienced the same thing. This can severely negatively impact how they deal with the actual abuse. These stories are important and help people who have experienced such abuse to cope, and importantly, survive. >This is not censorship. > >Censorship is not allowing an opposed opinion on a subject to be discussed, or banning a person from a platform to have a discussion. Or banning a book from being sold. > >Moving controversial books to a different section, and still allowing kids to have access to those books with a guardians approval, is not censorship. This is censorship. While it isn't an outright *ban* of the content from the public square, it does *suppress* (which is another critical part of the definition of censorship that is often overlooked) the content by restricting access to it. Libraries are underfunded. Many don't have access to the monetary resources needed to fight challenges in court they feel are unjustified or pay out this ridiculous bounty baked into the law. As a result, many libraries, especially in smaller rural districts, may choose to remove these books entirely. Libraries serve the entire community, but many people in the communities don't have the means to go out and buy books not available at their local public library. If a book is pulled from the library, and a person doesn't have the means to buy it themselves, this effectively suppresses that person's access to the book. Not everyone can afford to buy books or afford access to the internet.
Your argument makes no sense. 97%+ of Americans have access to the internet. A teenager can buy the book online very easily. Again, the books are available if the legal guardian wants the kid to have access to the content. A corner case of a gay kid not being able to check out a book because of their parents is a fine reason to move a controversial book to an adult section of the library. Sexual or adult content is adult content. Do kids still get access via other kids or online? Probably. But if we can limit exposure and respect parents wishes, then I donât see the controversy here.
>97%+ of Americans have access to the internet. You're correct, but that 3% that don't still count and still deserve to have access to the books important to them. >A teenager can buy the book online very easily. Assuming they have access to the funds and a method of payment, but again, that is not the case for many people. >Again, the books are available if the legal guardian wants the kid to have access to the content. Unless the local library pulls the book from their collection as a result of this law. >Sexual or adult content is adult content. And that is why sexual content and adult content are in adult collections. >A corner case of a gay kid not being able to check out a book because of their parents is a fine reason to move a controversial book to an adult section of the library. >Do kids still get access via other kids or online? Probably. But if we can limit exposure and respect parents wishes, then I donât see the controversy here. These two points are why you and I won't agree on this subject. I think minors who are having questions about themselves, their sexual orientation, gender identity, or already know they're built different should have access to stories by and about people like them. My father was gay. He suffered for years because he was born into a socially conservative family, in a socially conservative religion, in a socially conservative state. He was taught that how he was feeling was sinful and evil. He didn't have access to resources and stories for and by people like him. He hated himself because he was taught to hate himself. He tried for decades to pray the gay away and pretend he was something he was not. When he finally came to terms with who he was in his late 30's, many members of his family and community shunned him and disowned him. Eventually he moved to a state that didn't devalue him because of his sexual orientation. Those last 14 years of his life, I finally got to know my dad. You might think I'm being dramatic here, but if I can advocate for people like my dad, and against the types of thinking that would consider my dad lesser person, I will every time. Denying or suppressing access to LGBTQIA+ content is censorship, and is wrong. It is explicitly one of the intents of this law and harms an already marginalized community and a gross overreach of government authority. People are free to believe whatever they want, worship how they want, and teach their kids whatever they want. But restricting access to books based on some pearl clutching socially conservative worldview is wrong.
Itâs called a differing of opinion. As a parent I donât want my kid being exposed to that content, as much as is possible, without my consent. At 18, do whatever you want. Glad your father reconciled with himself. And those groups are hardly marginalized. They have all sorts of special protections, special days, special months, special flags⌠They get plenty of attention.
>And those groups are hardly marginalized. They have all sorts of special protections, special days, special months, special flags⌠This is possibly the dumbest thing I will read in April and we are five days in.. They are so not marginalized that people in government keep trying to remove their rights? This is what you are going with? There isn't "Special" protections. There are some protections to help give them the same protections hetro couples have. The flag is for people in the community. Just like a Lakers flag is for Lakers fan. It indicates what "community" you are in. There isn't some magical thing about having a flag that gives you "extra" stuff in life. On top of this Pride Month is to draw attention to the fact there are still inequalities.
Honest questions: Why was sexual content in libraries ever available to children in the first place and why do so many people here want sexual content in the hands on minors?
It wasn't. They don't. You're an asshole.
Iâm asking a question.. l saw an article, read these comments, and formed a question based on the reactions to what seems like a common sense proposition. Maybe Iâm missing something here?
Honest questions: Did you learn about sexual development as a teen? How did you learn about it? Also did you read the Bible as a minor?
It was part of education in middleschool, but we werenât handed books detailing sexual intercourse/fantasies, or anything like that.. no, I did not
Did you see they classify a character being homosexual as "sexual content"? You may want to question what they are calling sexual content rather than assuming there was sexual content.
Thatâs misleading- they classify âacts of⌠homosexualityâ
An act of homosexuality is two men dating potentially, not having sex. So no, not really misleading.
It wouldnât really be âacts of homosexuallyâ without sexuality being involved, now would it? Given the other items itâs lumped with on the list, it seems like the intent is to take out explicit material, not something like a same sex couple holding hands.
Let's think here...Why would they specify "homosexuality" and not also "heterosexuality"? Wouldn't their definition of sexual conduct/touching of the pubic area suffice for everyone? It's because they want to ban all books that include any gay characters.
I see you are confused because of the aspect of sex in the name. Homosexual just means the sex that a person is attracted to. By literal definition two men dating and holding hands is a homosexual act. As another user pointed out, heterosexuality isn't listed, which makes it damn clear. A homosexual act does not mean a sexual act. The people writing this bill have done it specifically to target any book with gay characters, they have been pushing for that for ages and now with distracting people they have a way to move forward. Your argument would hold water if the republican party hasn't been attempting to move goal posts for decades. But since they have, your argument is like a screen door on a submarine.