In Georgia, a bill to cut all ties with the American Library Association is advancing

[Rick345]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” The Library Bill of Rights specifically states that “all people” and “all points of view” should be included in library materials and information.

There are no limiting qualifiers for viewpoint, origin, or politics. Thus there is no justification for the exclusion of opinions deemed to be unpopular or offensive by some segments of society no matter how vocal or influential their opponents may be at any particular time in any particular place.

Those who've been trying to remove certain books from childrens' sections at public libraries are now taking aim at what they see as a source of the prob
lem: the American Library Association.

A growing number of states and local libraries are cutting ties with the nation's predominant library professional association, saying the ALA has become too radical. On Thursday, a bill that would go further than any other passed the Georgia state Senate in a 33-to-20 vote and now heads to the House.

Libraries should collect, maintain, and provide access to as wide a selection of materials, reflecting as wide a diversity of views on political topics as possible, within their budgetary constraints and local community needs.

 

[Rick345]

hysterical nonsense by a hysterical "person"

????

 

[JaySecrets]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” The Library Bill of Rights specifically states that “all people” and “all points of view” should be included in library materials and information.

There are no limiting qualifiers for viewpoint, origin, or politics. Thus there is no justification for the exclusion of opinions deemed to be unpopular or offensive by some segments of society no matter how vocal or influential their opponents may be at any particular time in any particular place.

Those who've been trying to remove certain books from childrens' sections at public libraries are now taking aim at what they see as a source of the prob
lem: the American Library Association.

A growing number of states and local libraries are cutting ties with the nation's predominant library professional association, saying the ALA has become too radical. On Thursday, a bill that would go further than any other passed the Georgia state Senate in a 33-to-20 vote and now heads to the House.

Libraries should collect, maintain, and provide access to as wide a selection of materials, reflecting as wide a diversity of views on political topics as possible, within their budgetary constraints and local community needs.

So two quick thoughts. One that amendment was specifically written about political speech. It wasn't a guarantee to be able to say anything anywhere. For example, I'm pretty sure those who have children would not want Literotica content available on the children's shelves or even accessible by children a public library. In fact some would probably, And arguably rightly, say that definitely has no place in a public library. There are limits to what the Constitution protects on Free speech. And those are not arbitrary.
Number two the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law... This has nothing to do with states and states rights. In fact, the founders wanted there to be a distinct difference between what states do and what the federal government does. They also said that Congress shall make no law regarding the practice of religion, however, just about every one of the states had their own specific denomination that they espoused publicly. And the federal government actually paid for the printing of Bibles. In other words, there is a context to these amendments and to understand them you need to read the original intent.

I'm not going to get into whether or not Georgia should do what they're doing. I have my own opinions on that. But we don't get too arbitrarily apply amendments and misapply amendments and then say we are right because we quoted the Constitution. Let's stick with original intent and what the founders actually wrote if that's the discussion we're having. Thanks guys.

 

[ll74]

So two quick thoughts. One that amendment was specifically written about political speech. It wasn't a guarantee to be able to say anything anywhere. For example, I'm pretty sure those who have children would not want Literotica content available on the children's shelves or even accessible by children a public library. In fact some would probably, And arguably rightly, say that definitely has no place in a public library. There are limits to what the Constitution protects on Free speech. And those are not arbitrary.
Number two the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law... This has nothing to do with states and states rights. In fact, the founders wanted there to be a distinct difference between what states do and what the federal government does. They also said that Congress shall make no law regarding the practice of religion, however, just about every one of the states had their own specific denomination that they espoused publicly. And the federal government actually paid for the printing of Bibles. In other words, there is a context to these amendments and to understand them you need to read the original intent.

I'm not going to get into whether or not Georgia should do what they're doing. I have my own opinions on that. But we don't get too arbitrarily apply amendments and misapply amendments and then say we are right because we quoted the Constitution. Let's stick with original intent and what the founders actually wrote if that's the discussion we're having. Thanks guys.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

There are many books which contain sexualized or otherwise "adult" material. I think there are ways to limit access to children for these types of books without removing them from the library. (There used to be an adult section at the video store)

That being said, there are many on the right who consider any books dealing with non straight people as "adult" content. They don't want their kids exposed to reality and they see a relationship between same sex couples as sexual. That is not the same thing and I believe that censorship like that should not be allowed.

 

[Rick345]

One that amendment was specifically written about political speech.

While your points are well taken.

This bill is not just about books, according to the article the ALA is also the only organization that accredits university programs in library and information science that train future librarians, and the Georgia bill would make it illegal to spend public funds on that.

We are not talking about culling books but librarians and library science as well. At a time when was are bombarded by information to a degree never seen before in history, now is not the time to stop producing librarians.

We live in a time when a lot of misinformation is published in written, video, audio, and other forms, this is not the time to curtail the training or number of persons who have the education and experience to extract a nugget or two of gold from countless buckets of bullshit.. Just by reading this forum, I can tell ya some wouldn't know bullshit if they fell into it.. All of us have fallen for BS every once in a while..

That’s why we need people trained, educated, and experienced in information science more than ever.. Google will get you information, a librarian you get you the right information. This bill will cut funding to train such people (librarians).

 

[JaySecrets]

While your points are well taken.

This bill is not just about books, according to the article the ALA is also the only organization that accredits university programs in library and information science that train future librarians, and the Georgia bill would make it illegal to spend public funds on that.

We are not talking about culling books but librarians and library science as well. At a time when was are bombarded by information to a degree never seen before in history, now is not the time to stop producing librarians.

We live in a time when a lot of misinformation is published in written, video, audio, and other forms, this is not the time to curtail the training or number of persons who have the education and experience to extract a nugget or two of gold from countless buckets of bullshit.. Just by reading this forum, I can tell ya some wouldn't know bullshit if they fell into it.. All of us have fallen for BS every once in a while..

That’s why we need people trained, educated, and experienced in information science more than ever.. Google will get you information, a librarian you get you the right information. This bill will cut funding to train such people (librarians).

But who trains them? Liberal elitist universities who think because they are self-described elite that now they know better than parents and families and moms and dads that want to make sure they have control of what their children are exposed to?

Are those who believe that children belong to society in general... Meaning because you can't have a general ownership in society... That they belong to the government to train them to be nice little citizens of the state... And who believe that the children do not belong to the parents to train and nurture as they see fit... Are these the people that are supposed to be educating the librarians who then provide the information that a child is exposed to?

I Have a huge problem with that.

Give parents control of the content of libraries. Parents control of the content of schools. Give parents control of the content of what their child is exposed to. The school's only job is to provide Reading, writing and arithmetic and basic skills for life in education... Not to socially engineer children one way or another. And the library's job is to provide resources that are accurate to those goals. If the people in Georgia feel like what they need their children exposed to is what they're putting in that bill, so be it. I'm not going to Have an issue with that because I put heavier weight on parental rights then I do librarian or teacher rights.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I think what it comes down to is this: Few would argue that it should be okay for libraries to have hardcore porn, Hustler, ExHamster, type of literature available to children. Most would agree this is NOT okay. I agree this is not okay.

But where do you draw the line at what is or isn't "porn" and when does it become unreasonable censorship, and what is the function of a library anyway?

A library is a repository for information, and written works. There are, however, people that think ANY books with LGBT people should be banned from libraries- even if there is no sex involved. Or books with African American characters should be banned from libraries, because they have African American characters (Because this is "Indoctrination" or something, they claim.) Or any books that deal with heath and sexuality because they can't fathom the difference between ANY discussion of sex, and "porn."

This is going way too far and is gross over-reach.

 

[Rick345]

But who trains them? Liberal elitist universities

I wouldn’t call the University of Georgia liberal or elitist. Go Bulldogs..

Give parents control of the content of libraries. Parents control of the content of schools.

No! You have every right to determine what your child reads, but you have absolutely no right to determine what is available for my child to read. You can go to the library and give the librarian a list of books your child is not allowed to barrow from the library. I support that 100%.

You can go to the school and request a list of all the books that will be used in your child’s classrooms that year and a list of any books that are required reading that year. At that point review the books and if necessary tell the principal and teachers under no circumstance is my child allowed to read or even see this/these books and give them your list of forbidden books. I’ll support you 100% on that.

But when you make books I believe my read should read in school unavailable that is something I can not allow.

 

[JaySecrets]

I wouldn’t call the University of Georgia liberal or elitist. Go Bulldogs..

No! You have every right to determine what your child reads, but you have absolutely no right to determine what is available for my child to read. You can go to the library and give the librarian a list of books your child is not allowed to barrow from the library. I support that 100%.

You can go to the school and request a list of all the books that will be used in your child’s classrooms that year and a list of any books that are required reading that year. At that point review the books and if necessary tell the principal and teachers under no circumstance is my child allowed to read or even see this/these books and give them your list of forbidden books. I’ll support you 100% on that.

But when you make books I believe my read should read in school unavailable that is something I can n

 

[JaySecrets]

How about flipping that instead. How about if there's enough people in a society who do not want their child exposed to certain things in libraries, then those things are removed from that library. In the minority in that society, there are people who want their children to have access to those things. Those parents go out and get those books for those children and actively buy them for their children or create their own library where their children can access them... It's not the government's job to provide books that are going to be offensive to parents that don't want their child exposed to those books because the government thinks they know better than those parents... Nor is it the role of other parents who think their child should have access to these resources to dictate that these resources are going to be available if those resources are things that the other parents don't want their child having access to at all. If you want those resources for your children... Start your own private sector library.

 

[Rick345]

It's not the government's job to provide books

I believe it is the government's to provide books to ensure an educated electorate. It's my job to oversee my kid's educational development I don't pretend to know what you feel is best for your child..

Start your own private sector library.

Since you believe it is not the government's job to offer books that may offend you, shouldn't you be the one who starts a private-sector library?

He is my problem when I went to school "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Tom Sawyer", "The Diary of Ann Frank", and "Slaughterhouse Five", were required reading now they are banned I don't think they should be.. I don't think we are going in the right direction..

 

[JaySecrets]

I believe it is the government's to provide books to ensure an educated electorate.

Since you believe it is not the government's job to offer books that may offend you, shouldn't you be the one who starts a private-sector library?

He is my problem when I went to school "To Kill a Mockingbird", "Tom Sawyer", "The Diary of Ann Frank", and "Slaughterhouse Five", were required reading now they are banned I don't think they should be.. I don't think we are going in the right direction..

Personally... And it has a lot to do with with the fact that in the '50s as those who had a very anti-christian worldview didn't like the content of your classics by Dickens and so on and so forth replaced the true classics with something that hadn't even been around long enough to be called classics yet because they had more of the secular worldview... And in the process I think something Lost in literature because we didn't want to deal with world views we didn't like... But I digress badly. I'm sorry.
Personally, I don't think to kill a mockingbird or slaughterhouse 5 should be required reading. I don't object to them being on the shelves I just don't think they should be required reading. Anne Frank and Tom Sawyer absolutely.

But it's not the conservatives that are banning at least. Tom Sawyer and Anne Frank. Is the liberals who don't like some of the message in the diary of Anne Frank, And who don't like the "N" word being used in Tom, Sawyer and therefore are either canceling it or editing it.


But when all I have to do if I want to get a hold of say to use the example of what has actually been introduced in first and second grade classrooms where it has no place... It's not the time to discuss transgender and same-sex marriage when you're in first and second grade for crying out loud. Let them be kids.... But if you want to get a copy to your second or third grader of Susie has two daddies or whatever it is... You can get access to that online for free. You don't need that library.

The content of a library should be the least offensive to the public. Which means you don't tell the people who don't want their kids to have access to it well then don't go to the library. Their tax dollars are paying for it. You tell the people who want the content that is offensive to enough people where they don't want it there, get those resources on your own. They're not hard to get. And the person who wants their kids to have access to those resources still has access to the library for the other books that all the parents want to have their kids have access to. You got it backwards. If the tax dollars are paying for the library then you shouldn't have the content foisted on that taxpayers family that they don't want their children to have access to or be exposed to. If you want your child to have that exposure then you have easy access through the internet and your smartphone and your tablet and all kinds of other stuff to get those books for free even.

 

[icanhelp1]

How about flipping that instead. How about if there's enough people in a society who do not want their child exposed to certain things in libraries, then those things are removed from that library. In the minority in that society, there are people who want their children to have access to those things. Those parents go out and get those books for those children and actively buy them for their children or create their own library where their children can access them... It's not the government's job to provide books that are going to be offensive to parents that don't want their child exposed to those books because the government thinks they know better than those parents... Nor is it the role of other parents who think their child should have access to these resources to dictate that these resources are going to be available if those resources are things that the other parents don't want their child having access to at all. If you want those resources for your children... Start your own private sector library.

State legislators don’t have to remove any media from public libraries. Let the citizens determine the classification of media as to what is deemed age appropriate and display accordingly. Eventually media content will reach adult status where pretty much anything goes, where adults can expose themselves to whatever they want.

 

[JaySecrets]

State legislators don’t have to remove any media from public libraries. Let the citizens determine the classification of media as to what is deemed age appropriate and display accordingly. Eventually media content will reach adult status where pretty much anything goes, where adults can expose themselves to whatever they want.

The problem is not only adults use libraries. Kids do. You know as well as I do that if there is risque material in a library a child will find a way to get a hold of it. The legislature in Georgia is doing this because enough parents spoke out.

 

[icanhelp1]

The problem is not only adults use libraries. Kids do. You know as well as I do that if there is risque material in a library a child will find a way to get a hold of it. The legislature in Georgia is doing this because enough parents spoke out.

Display accordingly. Like any city or state ordinance the citizens should have a say as to what age appropriate classification should be and enforce rules that deny access to children. If schools are not abiding by that classification mandate then hire a school board that is sensitive to what parents want their children exposed to. Either way parents need to take back their children from the state and set straight these school boards and remind them who they work for. The reason for much of this bullshit is that parents let schools raise their children.

 

[Chernosoth]

The public library system became a monopoly, with the decline of service that happens in monopolies. Private reading rooms are starting to grow and be some competition.

 

[Rick345]

Personally, I don't think to kill a mockingbird or slaughterhouse 5 should be required reading. I don't object to them being on the shelves I just don't think they should be required reading. Anne Frank and Tom Sawyer absolutely.

We have some common ground that’s a start and I have a better idea were you’re coming from I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate on your position.. I honestly do.. For me, this is a complex issue with many sides.

But it's not the conservatives that are banning at least. Tom Sawyer and Anne Frank. Is the liberals who don't like some of the message in the diary of Anne Frank, And who don't like the "N" word being used in Tom, Sawyer and therefore are either canceling it or editing it.

I’d say it is black folks and black Americans that have pushed back against Mark Twain because of his liberal use of the N word.. They can be liberal, conservative, independent or a host of other political affiliations just like anyone else.. It's not a liberal thing.

However, it's conservatives that call for a ban on Anne Frank because of passages where she discovers and expounds on masturbation. And the passage where she wonders how a man’s dick could fit in the tiny hole between her legs.. That is what has the “Moms for Liberty”, clutching their pearls.

But when all I have to do if I want to get a hold of say to use the example of what has actually been introduced in first and second grade classrooms where it has no place... It's not the time to discuss transgender and same-sex marriage when you're in first and second grade for crying out loud. Let them be kids.... But if you want to get a copy to your second or third grader of Susie has two daddies or whatever it is... You can get access to that online for free. You don't need that library.

I believe the book you are refereeing to is “My Two Dads and Me”, I’d feel a little more confident in our selection of books you want banned from the school library if you were at least a itsy bitsy bit familiar with the book. Obviously today there are families with two dads, two moms, and single parents.. Its a fact of life I’m not sure hiding that fact from children helps them.

What would you do if your daughter comes home and says, “I was over Suzy’s house and she has two dads?”

The content of a library should be the least offensive to the public. Which means you don't tell the people who don't want their kids to have access to it well then don't go to the library. Their tax dollars are paying for it. You tell the people who want the content that is offensive to enough people where they don't want it there, get those resources on your own. They're not hard to get. And the person who wants their kids to have access to those resources still has access to the library for the other books that all the parents want to have their kids have access to. You got it backwards. If the tax dollars are paying for the library then you shouldn't have the content foisted on that taxpayers family that they don't want their children to have access to or be exposed to. If you want your child to have that exposure then you have easy access through the internet and your smartphone and your tablet and all kinds of other stuff to get those books for free even.

Libraries are a place that all information is available for free. Even for those who cannot afford internet, smartphones, tablets, computers or books. Depending on your social status and income these things can be very hard to get. Libraries are the one place everyone regardless of income can get them.

The least offensive to the public is too ambiguous for me.. One person's offense is another person's pleasure.. That’s go back to “The Diary of Anne Frank”, it does have passages about a young girl exploring her body and I understand that may offend some people but it does allow people to experience being a young Jewish girl in Frankfurt, Germany, and Amsterdam during the reign of the Nazis. That alone puts the book in the must-be-read column. But I would allow parents to opt-out their child of Anne Frank. However, I wouldn’t ban the book like conservatives want to do.. I think you are on the same page with me as far as Anne goes. That the lessons learned from the book far outweigh Anne’s soft porn passages.

The Bible contains incest, homosexuality, genocide, torture, and a host of other things that would cause any conservative Christians to call for a ban on it if it weren’t the Bible.. I wouldn’t ban it from the library because its wisdom and social significance outweigh its Emmanuelle Arsan and Steven King aspects.. I’d have it on the shelves beside Qu’ran, Gita, Black Elk Speaks, etc.. Some would want to ban it, I’m not one of those people.

I was about to suggest I’d put offensive books in a special room with a lock you or your children’s library card couldn’t open.. They would be available for those who want them but you never see them and your children wouldn’t have access to them. That’s the best I can do.. However, to sweeten the deal I’ll give you 35 cents the amount the average taxpayer pays which is funneled to the libraries in an average community.. So you never have to see the books and you are 35 cents richer that’s a sweet deal.

All sarcasm aside I cannot condone banning books the good, the bad, or the ugly.. I'll make whatever accommodation possible to make sure whomever is offended by them is accommodated short of removing them from the library..

 

[Fuzzy1975]

How about flipping that instead. How about if there's enough people in a society who do not want their child exposed to certain things in libraries, then those things are removed from that library.

Your rights to decide end where my rights to decide begin. You have no right to limit or promote access to any subject that is legal in society any more than I do.

In the minority in that society, there are people who want their children to have access to those things.

Do you have a citation for the above. It's a pretty heavy claim that people who want free access are the minority.

It's not the government's job to provide books that are going to be offensive to parents that don't want their child exposed to those books because the government thinks they know better than those parents...

Actually it is the governments job.

Nor is it the role of other parents who think their child should have access to these resources to dictate that these resources are going to be available if those resources are things that the other parents don't want their child having access to at all. If you want those resources for your children... Start your own private sector library.

Take your own advice, why are you trying to force the public library to conform to your ideals eh Fisher_amen?

I'd bump this, but a link to it is just as good....

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/how-to-get-to-heaven-when-you-die.1503068/page-49#post-92475659

 

[HisArpy]

Whether the state is or isn't a member of a private org has no bearing on whether the state is limiting speech or engaging in censorship.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

But who trains them? Liberal elitist universities who think because they are self-described elite that now they know better than parents and families and moms and dads that want to make sure they have control of what their children are exposed to?

Are those who believe that children belong to society in general... Meaning because you can't have a general ownership in society... That they belong to the government to train them to be nice little citizens of the state... And who believe that the children do not belong to the parents to train and nurture as they see fit... Are these the people that are supposed to be educating the librarians who then provide the information that a child is exposed to?

I Have a huge problem with that.

Give parents control of the content of libraries. Parents control of the content of schools. Give parents control of the content of what their child is exposed to. The school's only job is to provide Reading, writing and arithmetic and basic skills for life in education... Not to socially engineer children one way or another. And the library's job is to provide resources that are accurate to those goals. If the people in Georgia feel like what they need their children exposed to is what they're putting in that bill, so be it. I'm not going to Have an issue with that because I put heavier weight on parental rights then I do librarian or teacher rights.

But you’re against parent rights.

 

[Rightguide]

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” The Library Bill of Rights specifically states that “all people” and “all points of view” should be included in library materials and information.

There are no limiting qualifiers for viewpoint, origin, or politics. Thus there is no justification for the exclusion of opinions deemed to be unpopular or offensive by some segments of society no matter how vocal or influential their opponents may be at any particular time in any particular place.

Those who've been trying to remove certain books from childrens' sections at public libraries are now taking aim at what they see as a source of the prob
lem: the American Library Association.

A growing number of states and local libraries are cutting ties with the nation's predominant library professional association, saying the ALA has become too radical. On Thursday, a bill that would go further than any other passed the Georgia state Senate in a 33-to-20 vote and now heads to the House.

Libraries should collect, maintain, and provide access to as wide a selection of materials, reflecting as wide a diversity of views on political topics as possible, within their budgetary constraints and local community needs.

The American Library Association is dominated by one ideology that is not embraced by the majority of Americans.

 

[ByteMe13]

Personally... And it has a lot to do with with the fact that in the '50s as those who had a very anti-christian worldview didn't like the content of your classics by Dickens and so on and so forth replaced the true classics with something that hadn't even been around long enough to be called classics yet because they had more of the secular worldview... And in the process I think something Lost in literature because we didn't want to deal with world views we didn't like... But I digress badly. I'm sorry.
Personally, I don't think to kill a mockingbird or slaughterhouse 5 should be required reading. I don't object to them being on the shelves I just don't think they should be required reading. Anne Frank and Tom Sawyer absolutely.

But it's not the conservatives that are banning at least. Tom Sawyer and Anne Frank. Is the liberals who don't like some of the message in the diary of Anne Frank, And who don't like the "N" word being used in Tom, Sawyer and therefore are either canceling it or editing it.


But when all I have to do if I want to get a hold of say to use the example of what has actually been introduced in first and second grade classrooms where it has no place... It's not the time to discuss transgender and same-sex marriage when you're in first and second grade for crying out loud. Let them be kids.... But if you want to get a copy to your second or third grader of Susie has two daddies or whatever it is... You can get access to that online for free. You don't need that library.

The content of a library should be the least offensive to the public. Which means you don't tell the people who don't want their kids to have access to it well then don't go to the library. Their tax dollars are paying for it. You tell the people who want the content that is offensive to enough people where they don't want it there, get those resources on your own. They're not hard to get. And the person who wants their kids to have access to those resources still has access to the library for the other books that all the parents want to have their kids have access to. You got it backwards. If the tax dollars are paying for the library then you shouldn't have the content foisted on that taxpayers family that they don't want their children to have access to or be exposed to. If you want your child to have that exposure then you have easy access through the internet and your smartphone and your tablet and all kinds of other stuff to get those books for free even.

Let’s allow anyone to object to a book in the library and have it removed. Pretty soon, libraries will be empty. That would save taxpayers a lot of money.

 

[JaySecrets]

Let’s allow anyone to object to a book in the library and have it removed. Pretty soon, libraries will be empty. That would save taxpayers a lot of money.

Nobody including myself is saying that anybody who doesn't like the content of a book should just have it banned. What conservatives are saying is that there used to be at least some standard of decency when it came to what people were given access to with government dollars in public forums. I can't get by with showing the latest porn flick on a big screen at a showing in the public library.

That's an extreme example, but there are smaller scale issues. There are children's books so-called that are delving into sexual issues that they have no business getting into. There are books that are geared to teach children that same-sex marriage or that other things like that are healthy and good and wonderful. Problem is that that violates the values and morals of a good portion of the society that's paying the taxes on that library. There are books that are being put in place that are teaching children that America is nothing but a racist horrible place that needs to be put in its place. That is offensive and problematic to much of the country. As was mentioned earlier by someone else, The library association is run by a group of people who have some very perverse values that violate what parents rights should dictate. That's why this bill is being put through. If you want that content, go get it yourself and make it available to your own children. It should not be put in a place where people who don't want their children to have access to these things can access it. Parents own their children, not society.

 

[ByteMe13]

Nobody including myself is saying that anybody who doesn't like the content of a book should just have it banned. What conservatives are saying is that there used to be at least some standard of decency when it came to what people were given access to with government dollars in public forums. I can't get by with showing the latest porn flick on a big screen at a showing in the public library.

That's an extreme example, but there are smaller scale issues. There are children's books so-called that are delving into sexual issues that they have no business getting into. There are books that are geared to teach children that same-sex marriage or that other things like that are healthy and good and wonderful. Problem is that that violates the values and morals of a good portion of the society that's paying the taxes on that library. There are books that are being put in place that are teaching children that America is nothing but a racist horrible place that needs to be put in its place. That is offensive and problematic to much of the country. As was mentioned earlier by someone else, The library association is run by a group of people who have some very perverse values that violate what parents rights should dictate. That's why this bill is being put through. If you want that content, go get it yourself and make it available to your own children. It should not be put in a place where people who don't want their children to have access to these things can access it. Parents own their children, not society.

Our local school board was just taken over by a group of right-wing zealots who are now trying to get books like To Kill a Mockingbird banned from the libraries as they cast white racists in a bad light.

 

[JaySecrets]

Our local school board was just taken over by a group of right-wing zealots who are now trying to get books like To Kill a Mockingbird banned from the libraries as they cast white racists in a bad light.

I don't say that I agree with all of their positions on this. What I'm saying is parallel rights trump school rights. Librarians do not have the power to control what a child is exposed to parents do. Teachers do not decide what a child should learn. Parents do. The child belongs to the parents. Period. Full stop. I'm not going to say an atheistic parent can't teach their child, their ideals or values. I'm not going to say a homosexual cannot teach a child their values if it is their child. But no one is going to be offended or at least reasonably offended if there's an absence of a book that is easily accessible otherwise in a library. If the presence of a book is problematic to the parents of children who don't want their children exposed to that book, it is the parent's right to have that book not in the public library. And when you look at the values and belief systems of the library association... They have no respect for parental rights. The same goes for the national education association.