Major publishers sue Florida over ‘unconstitutional’ school book ban

[rjs330]

Isn't this just another example of lazy parents who can't be bothered to raise their kids to mind their parents and expecting government funded agencies to pick up the slack?

I guess it's much easier to get the government sponsored agency to do the moral guidance these day- no wonder America is in such a state. What ever happened to personal parental responsibility? If a parents reaction to issues they feel strongly about is to simply say "meh, get the government sponsored agency to do it, I'm watching tele" it's no these kids look to outside sources for moral and ethical guidance.

I'm really trying to figure out why we can put all kinds.of age restrictions on kids access to certain things, but not on certain books.

And when examples are brought up they are just dismissed. Why is that?

 

[rjs330]

I'm actually okay with what you mentioned. Seems like a completely reasonable compromise. I'm in.

You think the majority social progressives in the US would go for it? Or would they say "books like these are too deep/meaningful/important to have access restrictions on them"?

(hint: it's 100% the latter)

That's really the "wrench in the gears" in all this. Because the books in question are framed/presented within a "theme" of a topic for which people want to virtue signal their "allyship", they pretend that "normal restrictions shouldn't apply"

So content that, before, everyone would've agreed isn't age appropriate for 14 year olds under any other circumstances, magically becomes restriction-proof simply because it involves a non-cis/non-straight person's "journey/exploration".

You are correct. There would need to be some sort written explanation and system in place to put books into age appropriate categories.

Such as 12 and older, 15 and older 17 and older etc. And theae books would have to have parental permission to read. What will the criteria be and who will.decide of it meets rhe criteria.

I think you are correct in that rhere will be those who will call certain books too important to restrict to a certain age group.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm actually okay with what you mentioned. Seems like a completely reasonable compromise. I'm in.

Great.

You think the majority social progressives in the US would go for it? Or would they say "books like these are too deep/meaningful/important to have access restrictions on them"?

Well, I'm what you might term a social progressive. I'm as far to the left as most are on this forum. But it doesn't matter how liberal one might be, there are self imposed limits on what I would consider acceptable for my 10 year old grandson for example. And he's an avid reader, so my copy of American Psycho is not on my bookshelf but some place where he won't come across it accidently. But if my daughter (his mother) thinks it's fine for him to read any of the books that have been mentioned that have been banned then the little guy should be able to - simply by requesting it from the school library. And if he is under the age that the librarian has considered it suitable, then he'll get permission from his mother.

There's a six year gap in his school. So there are books that might be suitable for an 11 year old that most people would agree aren't suitable for a six year old. So it's entirely reasonable to have a modicum of parental control. As opposed to banning books. And I'll argue that point with anyone.

That's really the "wrench in the gears" in all this. Because the books in question are framed/presented within a "theme" of a topic for which people want to virtue signal their "allyship", they pretend that "normal restrictions shouldn't apply"

So content that, before, everyone would've agreed isn't age appropriate for 14 year olds under any other circumstances, magically becomes restriction-proof simply because it involves a non-cis/non-straight person's "journey/exploration".

I'm not interested in playing politics with literature. Or interested in those that want to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Six major book publishers have teamed up to sue the US state of Florida over an “unconstitutional” law that has seen hundreds of titles purged from school libraries following rightwing challenges.

Since it went into effect last July, countless titles have been removed from elementary, middle and high school libraries, including American classics such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain.

Contemporary novels by bestselling authors such as Margaret Atwood, Judy Blume and Stephen King have also been removed

The suit contends the book removal provisions violate previous supreme court decisions relating to reviewing works for their literary, artistic, political and scientific value as a whole while considering any potential obscenity; and seeks to restore the discretion “of trained educators to evaluate books holistically to avoid harm to students who will otherwise lose access to a wide range of viewpoints”.

DeSantis has attempted to portray the issue as “a hoax”, arguing that because the state has empowered parents to make objections, and is not directly making the challenges itself, it is not responsible for books subsequently removed from shelves.

See also this (I believe ongoing) case:

Penguin Random House sues Pensacola-area Florida school district over book bans​

None of those books are banned....you can literally buy them in Florida right now.

 

[Larniavc]

I'm really trying to figure out why we can put all kinds.of age restrictions on kids access to certain things, but not on certain books.

And when examples are brought up they are just dismissed. Why is that?

But it’s not age restrictions. It’s banning things some people don’t like.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not interested in playing politics with literature. Or interested in those that want to.

But isn't "the politics" one of the major driving factors of the public debate over this?

The reason why some people want to want to defend the books is because of the broader sociopolitical narratives they uphold.

For instance, in some of the illustrated books, if you took out the LGBT themes and replaced it with straight/cis characters, would advocates be defending them so hard?

Or, in cases of materials like those found in the 1619 project, if you removed the underlying themes in there, and replaced them with some other more generic forms of historical inaccuracies, would people be as inclined to defend it?


Any time a book/author is intentionally taking an activism stance on a political issue or issues, you can't separate the two.

That'd be like if a government teacher started using Atlas Shrugged as a educational material (promoting it as the reality of the situation, and presenting it in such a way where the themes transcend the story itself), and parents objected... accusing the parents of "making it political" would be misplaced, as in that circumstance, it would be the teacher who was trying to promote a particular political viewpoint over the others, using the book as a vehicle to do so.

 

[Bradskii]

But isn't "the politics" one of the major driving factors of the public debate over this?

Again, I'm not interested in the politics. If someone wants to promote a book or ban it for religious or political motives (and it's generally those that want to ban books that are the ones prompting the debate - so let's not kid ourselves that it's some liberally minded attempt to subvert our children) then I am not the slightest bit interested. If the book is deemed acceptable by librarians for inclusion into a school library then that's it. It's included. If you don't trust your kids then you can put some process into place so that parents are always aware of what their children are reading.

But you don't tell other parents what their kid can and cannot read. Are we clear on that?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Again, I'm not interested in the politics. If someone wants to promote a book or ban it for religious or political motives (and it's generally those that want to ban books that are the ones prompting the debate - so let's not kid ourselves that it's some liberally minded attempt to subvert our children) then I am not the slightest bit interested.

Given that the authors themselves for some of these books openly declare that they're specifically writing the books to "encourage children to question and challenge established norms on <insert issue here>", to deny that it's not at least tiptoeing over the line into "indoctrination" territory seems disingenuous.

Author: "I wrote this book to help kids question gender norms so that they'll understand that gender is fluid, and encourage them explore their own gender identity"
Parents: "Well, I don't want my children being taught this"
Defenders: "Whoa pal!, Don't make this about your political thing, it's just a book"

You may not be interested in the politics, but the authors themselves certainly are.

At the very least, the authors are trying to be a "competing interest" against certain parents in the battle for "how the next generation will see certain issues"

So to make it sound like the people opposing a book are "prompting the debate" isn't always accurate, some of the authors themselves openly declare their intent to "challenge a norm", precisely because they want there to be a big public debate about it.

If Mike Curato was just a children's author who wasn't trying to get political and wasn't trying to spawn a big nationwide fuss, then instead of writing Flamer, he would've written "The animals I saw at the Zoo" with pictures of giraffes and zebras in it.

If the author writes a book that incidentally has a gay character, and people want it banned for that reason, then the people calling for the ban are "starting the debate". However, if the book is written with specifically stated intent of "I want people question/challenge/rethink/etc...", then in that circumstance, the author is "starting the debate"

If the book is deemed acceptable by librarians for inclusion into a school library then that's it. It's included. If you don't trust your kids then you can put some process into place so that parents are always aware of what their children are reading.

But you don't tell other parents what their kid can and cannot read. Are we clear on that?

So, ethnic joke books are okay in the school library where your children attend because as long as that particular librarian thought the jokes were funny, and few of the parents said it was okay for their kids to read. Those who object can just tell all their Jr. High kids not to look at those ones. Got it. (or are there some well-reasoned positions for removing those from school libraries even if some of the other parents don't have a problem with them?...and perhaps it's not always best to set the bar at at the lowest common denominator of "whichever parent happens to be the most lax with what they're okay with their kids seeing"?)

I'm glad that at least some progressives have turned over a new leaf on the free expression topic. I was kinda worried 3 years ago when some were suggesting that the government take steps to restrict which podcasts that even other adults should be allowed to hear.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I found another article that explains the law a little more and even gives a link to the law itself.

Publishers sue Florida over book ban law, saying it creates "a regime of strict censorship" in schools

Classics that have been pulled as a result of the law include Maya Angelou's "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" and Ernest Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls."

www.cbsnews.com

The linked article give this explanation of the law..


If that is correct, then as a parent, in a county in Florida, I could decide I didn't want my kid to read, "Pride and Prejudice,1984, Lord of the Rings, The Book Thief, Lord of the Flies, The Kite Runner, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Hunger Games, Of Mice and Men, Fahrenheit 451, Green Eggs and Ham, Alice in Wonderland, The Secret Garden, The Odyssey, Anne of Green Gables, The Count of Monte Cristo, Ender's Game, Where the Wild Things Are, Winnie the Pooh, Goodnight Moon, Don Quixote, Great Expectations, etc... basically any book" and challenge them. Then the county would have to remove the book(s) within 5 days until the objection is resolved. Given the speed at which most county government's move that could take awhile.

I can see why the state is saying, "It is not us!! It is the parents"

That is true, the way the law is written it is the parents.

However, it gives basically any parent in FL the power to challenge ANY book and get it banned in their county until that challenge is resolved. Maybe the dictionary with all of its fancy words has some words and definitions in it that I don't like. Maybe I don't like Winnie the Pooh because it has "Pooh" in the title. It sounds easy enough to get any pulled from the shelves in my Florida county school for awhile under this law

All of that being said -

Do I think there are some books that are not appropriate for kids? Yup. I sure do.

But, do I also think the state of FL has gotten itself into a pickle by enacting a law had good intentions but was poorly thought out by enabling any parent enact a ban (either temporary or permanent) on any book and now the state is trying its best to not admit that? Yup, I sure do.

The way it seems to working here in Hernando County is there are residents here that have volunteered to read questionable books and recommend them to be banned. But I believe the county school board members have the final say as to whether the book will be banned. We have a county newspaper that lists the books being considered for banning and then how the school board members voted on the book. All the books I've seen listed are books I've never heard of. There are times when the school board keeps a book that has been suggested to be banned. Of course, our school board members are elected and right now we have three somewhat leaning left and two leaning right. So far it seems to be working well.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

So government control over children as opposed to parental control. If you say so...

Down here it's the parents that decide what their children read. They don't decide what someone else's children can read. I don't know why this seems so hard to come to terms with for some people.

How far down are you? I'm in Florida. Next stop is Cuba .

Anyway, I know that sounds ridiculous letting the government decide for us. I won't argue with you on that point. Here's the problem that is occurring here in parts of Florida as I see it. We have a lot of very liberal teachers and librarians who have taken it upon themselves to promote their very liberal agendas. We also have a large population of parents who are not involved with the student's education or are only involved with the sports their student participates in at school.

So, when all this transgender nonsense started playing out in schools across Florida, a lot of parents were woken up about what was going on in their public schools and they wanted something done about it. So that is the state we are in here. We have parents reading through a lot of these books and declaring them unfit to be read in public school. And some of the stuff they were reading was x-rated. Many parents were wondering how these books got in the school libraries in the first place.

Parents can let their students read what they want to read, you just won't find those questionable books in the school libraries. They are at the public libraries. These kids need to have their time of innocence. They don't need to be doing things or discussing things that are for young adults. And young adults start at age 18 in my eyes.

 

[Chesterton]

Why does only ever seem to apply to this one particular topic?

Perhaps I just have blind spots and haven't noticed, but it sure seems like a lot of the people defending keeping some of these books in schools and just relying on "personal responsibility" don't ever seem to have that stance on anything else.

Many are the same people who were calling for various forms of censorship on a myriad of other issues over the past 5 years based on their own perceptions of "it's too dangerous or inappropriate for other people to hear/see this"

Or to put it more directly, why is "personal responsibility" adequate for sexually explicit illustrated works in libraries that kids might see, but not for a Joe Rogan Podcast or an anti-vaxxers Facebook feed that another adult might see?

"if you don't like it, don't look at it/read it" has not been a consistently held value over the past few years.

Not just the past few years. Around 1989 or '90, the Rush Limbaugh show was going to begin airing on a local radio station here. I walked into a bookstore and it was decorated all over with printed signs saying CRUSH RUSH, and the same was on employees t-shirts. There was a campaign to try to prevent his show from coming here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Six major book publishers have teamed up to sue the US state of Florida over an “unconstitutional” law that has seen hundreds of titles purged from school libraries following rightwing challenges.

Since it went into effect last July, countless titles have been removed from elementary, middle and high school libraries, including American classics such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain.

Contemporary novels by bestselling authors such as Margaret Atwood, Judy Blume and Stephen King have also been removed

The suit contends the book removal provisions violate previous supreme court decisions relating to reviewing works for their literary, artistic, political and scientific value as a whole while considering any potential obscenity; and seeks to restore the discretion “of trained educators to evaluate books holistically to avoid harm to students who will otherwise lose access to a wide range of viewpoints”.

DeSantis has attempted to portray the issue as “a hoax”, arguing that because the state has empowered parents to make objections, and is not directly making the challenges itself, it is not responsible for books subsequently removed from shelves.

See also this (I believe ongoing) case:

Penguin Random House sues Pensacola-area Florida school district over book bans​

None of those classic books have remained off the shelves. The process is that if someone challenges them, they are removed briefly to be analyzed for whatever the complaint was and then returned to the shelves. Those spreading misinformation leave the last part off.

Those pushing a particular sexual agenda - with details - are attempting to blend their books in with stuff like Judy Blume, and have not succeeded.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

How far down are you? I'm in Florida. Next stop is Cuba .

Anyway, I know that sounds ridiculous letting the government decide for us. I won't argue with you on that point. Here's the problem that is occurring here in parts of Florida as I see it. We have a lot of very liberal teachers and librarians who have taken it upon themselves to promote their very liberal agendas. We also have a large population of parents who are not involved with the student's education or are only involved with the sports their student participates in at school.

So, when all this transgender nonsense started playing out in schools across Florida, a lot of parents were woken up about what was going on in their public schools and they wanted something done about it. So that is the state we are in here. We have parents reading through a lot of these books and declaring them unfit to be read in public school. And some of the stuff they were reading was x-rated. Many parents were wondering how these books got in the school libraries in the first place.

Parents can let their students read what they want to read, you just won't find those questionable books in the school libraries. They are at the public libraries. These kids need to have their time of innocence. They don't need to be doing things or discussing things that are for young adults. And young adults start at age 18 in my eyes.

This. It is merely about utilizing the best books for minors in the school system. NO books are "banned"; if you want your kid to read them even though they may not be at your school system, you can get them anywhere that sells books. Every school cannot and will not carry every book.

Heck, I can't even get every book at the library as an adult (and I am sure as heck not reading anything like this).

 

[Bradskii]

So, ethnic joke books are okay in the school library where your children attend because as long as that particular librarian thought the jokes were funny, and few of the parents said it was okay for their kids to read.

Why not make an argument for hard core porn or ultra violence? Slippery slope arguments do nothing for me. I look at what the problem may be and deal with it accordingly. I've made suggestions - with which you agreed. Now it looks like you'd prefer to argue anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

How far down are you? I'm in Florida. Next stop is Cuba .

Last stop before Antarctica is Australia.

The solution is simple. It there's a book you don't want you kid to read in the school library, tell them not to read it. If some parents feel that they can't trust their kids to obey them, then have nominated sections in the library and if a kid wants to withdraw a book not in his age group then he needs permission from a parent.

But parents don't get to decide what other children can't read. Pretty simple really.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Last stop before Antarctica is Australia.

The solution is simple. It there's a book you don't want you kid to read in the school library, tell them not to read it. If some parents feel that they can't trust their kids to obey them, then have nominated sections in the library and if a kid wants to withdraw a book not in his age group then he needs permission from a parent.

But parents don't get to decide what other children can't read. Pretty simple really.

I think I remember you mentioning that in one of your posts before that you live in Australia . I'd say for some of the books that would be okay, but for other's, in the long ago past, I had read tamer material in Hustler magazines than what is in these so-called student's books (7th, 8th, 9th grades). You have to listen to some of those school board meetings where the parents read parts of the banned books to the board members. No kid should be reading stuff like that. These kids who read this stuff are heading down a dark slope.

 

[Bradskii]

I think I remember you mentioning that in one of your posts before that you live in Australia . I'd say for some of the books that would be okay, but for other's, in the long ago past, I had read tamer material in Hustler magazines than what is in these so-called student's books (7th, 8th, 9th grades). You have to listen to some of those school board meetings where the parents read parts of the banned books to the board members. No kid should be reading stuff like that. These kids who read this stuff are heading down a dark slope.

Thanks for your opinion. Others will have different opinions. I'm sure that you appreciate that.

My position remains unchanged. I don't want other parents deciding what my kids can't read in the school library. If they don't want their kids reading a particular book, tell them not to. I'll be doing the same.

 

[Pommer]

I think I remember you mentioning that in one of your posts before that you live in Australia . I'd say for some of the books that would be okay, but for other's, in the long ago past, I had read tamer material in Hustler magazines than what is in these so-called student's books (7th, 8th, 9th grades). You have to listen to some of those school board meetings where the parents read parts of the banned books to the board members. No kid should be reading stuff like that. These kids who read this stuff are heading down a dark slope.

You are correct that the generation that is retiring will opine, “it ain’t like it used to be!”, but it’s never been not!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why not make an argument for hard core porn or ultra violence? Slippery slope arguments do nothing for me. I look at what the problem may be and deal with it accordingly. I've made suggestions - with which you agreed. Now it looks like you'd prefer to argue anyway.

It's not a slippery slope argument when we're talking about content that people find to be equally as objectionable as porn or ultra violence.

I did agree with your proposed solution on this particular matter.

However, the broader notion I'm arguing against is "you don't get to tell other people what they can or can't watch or look at!"

That's not how society has ever functioned. There's always been a "line" of sorts. The fact that you see ultra violence as an example of "the bottom of the slippery slope" (on par with my ethnic joke book example) shows that you do have a line in that regard, it's just for a different set of topics. (other parents may be perfectly okay with their kid seeing a violence-packed Tarantino flick)

The "if you don't like it, don't watch it" would've been pretty consistent argument for social progressives to make had this been 2004 and not 2024. Many in that faction spent a considerable amount of time over the past for years espousing the idea that "the government needs to step in and do something about this social media content that we deem to be harmful"


In a practical sense, can you explain the differences between the conservative calls to restrict some of these books, and the progressive calls to restrict the Joe Rogan podcasts surrounding covid or conservative commentator's social media feed questioning how the election was conducted?

Because I see a lot of similarities between the calls for restriction between the two scenarios:
"We feel the information is misleading people in ways that will be divisive and cause turmoil"
"We feel it may encourage people to make a decision that we see as harmful"
"It could erode trust in established institutions and norms"
"It could cause people to seek out medical interventions that could be detrimental"

 

[Bradskii]

It's not a slippery slope argument when we're talking about content that people find to be equally as objectionable as porn or ultra violence.

It's not possible to have a reasonable argument with those people. So I don't.

I did agree with your proposed solution on this particular matter.

Then there is really no more to be said. We have a solution. End of story.