Major publishers sue Florida over ‘unconstitutional’ school book ban

[loveofourlord]

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"

the problem is what is porn? What a muslim consider porn isn't what a right wing Christian consider porn, and we've seen many times where just the act of a gay kiss is considerd lewd and porn despite not caring about a straight couple.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

the problem is what is porn? What a muslim consider porn isn't what a right wing Christian consider porn, and we've seen many times where just the act of a gay kiss is considerd lewd and porn despite not caring about a straight couple.

In the case of many of the books in question, it's almost the inverse of the dynamic you describe, it's content that would almost be universally agreed upon as being "adult subject matter" (it's illustrations of fetish material, use of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], oral sex, circle jerks) if it was just "boring old hetero cis people" and wasn't further any other narratives.

It's that a certain faction wants to pretend it's not adults-only material and take a laissez faire attitude towards it because it also furthers a particular theme that they're aligned with. (that theme being the gender and sexuality debate).


It'd be like if there was a book that showed visual depictions of someone getting a "happy ending" in a massage parlor, but because the book also promoted free-market ideals and a pro-gun position (and was written by an author who espoused other conservative viewpoints), conservatives downplayed and feigned indifference to the other stuff that's in it and took a "if you don't like it, don't look at it" position (when we know for a fact that wouldn't be their position under any other circumstances)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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

C'mon, that's not honest.

Do you honestly think that scrutiny of an illustrated book depicting underaged boys giving each other oral is any more/less justified than scrutiny of an illustrated work depicting violence?

I think both are justified.


Are you honestly suggesting that a parent concerned about the their kid seeing a Steven Seagal movie is somehow more rational/reasonable than a parent who's concerned about their kid seeing a book depicting two 14 year olds performing oral on each other?


Are you sure your position on this isn't the slightest bit impacted by having "ideological blinders" on? (that being, because a book is done "in the name of LGBTQ advocacy, you're giving it a lot more leeway than you would otherwise?)

 

[Bradskii]

Are you sure your position on this isn't the slightest bit impacted by having "ideological blinders" on? (that being, because a book is done "in the name of LGBTQ advocacy, you're giving it a lot more leeway than you would otherwise?)

My 'ideology' is that no-one is going to have the power to tell me what my kids can read (or could read as they have kids of their own now). I won't move on that. It's not negotiable in any way whatsoever.

We then come to what is suitable for inclusion in a school library. And there will be differences of opinion. But no-one is suggesting that American Psycho or similar should be included. The books that are being complained about are meant for young adults and they contain sexual conduct. And..? What if it does? What is so wrong with sex that we need to keep it hidden from the age group for which it is written?

My wife told our daughter about the mechanics of sex when she was 12. I still remember them sitting on the kitchen step and my wife going into a lot of detail. And very many years later our daughter told us that she couldn't wait to get to school on the Monday to tell all her friends. 'And then what happens...' So sex for her wasn't something to be whispered about or ashamed of. It was explained to her that it's entirely natural. Oh, the horror!

If you can't tell the difference between sex and porn then it's a waste of your time talking to me.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you honestly suggesting that there's no difference between...

What you should be asking is if there is a difference between porn and the book in question. Not medical illustrations. That's a deliberate attempt to redirect the argument away from what is actually being discussed. If the forum allowed it and you'd posted the book versus some actual porn then there shouldn't be anybody that wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

If someone thinks that the book is porn then they have no understanding of what porn actually is, so it would be a waste of my time discussing the matter with them.

 

[Stephen3141]

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​

I don't see this issue, as one that the book publishers have any
right to resolve. I see this topic as one of BOOK USE, as apposed
to BOOK PUBLISHING.

The issues involved (I think), are ...

1 What are the Consitutional definitions of freedom of speech, and
freedom of religion.

2 What is a workable concept of responsibility, for what is "said".

3 What is a workable definition of "religion", in America.

4 What is a workable definition of a "qualified educator",
given the previous 3 points.
---------- ----------

--- Note that the argument that possible restrictions on which school
libraries allow which books, is not really a topic within freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech exists, even if there are no libraries, or no K12 schools.
Freedom of speech existed BEFORE the internet, or social media sites.
We should not drag "freedom of speech" into topics in which it is not
a necessary component.

--- Note that "freedom of religion" IS a consideration that may affect
which books are in which K12 libraries. But this should be addressed as a freedom
of religion topic, not a freedom of speech topic.

The associated question, that America does not want to seem to address,
is what a valid definition of "religion" is, in America. For example, can we stone
to death students whom parents think are grossly immoral, and claim coverage
for this action under "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech/expression"?

Most states allow state money to support religious K12 education. BUT,
there is almost no public discussion in America, as to what a "valid" religion
is, Consitutionally.

--- The topic of required professionalism among educators, is a valid
concern. Can religious K12 schools hire anyone they wish, as a "professional
educator"??? Or, are there basic philosophical constraints about the nature
of our shared reality, that require that "competent" educators hold to a
model of reality, that is compatible with the Consitution being able to work?

--- The topic of which parents, may claim to represent which religion, is
a key topic. Although anti-intellectual Protestant Fundamentalists may be
very politically active, DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TACITLY CLAIM TO
REPRESENT ALL CHRISTIANS, and do they have the right to impose their
personal religious opinions on all people in their state (religious, and non-religious)?
I would argue that anti-intellectual Christian denominations do NOT represent
historic, orthodox Christianity, and so anti-intellectual Christians have no right
to impose restrictions on all christians who live in a state, even though these
opinions are the opinions of some religious groups in America. Freedom of religion,
also means the freedom to NOT have a specific group of religious positions
imposed on you, if you are not a member of the imposing religious group.

Note that anti-intellectual religious groups may not embrace the basic
philosophical disciplines of Epistemology, Moral Theory, or Formal Logic,
that should be required of any "professional educator". Can educators
in these religious schools, even be validly called "qualified"? Should they
be required to teach these basic courses, even in anti-intellectual
religious schools?

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

I would argue that America has not carefully thought through the
basic philosophical models in Epistemology, Moral Theory, and
Formal Logic, that are REQUIRED or desirable given the Constitution
and bill of rights that America supports.

If educators are not competent to address the topics of what our
shared reality is, what human perception is, what real evidence is,
what a fair rule of law is, what proper legal process is... then they are
not teaching a necessary foundation for reaoning about how JUSTICE
is produced (Constitutionally). Educators who teach conspiracy theories,
are openly abusing these basic philosophical disciplines.

Many educators cannot handle these basic philosophical topics.
Educators who focus on STEM topics, almost NEVER address these
basic and necessary topics. (Are they really qualified to teach, in
America???)
---------- ----------

American citizens need to have many more, and deeper discussions,
about what a valid religion is, and what professional educators
must teach.

 

[Stephen3141]

(Sorry for the typos...)