Oklahoma lawmaker introduces book-banning bill with $10k-a-day penalty
newsweek.com
newsweek.com
Note that #2 is often part of schemes to create electoral success by campaigning against the courts if they produce undesired results, which (given that the membership of the courts changes over time through politics) is a means of shifting the courts as well as the rest of government.
Constitutions aren't self executing, they do, in practice, what people now decide they do, and, in the most immediate but broadly influential sense in the US system, that's mostly judges.
Edit: never mind, the article says the bill would apply to private schools as well, so I can see that not holding up. I wonder if the idea is to start with overreach and then when the backlash starts they can "compromise" by letting private schools teach what they want.
> In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students… are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.
- Supreme Court Majority Opinion, Tinker v. Des Moines
https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supr...
If this bill prevented students from bringing books to school, then I would agree, it fits.
It's tough because most people don't have a choice to pick up and move if they don't like their school board. As a parent, schools are a very important issue to me as it strikes at the autonomy you have as a parent. Many would have an issue with teaching religion in schools, and others would have an issue teaching gender studies in school. The compromise would be to limit the scope of education to the non-objectionable: science, reading, writing, math and history.
Normally I would want that decided upon on the local level, but given the nature of school zoning and difficulty of moving, I wouldn't be opposed to setting guidelines on a state level.
Want to change the topic to gun control and see who switches sides?
TO THE TOPIC… it isn’t making something too simple at all. In fact, I never stated my thoughts on an overview. Just that if you want to argue “who can possibly support Thea things” change the topic to something even more protected and look in the mirror.
> topic to something even more protected
This is part of the issue. It isn’t agreed upon that not having gun control is protected
The real question is: why do political factions like to throw grenades that will just get thrown back at them?
They don't.
The faction throwing these particular grenades has strong confidence that structural overrepresentation, gerrymandering, control of the courts, and other factors create a power asymmetry preventing the grenades from being thrown back at them with similar effect.
[0]. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/29/upshot/texas-...
And considering the precedent set by Texas' unconstitutional abortion law, they may be correct.
> Oklahoma state law would allow parents to seek up to $10,000 for each day
Then later:
> The bill goes on to state that the complaining parent "may seek monetary damages including a minimum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) per day
So which is it?