Hacker News Reader

Comment by kadoban | Hacker News Reader

> (b) Any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, or sound recording that contains any matter defined in s. 847.001, explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, or sexual conduct and that is harmful to minors.

That's ambiguous as hell. Give that it's Florida, I'd expect them to have a biased view of what's "harmful" as well. That also rules out several of the best books I read as a child (probably, who knows).

View on HN

Furthermore, matters defined in s. 847.001 include "Nudity," "Sexual battery," and "Sexual conduct" defined pretty much as you'd expect but without any reference to would-be exonerating literary context.

If you inject part of the definition of "knowingly" in 847.012 1a into 3b you end up with something like:

"A person may not knowingly provide to a minor a printed item containing any matter defined in s. 847.001 if the person has knowledge of the character and content of any material described in this section which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant/provider and which warrants further inquiry."

I'm not proficient in legalese but there exists a reading of this where I can't hand 1984 or To Kill a Mockingbird to my (hypothetical) 17 year old child without committing a felony because I have knowledge of the character and content of the books. Both reference rape and at least 1984 has sexual acts as part of the narrative (maybe TKaM too, it has been a minute since reading it). A series like ASOIAF would be similarly impacted and maybe even some young adult books I read while in high school.

Maybe the written works have to have no literary value for their distribution to be made illegal? That certainly isn't obvious though, is incredibly subjective, and the statutes are incredibly vague. Very puritanical and regressive imo.

Sure, and as I said ambiguity is a problem. However, 50 shades of gray for elementary schoolers is ALSO a problem.

It's a problem mostly because it has unhealthy romantic relationships in it that aren't examined well.

The sex is largely besides the point. Any kid who wants to has seen things far more graphic on the internet.

What are we protecting kids from exactly? That book would be a problem even if it were rated G.

Adults providing sexually explicit materials to kids makes it easier for same or other adults doing sexual things to these kids later. A boy sneaking a peek at dad's dirty magazine does not have the same effect, it remains a forbidden fruit. Now obviously Florida politicians have exaggerated the issue to keep their base outraged and showing up to vote, that's what politicians do. But the reason the outrage is easy to whip up is because schools have been ignoring good taste and common sense for desire of some teachers to impose their value system on young generation rather than leaving values largely to each family. And kids suffer because of irresponsibility of both sides.

> But the reason the outrage is easy to whip up is because schools have been ignoring good taste and common sense for desire of some teachers to impose their value system on young generation rather than leaving values largely to each family. And kids suffer because of irresponsibility of both sides.

One side is teachers, the other side is politicians drumming up outrage. This isn't a both sides thing. These people making these laws know they can get their base pissed off at some culture-war nonsense so they're going for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com