Florida teachers could face felony for books in classroom not approved by state | Hacker News Reader

Florida teachers could face felony for books in classroom not approved by state

firstcoastnews.com

52 pointsTerretta99 comments

I for one would like to thank Florida for helping the Children of my State. Why ? By teaching "my way or the highway" as opposed to different viewpoints, the poor kids in Florida will not learn critical thinking.

FL children will not be able to easily determine the correct action when faced with opposing viewpoints. All they will have is to decide based upon what is in the Bible.

So, Thank You FL for helping the children in my state to have a leg up in climbing the economic ladder.

I'm sitting here, thinking: the poor FL children. They are thrown under the proverbial bus, have done nothing to deserve the bad treatment by the state, cannot defend against it, and you in response write something that comes across as gloating or callousness. Where's the compassion?

Let's be honest here, what's wrong with their list of prohibited books? From the article:

* Pornography

* Instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through three.

* Discrimination in such a way that “an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin is inherently racist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I don't want to straw man, but what's the argument here? That these things should not be prohibited for children?

It's one thing if you want to make sharing of prurient materials to children a crime, and that already is, frankly.

But the other two, you're really okay with Florida making a felony out of the other two?

* Pornography

... is defined in the eye of the beholder. Anything can be deemed pornographic by anyone anytime. Are Judy Blume books pornographic?

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-...

* Instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through three

Children are sometimes born with ambiguous genitalia at birth. Doctors used to perform sex assignment surgery at birth but no longer. So you can't help a child figure out their gender at a young age? That doesn't seem felony worthy frankly.

* Discrimination in such a way that “an individual...

Again.. who decides? Are Nazi's bad? Are WWII books about Nazi's bad? Would films about the holocaust be bad? Also not felony worthy.

> Anything can be deemed pornographic by anyone anytime

I think this is taking things to a very pedantic level. Pornography is clear when you see it. From the article: defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.”

> Children are sometimes born with ambiguous genitalia at birth.

That's obviously not what the issue is here. They're referring to the blurring of lines such that anyone can claim to be anything they want, no more subjective truth. Intersex, what you're referring to, is a different matter.

> Again.. who decides? Are Nazi's bad? Are WWII books about Nazi's bad? Would films about the holocaust be bad? Also not felony worthy.

That doesn't seem to be what's being referred to here. Re-read the phrasing again. An individual simply by virtue of who they are (race, sex, etc.) cannot be labeled as inherently racist or oppressive, which is very logical and sane. What's the problem with that approach?

> Pornography is clear when you see it.

That's the entire point about what constitutes what pornography is. I have to bring you around with me to decide whether the venus de milo or a copy of playboy ca. 1975 is pornography. I may afterall have different standards for what constitutes pornography than you. For the record, I don't think either of them are.

> That's obviously not what the issue is here.

That is absolutely the point. If god fucks up something as simple as genitalia, then it's clear he could also fuck up one's own sense of gender. It's possible he put a penis on a girl, say?

> An individual simply by virtue of who they are (race, sex, etc.) cannot be labeled as inherently racist or oppressive

So nazi's were never racist or oppresive? That's what the nazi's stood for. Are you saying that Nazi's can't be ever called racist because they were Nazi's? That seems silly.

> I have to bring you around with me to decide whether the venus de milo or a copy of playboy ca. 1975 is pornography

Why would any child need to be put in such a place that we need to decide whether that material constitute pornography in the first place?

Your second point is invalid (and disrespectful towards The Creator obviously). Gender and sex are tied together. Effeminate men or masculine women are a thing, but they are men and women at the end of the day. There is no such thing as "penis on a girl", other than being a mental illness. It's called gender dysphoria.

> So nazi's were never racist or oppresive?

Nazism is not a race or sex or color or other immutable part of someone. It's an ideology that one can choose whether to ascribe to it or not. This is so obvious.

Please refrain from feeding the troll.

It's almost as if there were a perverse game of political brinkmanship being played among officials to see who can dole out the harsher punishments. What would motivate someone to become a teacher in this climate?

Given that it's Republicans, they'd prefer people don't become teachers, and shut down the public system, and then the only teachers would be either as part of churches, or for the ultra wealthy.

The motivation is then ridiculous pay or faith.

That leaves out how Floridans will fare in the American service and knowledge based economy without education, but that's a problem for a different generation

The uneducated make great voters and even better workers.

Modern education seems pretty geared towards training for: following a strict schedule, having a boss, doing work that appears useless, etc.

Can’t speak for all regions. My Canadian public school experience was quite different.

Are you sure? Most people spend their childhood in a concrete box without realizing there is anything strange about that.

Yep. I imagine for the less fortunate it’s shocking and sometimes hard to believe. I’ve had American friends describe their high school as a “holding pen,” which was equally shocking.

Does Canada have independent school district funding concept?

Not sure about every province. In Ontario property taxes cover an amount and then the province covers the rest to bring it up to the mandated funding level for all schools. So even schools in low income areas get the same funding. It also means regions with plenty of local wealth cover their own costs.

Which is exactly why there's a gigantic push for gender ideology, whiteness studies, and other grievance studies. Those steeped in the ideology are truly uneducated and will vote for those pushing these beliefs. They're pro-open immigration so the better workers will flood in, and the more diverse the workplace, the less likely they are to unionize.(https://www.jstor.org/stable/24810295).

It's a win/won for the capitalist owner class.

Florida outranks California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, etc. in public school education rankings. They'll fare better than those states for sure.

[0] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-scho...

On top of what others have said: one of the goals of these kinds of political pushes is to undermine the autonomy of educators in their own classrooms.

The object is to force out experienced teachers in favor of younger (and less qualified, due to relaxed requirements) ones, who in turn are easier to influence and control (in part due to the reasonable fear of being fired.)

Honest question, in which way is the autnomy of educators being undermined? The article mentions several topics that are prohibited to discuss for children.

I think you answered your own question: the prohibitions here are (1) overly broad, and designed to stifle otherwise legitimate educational materials, and (2) represent an implied political risk to teachers ("avoid the things that make us squeamish, or we'll make you a political target").

What legitimate education materials for young children (or anyone really) contain pornography or attribute racism purely based on someone's race or color? Again I'm honestly asking.

Sophie's Choice is a somewhat famous example of the former, and To Kill a Mockingbird is a somewhat famous example of the latter.

Alternatively: anything by Philip Roth, for either.

Which elementary school children are going to need to read or watch those materials?

I read TKAM in elementary school. I also read Maus in elementary school.

"Need" is an incorrect characterization. The appropriate characterization is whether those materials should be restricted, which they shouldn't.

It doesn't seem that those books would fit the ban rules, which you're assuming.

They don't need to; as the original comment said, the primary goal here is to diminish educators' autonomy.

At this state in the comment tree, I don't think there's sufficient reason to believe you're earnestly curious. But on the outside chance that you genuinely are, there are ample historical records of what happens when states begin to ban educational resources; you may or may not find those more convincing than a stranger on the Internet.

The original comment never provided evidence to back up the claimed primary goal. It seems everyone is arguing from a slippery slope point of view, which I can understand given that both parties have achieved some goals using that technique. Thought it doesn't mean I don't agree with the stated goals that children should not be exposed to those things.

At this point it feels intentional. They don't want a well-educated populace. They want people who aren't capable of reasoning themselves out of a wet paper bag who'll believe anything they say.

Teachers should buy a locked glass cabinet and make sure it's lit well and titled, "banned information the politicians in charge don't want you to know."

Gonna be a lot of books about sexual dimorphism and crime statistics in there.

Which states felonize these, exactly?

Just because you'd like to turn this into both sides, doesn't mean it is. The extremists running most of the south don't even bother with even a fig leaf of consistency.

Not that it's a new phenomena. The founding fathers were throwing shade on this, with Jefferson calling it: "zealous of their own liberties but trampling on those of others".

I love how ~10 years ago, the left was frequently accused of having a victim mentality. Seems like the right enjoys believing they're perpetual victims these days.

The left still has a victim mentality. DARVO more like. Deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender.

"This isn't happening."

"It's a good thing it's happening."

You're casting the desire for public schools to not make available a book with illustrations of two children engaged in anal sex with a dildo as "Republicans playing the victim".

You've alluded to this policy several times. I'm curious where specifically someone was handing out books about anal sex to small children. Was this a single incident? Was this going to be mandatory reading? Any articles that provide some specifics on this?

I'm sorry, this is simply egregious. Please provide any evidence at all of your disgusting claims.

That’s is not what’s going on here. And that hasn’t been happening.

Or, since you mention Jefferson, Samuel Johnson asking, "Why is it that we always hear the loudest cries for liberty from the drivers of slaves?"

Showing pornography to children? Presumably all states.

Oh, you meant on sexual dimorphism and crime statistics? None. It's not even clear that Florida now criminalizes those discussions. But you would certainly be fired in California if you dared to biologically define human beings, or discuss incarceration rates as a product of criminal tendency.

And criminal tendency is just innate? Or is it also caused by socio-economic and historical factors? Just because you want to stop asking "why" at "criminal tendency", doesn't mean the rest of us aren't curious.

Do I?

I have no idea if criminal tendency is innate. And frankly I think such a discussion has no place in K-12 education, even if it were just a plain fact that black people were somehow inherently predisposed to criminality. They're Americans, they're part of our mix.

But 12 year olds do not have the reasoning capacity to handle that issue. It's not "age-appropriate" for 12 year olds to be introduced to such topics in elementary school. Just like gender theory.

People are so short sighted when it comes to imposing these types of laws. Sure, they get what they want so long as their side is in power. What happens when the Republicans get voted out? Would they be okay with the Democrats having these tools at their disposal?

Efforts towards gerrymandering, and the tendency of people to move out of states with laws that oppress them, make such actions future-proof.

Also the extraordinary difficulty of voting in Florida if you have a felony charge.

I'm ok with convicted rapists having to sit elections out.

Judicial overreach of felonies is a different discussion.

Maybe the headline of this article is a clue as to which of those things is relevant here.

>and the tendency of people to move out of states with laws that oppress them

This is categorically false. More people are moving to states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia than states like California and New York. Blacks are moving in droves back to the South.

https://archive.is/O426q

Florida teachers may consider to fight the origin of the problem, join in a political party and return some of the pain to all the George Santos wannaqueenbees. Teachers have at least a real curriculum to show.

The goal is not so much about winning than as reducing the voters pool offering an option that does not look like a freakshow. The problem would self-resolve in hours.

Team Free Speech certainly looks a lot like Team Hypocrisy

When government is buying the books for our children, it's ok to be cautious.

What I have seen is that parents are objecting their young children being sexualized with taxpayer money.

Dude I'm literally gay. Do you think your kids need to be "protected" from knowing I exist?

Is knowing stories featuring gay people a form of sexualization?

This is the thinking that rubberized playgrounds. Your precious children are in the world. Deal with it.

EDIT: @dang has established that I'm 'posting too fast' every 37 minutes. Dang, we see you.

Here's my reply: Because some of those children are like me and would benefit, as as I would have, from access to actual, true information, so they don't kill themselves, like I almost did.

You think you're saving your kids. You're traumatizing them.

Do you think kids honestly care in the least about anyone's sexual preferences or orientations? They haven't even started to approach the timeframe for going through that kind of biological development. Some things should just be kept private by default and reserved for whenever more nuanced discussion becomes possible, with proper content warnings being given beforehand. Let's not sexualize people without meaningful consent.

GP asked two very simple yes/no questions. I think you should answer them before he answers yours.

GP's questions are contingent on the definition of "gay", which most people would see as inherently sexual. After all, there's many people who routinely have close-knit, usually pair-bonded affectionate relationships with unrelated people of the same sex. Such as (to take the clearest examples available to us) the compadres and comadres of present-day Latin America and the Mediterranean or, historically, the 'blood brothers' of ancient tribal cultures in Eurasia and elsewhere. But these relationships do not usually involve a sexual component, and thus are not considered "gay". In other respects though, they're essentially indistinguishable from affectionate relationships between people not of the same sex. It's a mistake to think that "gay" relates to anything other than the sexual.

Would I object to an elementary school book featuring two compadres or comadres who deeply care for each other and teach the value of enduring friendship and affection? Of course not. But that's a far cry from outright depiction of sexual practices.

What else is going on in your life that makes influencing other people's children so important to you?

I would love to learn about you.

What was your home life like as a child? Did you experience a loving household? What is your relationship with your parents like?

When did you realize you were attracted to men instead of women?

What was your first sexual experience? What age, with whom? Was it consensual? Any porn?

I'm sure I will have more questions but since you are willing to educate about you, I am willing to learn.

Those in power get to decide which view points are worth discouraging.

While concerning, I think I'd need to know more before I go into outrage mode.

This seems to be about grades 3 and lower. What kind of materials would really be both (a) prosecutable under this statute and (b) not reasonably a crime to present to 7 year olds?

My guess is teachers are worried about "two dads/moms" kind of kids books or something? Is it realistic that such things would be prosecuted as felonies?

In Florida, a state where the legislature has decided to do everything that they can to make it illegal to be anywhere on the lgbt spectrum?

Very high.

These guys incessantly whine about cancel culture but the biggest abusers of it.

Florida is regressing fast.

This is great! Kids should just be kids not have an agenda shoved down there throats!

Those in power decide what constitutes an acceptable agenda. What can go wrong there? You can already see from the books banned it's not being equally applied.

It's the same "protect the children!" farce we've seen countless times. See the forest for the trees, it's just to control information and erase the fact LGBTQ people exist.

Sarcasm? Because that's exactly what is happening, republicans using kids for their agenda.

It seems like they have the freedom to choose books so long as the child isn't exposed to sex and racism.

If a book only featuring white people isn't racist, then a book only featuring black people isn't racist. If a book ending with a prince living happily ever after with a princess isn't about sex, then a book ending with two princes living happily ever after isn't about sex. However, these are not the standards that Florida is applying.

The rule says books that are pornographic. This became an issue because teachers began putting books like "Genderqueer" in school libraries and classrooms, featuring explicit illustrations of apparently children engaging in things like fellatio on a dildo, anal sex with a strap-on, etc.

This isn't about Romeo and Juliet. Do you have a better way to describe those kinds of books? Or do you support having "Genderqueer" in elementary school libraries?

I'm triggered by what you say here.

First, this is the most extreme example on that list. Lots of other literature is on there, do you support banning all of it, and jailing teachers that don't prevent a kid from reading it, because that is the real question.

Second, you say apparently, so it sounds like you haven't read it. Perhaps you don't want to, but have you talked to someone who actually has?

I've not read it, but I'm going to buy it. I went to the web page and saw the intention, which is to teach young adults (late teenagers) healthy sexual habits. If this book isn't provided to them, those kids are going to get it from alternative sources on the Internet. I mean porn. I don't mean to be "binary" (I'm happy with that pun) but it really is a choice between those two things.

By the way, that book isn't directed towards children as you assert. It's on the web site and clearly intended for young adults. Big difference.

When I read the book, interested in hearing my review?

> the intention, which is to teach young adults (late teenagers) healthy sexual habits

Religious and conservative groups have been trying to cancel sex ed pretty consistently, so I suppose the opposition to this book is not surprising.

Why is it being placed in elementary schools?

I'm genuinely interested in the answer to this. It is definitely found in an elementary school? I can see that it is on the banned list, but are you sure this book was actually found in an elementary school? Someone in a position of authority then needed to specifically order it, and that would be a dereliction of their duties if they did so, and that would prove the "grooming" assertion.

Is there documented proof that this was in an elementary school?

This feels like an important question. If it isn't found in elementary schools, then there simply is not a teacher or librarian out there attempting to put books in front of elementary kids. And, then this whole argument seems like virtue signaling for political gain.

Did you Google it yet? This isn't an obscure issue.

Here is what I found:

https://wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/education/2022-05-29/florida-d...

https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2021/11/19/pinellas-...

Neither of these links say elementary school. One explicitly says high school.

I'm genuinely interested, is there an elementary school which had this book available for kids?

I've read it.

If it's not for children, why is it in school libraries? The problem is not that it exists. The problem is that it is being put in school libraries. If you read it you will likely see why. It literally has graphical depictions of children engaging in what would be considered hardcore pornography in any other context.

I can self-describe liquor as a "natural sleep aid for young adults", that doesn't change the fact that it is liquor and has no place in a high school vending machine.

I lived in Japan. They had vending machines that sell liquor and they trust kids not to buy it. It's not a perfect solution.

If a six year old kid walked up to check out that book, wouldn't the librarian stop them? I think the answer to that question speaks to whether you believe in "grooming" or not.

You really feel like this is hardcore pornography? The images I saw didn't suggest that at all. There are people that engage in sex like that, I'm sure you know. Do you feel like it is morally wrong to have sex like that which is described and is that why you are saying it is hardcore pornography?

I'll need reserving judgement on whether these are pictures of children engaging in sex. I would be very surprised if that's what is depicted. You are sure of that?

You repeatedly state these things as fact, and you provide zero evidence ANYWHERE in this discussion.

Are you simply here to divide and generate ragebait, or are you here to engage in serious discussion?

Can you point me towards some evidence of that? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m genuinely interested.

I'm sure that the specifics and edge cases will get parties quite riled up. Still, I believe the general guideline of "don't expose young children to the themes of sex or racism" is reasonable.

That might be reasonable for young children.

But in high school, some of the books we read were Nineteen-Eighty-Four (liberating power of sexuality is a theme), To Kill a Mockingbird (rape trial in the Jim Crow south), Huckleberry Finn (often considered racist in contemporary American society due to its frequent use of the n-word) and the Handmaid's Tale (rape and gender relations and racism).

I can't really imagine how literature, or society and history for that matter, can be taught without sex and racism coming up, and frequently.

And no "Watchmen", "Dune"… not even X-Men comics. Certainly not "Maus". No "Native Son", no "Farewell to Manzanar". No "The Good Earth". No "The Grapes of Wrath". No "Of Mice and Men". No "Invisible Man". No "Autobiography of Malcolm X". Absolutely none of Martin Luther King's speeches aside from "I Have a Dream".

Certainly not 99% of poetry.

Also would mean "Othello", "The Merchant of Venice", and all of the cross-dressing comedies like "Twelfth Night" are right out.

I completely agree with you that if this is allowed to stand, it would gut education irreparably. Critical thinking is already under fire; this would drop a nuke on it.

Yes I agree, for young children. That's what I thought this was about.

Given the books being targeted by this movement have included Maus and Toni Morrison, I don't see how its possible to take this in good faith.

Reasonable people can disagree about what's age appropriate. Threatening teachers with a felony charge is psychotic.

It’s not in good faith, it’s just a sound bite they heard that can be used to justify not thinking about it any further.

Is it really freedom if you get jail time for making a bad judgement call? You are free to assign "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" to your students!

Hope you didn't think "Little Bill" was appropriate.

The reason why this outrage story is barely upvoted or commented on is because even HNers don't believe the media spin on this. Sure, a vanishing few still lack the faculties to see through it but this shows a lot of progress.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com