[flagged]
It's weird how short term people's memory is. It was only a few decades ago that certain mainstream political group wanted to make "violent video games" illegal. Their figurehead was a frontrunner for US president in 2016. You don't have to throw a stone very far to see that people on both sides want to ban free speech. Just look at how freaked out states like NY and California got over 3D printed gun files. Give them a few years and I guarantee they'll come after crypto next, if crypto stands in their way.
The only thing I've learned is that everyone wants to claim they support free speech but they just mean "their" speech, not the other guy.
...That all goes out the window once your judiciary becomes an extension of the political apparatus of course. Once that happens, your courts will just start creatively reinterpreting what things mean to most effectively and comfortably bring about what they deem to be the way to go.
Hence why Roe v. Wade, while being a great thing, was ultimately bad jurisprudence.
Also, if a state feels it's time to try it again, they might just go ahead and enforce this law to make this kind of a case happen again, hoping the SC comes to a different decision.
Maybe it was flagged because you started a slapfight about LGBTQ issues on a thread about encryption; then started implying anyone disagreeing with you was a fascist bending over backwards to ban books, instead of a human with potentially justified objections to said material?
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Assume good faith.
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity.
Just to potshot at a few
I used to buy the incrementalist argument that these books are inappropriate for grade schoolers. But then the law, predictably, was extended to high school and shows no sign of stopping.
Banning books has never been looked back on as a sign of a strong society. School is meant to be about resolving conflicting ideas. Pretending kids aren't getting 10x worse on the internet, or from their friends with an internet-connected device, just separates society into an imbecilic underclass and ones who can afford a more interrogative education.
Huge chunks of western countries have banned books (with criminal penalties) for almost a hundred years now.
This clearly isn’t true in and of itself.
For example, you’d never write these kinds of comments in support of inclusion of certain Holocaust-adjacent material, which is actively banned in many western countries. Countries that, I might add, you would probably consider as doing well today?
You support book bans, you just don’t support banning these books. Please be honest and transparent about this, it’s much more respectable.
Fucking "Mein Kampf" is available, today, in several thousand libraries and bookstores around the USA and I wouldn't have it any other way. Some of us actually believe in the right for information to be free. I served in the military to fight (ostensibly) for freedom like this.
I’m not endorsing those viewpoints, merely showing how huge numbers of westerners actually are ok with book bans as long as it’s the right topic.
From what I understand some schools have pulled lots of books from libraries overall. There were tons of books I had access to that weren't directly a part of the curriculum, and in fact parts of the curriculum specifically gave my classmates and I the opportunity to explore different topics and books which weren't a pre-chosen part of the curriculum.
Both sides do this. Parents should have a direct say in the books teachers assign their students. One group of parents doesn't get to decide which books are and aren't allowed in a library.
Policy-wise, and even in respect of Americans' views, agree. In terms of politics, it's as real as it's contrived. The messaging, debate and legislation is done in a two-sided way, particularly in Florida, where national attention has paramagnetised even school boards.
> absolute, unfettered free speech for adults and that every parent has an absolute right to decide what their own children are exposed to
This is fair. There are logistical issues with letting parents go à la carte on public education. But that's solvable.
I don't see banning books from libraries statewide helping parents "decide what their own children are exposed to." The brush is too broad, and it's one group of parents making decisions for others' kids. (And to preëmpt accusations of hypocrisy, I think it's equally ridiculous when "progressive" elements strike classics for all because somebody might get offended.)
What if my child is in the class with a flat earther parent?
I don't want crazy religious idea being taught, I don't want people's opinions about how there are 57 genders being taught and I don't want a teacher or a school district trying to instill their chosen value system on my child. I want them to learn how to read. I want them to learn how to write. I want them to learn how to add and subtract. Frankly, considering how miserably school systems are failing to teach kids basic literacy, they should be embarrassed to even discuss their cultural, religious and/or political agenda (even when they insist that their agenda isn't cultural, religious and/or political).
When I was in school ~40 years ago, with 3 or 4 exceptions out of a class of ~100, every child could read, write and do math at or near grade level. I didn't know a single thing about the personal lives of any of my teachers, whether they were married, had kids, and certainly not what their sexual orientation was. It didn't matter - because they were there to teach academic subjects! Nor did any of my teachers know (or concern themselves with) my personal life, my sexual orientation or anything else aside from my academic performance in the subject they were teaching. There are a lot of reasonable, normal people who just want schools to become centers of academic learning again instead of another battleground in the cultural war.
I'm still trying to square your "every parent has an absolute right to decide what their own children are exposed to" with parents who feel the round Earth is a lie.
I'm arguing that the literacy rate in the average school is currently so low in the United States that many students are unable to read at all. I'm arguing that anyone who is more concerned with the number of gender diverse library books than the number of students who are unable to read and write is part of the problem.
At my ultra prestigious school 60 years ago all seven members of my class could read and write at college level by third grade. Schools are so terrible compared to yesterday.
I'm still waiting to hear about what to do when a parent says the round Earth is against their beliefs and they have the right for their child to never be exposed to such absurd, extreme, and unnatural ideology. It seems pretty core to your idea that "every parent has an absolute right to decide what their own children are exposed to."
In many of our largest cities, we are spending over $15,000 per student, every year. In many of these schools not a single student meets grade level standards in reading or math. That's right. Not one single student in the entire school. Let's take Baltimore, which spends over $17,000 per student, and has been one of the most outspoken cities about the need for a greater focus on "cultural education".
>Project Baltimore combed through the scores at all 150 City Schools where the state math test was given.
>Project Baltimore found, in 23 Baltimore City schools, there were zero students who tested proficient in math. Not a single student.
>Among the list of 23 schools, there are 10 high schools, eight elementary schools, three Middle/High schools and two Elementary/Middle schools.
>Exactly 2,000 students, in total, took the state math test at these schools. Not one could do math at grade level.
23 of 150 schools, 2000 students. Not a single student in any school proficient in math! Over $17,000 a student! A large number of the other districts had only 1 or 2 students proficient in the entire school. The highest grade-level proficiency in the entire city was 38%. If a city receives more than $17,000 per student, and turns out dozens of schools where not a single student is proficient, then that city has failed utterly in its educational mission. Suggesting that the problem is that they are "underfunded" (which is the en vogue political position of apologists for the educational system) is absolutely absurd. The failure of our public schools, and the widespread defense of that failure, is a microcosm of our societal failure at large.
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/state-test-r...
New York State is now officially lowered its "proficiency standards" for testing, conceding that kids just aren't as literate or educated as they were in the past, and that standards must be lowered so that it can appear that our failed educational system is functioning.
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/new-york-lowers-bar-...
But you can be sure that going forward, New York State officials will be comparing the "proficiency rates" of next year (with the lowered standards) with the kids from previous years, and pretending that kids are just as educated as before (if not touting their 'improvements'!)
It is one thing to argue for lower standards, less literacy and a generally less-educated population in lieu of an agenda of social and cultural indoctrination. It is an entirely other thing to pretend that our failed educational system is actually teaching our children to read, write and perform arithmetic at the levels it has done historically for over a century. We are going to suffers severe consequences as a nation raising a generation of children who cannot read, write, do basic arithmetic or think critically.
>I'm still waiting to hear about what to do when a parent says the round Earth is against their beliefs and they have the right for their child to never be exposed to such absurd, extreme, and unnatural ideology.
They can send their kid to a private school run my lunatics just like the parents who think there are 57 genders. Public school should be for sane, reasonable people who just want their kids to learn how to read and write and not be indoctrinated with any fringe madness.
When you see massively falling test scores after school districts got massively interrupted for a couple of years from a pandemic, do you think it's the pandemic response that caused it or acknowledging gay people exist?
Note, I made a point to mention aptitude pre-pandemic for a reason. I imagine 40 years ago you could have also found tons of entire schools where every student was below grade level. I do agree we need to improve schools. I don't think pulling books from the library because they might touch on a topic like gay families exist is doing anything meaningful to address it.
> not be indoctrinated with any fringe madness.
Fringe madness like the round earth right? I guess you're the arbiter of what is and is not fringe madness? Whatever happened to the parents being able to choose, suddenly when it's something you believe in it's just basic fact?
For the record, I'm not a flat earther. But at the same time when I hear people saying any nutjob should have the absolute right to dictate what the curriculum or books are in the school, you'll have to deal with this. Some parent wants to not have their kids exposed to gay or trans ideas or concepts. Some parents don't want their kids exposed to the theory of gravity. Empowering one of these groups to ban the books is also empowering the other.
It's always religious extremists who want to ban speech and literature. This includes the secular religion of the DC Blob, the Spanish government and many other governments currently seeking to ban "hate speech", "disinformation" and (even more absurdly) "malinformation".
I would suggest you look into the content of the books being challenged and come to your own conclusion as to whether they are age appropiate or not. After all, the term "age appropiate" is subjective.
That's the same thing.
Defining a book as "age inappropriate" because it talkes about sexuality means that talking about sexuality is age inappropriate.
But taking about sexuality is critical for the healthy development of an LGBTQ+ child! How else can they understand, or even put into words, what they themselves are going through?
Teachers can show children Schindler's List, but can't talk to them about sex. That's the reality we are discussing here.
I swear, you folks will reach as far as possible to make book bans seem reasonable.
And who do you think votes for these decisions? The parents. So presumably many parents think that some books in school liraries are not age appropiate.
I haven't even expressed my opinion on this topic yet you are assuming my stance because you lack nuance. That's why I suggest you read the actual books that are being challenged and come back with a more informed perspective.
There are a lot of non-parents with strong opinions about this.
The words written for a law aren't how the law is actually implemented. Law isn't code. The group in power, in this case people who want to limit how LGBTQ people live, will write a perfectly reasonable law, and then only apply that law to cases that they personally believe in. In other cases, such as if you were to complain about the bible being lewd, they would state some exception for it and ignore your request. This "perfectly democratic" law is, in fact, used in a non-democratic way!
That’s banning a book purely for its message. Any student could access the message of it by watching tape of a presidential inauguration.