Does this mean if they try to ban other books, lets say about abortion all you need to do to guarantee it Doesn’t get censored is included a gay part?
That would be the loophole to really piss em off :p
EDIT: “prevents libraries from removing books “based solely on the viewpoint, content, message, idea, or opinion conveyed.” Instead, content curation will be managed by “a licensed library media specialist, an individual with a master’s degree in library sciences or library and information sciences, or a professional librarian or person with extensive library collection management experience."
Still though please can we turn non lgbt books into having a completely unnecessary lgbt subplot just because it would be funny. I am not even gay :p
I’d say you don’t neccessarily be gay to write some queer fan fiction.
Putting the control of books in the library to someone with that much understanding is very good. It seems that a lot of the book bans are spearheaded by parents that watch too much Fox News that don’t even see what the book contains.
Still though please can we turn non lgbt books into having a completely unnecessary lgbt subplot just because it would be funny. I am not even gay :p
Unironically, yes. Normalizing LGBTQ+ characters, relationships, and plots is much more helpful than having them be a “spicy” token minority for audience reaction. Look at Schitt’s Creek (different medium, I know) for example. The character David is pansexual and treated just like anyone else. His major love interest may be a guy but the plots about it have nothing to do with the fact that they’re both men, just that they’re two people in a romantic relationship with one partner being anxious and neurotic with the sass turned up to 11.
This is fucking fantastic! Thank you for posting OP
Conservatives: Freedom of Speech. Get government out of people’s lives. I don’t need a vaccine my body my choice. Support our troops.
Conservatives: book banning. Putting religion into schools. Block women’s healthcare. Cuts Veterans Assistance.
See this is why referring to libertarians, conservatives and fascists as all the same thing is not helpful.
You’re right that’s too many synonyms
Removed by mod
Extremely common Minnesota W. I love my state.
What are some other MN dubs?
- Only state to not vote for Reagan
- Weed legalized
- Free Breakfast and Lunch for all students
- First state to protect LGBT Americans from discrimination
- Only state to not vote for Reagan
- Protected abortion rights
- Childcare assistance for low income parents
- Planned high speed rail between the Twin Cities and Duluth
- Legalized gay marriage before Obergefell v. Hodges
- Only state to not vote for Reagan
There’s plenty more but those are just the ones I can think of right now.
I believe it was also the only state not to vote for Reagan
Damn, can’t believe I forgot that one
Tell me why you don’t like reagan? As a foreigner ive not enough information about him
That’s a really long one but pretty much every shitty trend since the 80s can be attributed back to him: Wage stagnation, climate inaction, police militarization, Middle East wars, no taxes for the wealthy, war on drugs, for profit prisons, elimination of pensions, union busting, media polarization, Iran-Contra affair, etc.
He was popular because he was charismatic but literally all of his policies hollowed out the country into what it is today.
Thanks
Reagan started the slow move to conservative legislation by both sides of the US two-party system. It’s the reason a lot of people on social media hate everything about whoever is president.
Our liberals are center/center right, our conservatives are basically fascists and those are the two options. Most of this started with our first “celebrity” president, who was a well-known actor many years before.
Before the Reagan era, Richard Nixon had to resign his presidency for hiding some evidence. Trump was found hiding evidence and he finished his term and is running a second time (while actively fighting multiple criminal trials). The tide shift was Reagan.
Thanks
Pretty sure you guys can add “only state to pay duck, duck, grey duck” as well.
I hate that this is what we have to focus one when we don’t have health care or a living wage, but goddamn, it feels good to see a positive headline.
Minnesota is going to have state provided health insurance, you can do two things at once.
People keep saying this, and it’s inevitably followed by a state-level example.
The problem with that is 2/3 of the states are controlled by fascists, and I don’t think 2/3 of the states should have to go without a living wage and health care.
Do you?
The Federal Government should be doing more than writing blank checks for other countries’ wars.
It sucks but we have agency at a local level and must do our best.
For now.
Come November the only good we’re going to be capable of is that which we do with our own two hands.
Sorry for being so doom and gloom on a Saturday morning.
I just look at our two presidential candidates and it breaks my heart to know that nothing is going to stop the incoming validation of fascism.
They already do for some people (mostly lower income).
Yes it is being broadened to all.
Good news, I’m glad Minnesota is doing well. Banning books is for losers. Freedom of information must be kept strong.
Democratic Gov. Tim Walz signed HF3782 into law last week, which prevents libraries from removing books “based solely on the viewpoint, content, message, idea, or opinion conveyed.” Instead, content curation will be managed by “a licensed library media specialist, an individual with a master’s degree in library sciences or library and information sciences, or a professional librarian or person with extensive library collection management experience."
This entirely depends if the libraries are publically run, or if they are private. If the library is private, then it should be allowed to curate what it wishes.
Side note, licensing someone for this purpose is quite hillarious — It’s not complicated to just not ban books…
They’re basically saying librarians shouldn’t be random political appointees. They need to actually be librarians
hey’re basically saying librarians shouldn’t be random political appointees.
Again, the ethics of this law heavily depends on if it applies to libraries which are publically or privately run.
They need to actually be librarians
It’s risky, imo, to define this through law.
content curation will be managed by “a licensed library media specialist, an individual with a master’s degree in library sciences or library and information sciences, or a professional librarian or person with extensive library collection management experience."
Cool, now we know who to bribe / influence / coerce. I don’t know if this is a win for at-risk groups.
I don’t know if this is a win for at-risk groups
You don’t know if it’s a win to have someone with actual competency, knowledge and a passion for the written word (because you really don’t go through that amount of education for that little pay if you aren’t) to make the call rather than fascist PTA moms having a psychotic episode at the thought of the word “penis” being mentioned in a book? 🤦
You missed my point.
If a small committee can make the call, then that committee can be coerced for power. Especially if that committee gets little pay (in your words).
If you don’t want fascism, then you want to avoid consolidation of power.
Again, this sounds like a win on the surface, but I fear library staff being harassed.
We’ve had (mostly) librarians in charge of content curation since there were libraries and it’s mostly gone fine. Sometimes they would remove or censor some stuff they shouldn’t have, but much more often than not, they were the ones fighting tooth and nail AGAINST it.
Librarians are much less likely to censor without any outside pressure AND much less likely to accept bribes or otherwise buckle under outside pressure.
People who choose an important but low-paying career that they’re passionate about tend not to do a shitty job out of greed or to get attention. Unlike the far right demagogue politicians and PTA Karens who are there for greed and attention only.
If you don’t want fascism, then you want to avoid consolidation of power.
That’s not how it works, no. The way to avoid fascism is to keep power away from bigoted demagogues.
While neither would be a good idea, it would be better for one qualified and dedicated librarian to make the content decisions for all of New England than for a hundred fascist demagogues making them for a Boston suburb.
but I fear library staff being harassed.
And you’re absolutely right to. That was already happening, though, and will keep happening until politicians get off their asses and codify a system of rules to prevent it or just tighten up enforcement of existing harassment laws.
What if we just choose a role who decides what is and isn’t harassment? Just like how Minnesota chose a role that decides what books should be banned.
The way to avoid fascism is to keep power away from bigoted demagogues.
And there are no librarians that are bigoted demagogues?
They might not have made it impossible, but most of this book banning crap has been political point scoring rather than actual attempts to change the literary record for its own sake. Now they’d have to loudly proclaim their book bans without admitting what they’re doing, which sounds a lot harder to pull off.
Anything that underlines the offensive nature of censorship like this is a good thing in my opinion.
I’d guess the requirement that experienced librarians make the decisions is just another way to exclude politicians and random mums with opinions from the process, I imagine most who go through a library sciences degree have already got a healthy respect for libraries which limits their willingness to play these stupid games.
