- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- usa@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
“It was just the prelude… Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people too.”
Heinrich Haine
I somehow took this to mean the exact opposite of what the title meant and was confused how this was uplifting news. I think it’s time I had a little nap.
The fact that this is considered uplifting news is not something I find very uplifting
I find a legislative commitment to literacy is far superior to assuming we will always have the right to learn freely in this country.
Well considering what the last dozen or so headlines you’ve read about banned books were probably about, I can see how you would make that assumption
Yeah, I had the same reaction as well, through I may have an excuse as my fibromyalgia is flaring up :/
Based
Them banning the bans makes me chuckle.
Conservatives should have banned ban-bans first if they wanted to get their way.
Then Democrats hit 'em with the ban ban ban ban.
Isn’t that in Project 2025 somewhere?
Yes but project 2025 has been banned so we are all good there
“Somehow, Palpatine returned…”
I’m interested how this works, technically. I’m against banning books. I’m also against elementary school kids picking up Naked Lunch in the school library and leaving through it. I presume no librarian would elect to have that book anyway, so it will never be tested whether it can be barred somehow. There are also probably soft mechanisms that get used like “it’s in the library and you can check it out with a parental permission form.” Anyway how to handle obscene material has been a question since the beginning of time.
The bill permits restriction in the case of “developmentally inappropriate material” for certain age groups. The measure also requires local school boards and the governing bodies of public libraries to set up policies for book curation and the removal of library materials, including a way to address concerns over certain items.
Leaving a gap open for “developmentally inappropriate” makes sense in the face of it, but when Evangelicals try to ban any book that has a depiction of a gay character, this is the rationale they use: that kids should not be subjected to sexual material. I’m not saying their argument holds water, just that the gap left open by this prohibition is the exact favorite entry point of book ban abusers.
I don’t really understand what this bill changes either :/
The school would still have to be the one buying the books so they just won’t buy any book they deem inappropriate. I’m sure this is mainly just to stop zealots from banning everything related to evolution. Also, I haven’t read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can’t get on the Internet nowadays.
From the article:
The bill permits restriction in the case of “developmentally inappropriate material” for certain age groups. The measure also requires local school boards and the governing bodies of public libraries to set up policies for book curation and the removal of library materials, including a way to address concerns over certain items.
Doesn’t know the book: check Casually dismisses the entire topic of moderating children’s content intake: check
It’s pretty clear you don’t know what you’re talking about on any level here.
Sounds like you’re having a bad day. I even gave you a quote from the article that answers your exact question. Everything okay at home?
I’m responding to this:
I haven’t read Naked Lunch but from what I know of it, I doubt it has anything kids can’t get on the Internet nowadays.
So you took one sentence out of context and used it to dismiss the rest of the comment with objections that had already been addressed by the parts you dismissed?
I may be over focusing on that one part of your comment but it does stand out from the rest as rather asinine and contributing nothing to the point.
I recommend reading the US constitution. Basically this is what the Bill of Rights is.
Also many States added bans on banning of abortions to their Constitutions for the same reason.
We need a lot more of these, like bans on bans of encrypted apps without backdoors. Bans on bans of “vagrancy” and other laws made to target black people. Bans on book bans in prison.
The land of freedom has reached the point that we must ban banning things rather than framing it as guaranteeing the right to d9 a thing.
Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden thi yer?
can they prohibit foundations of geopolitics?
Probably not, seeing as that is also a book. Making Dugin’s ideas harder to find doesn’t fix anything anyway, challenging them on the merits does.
I’m glad they’re taking steps to oppose fuckery. I’m disgusted that these steps have become necessary (or at least prudent).
Now prohibit laws against hitchhiking
deleted by creator
Please don’t go around deciding issues based in whether they affect your personal life. There are a lot of people in spread out rural areas that don’t own a car and don’t have a bus and asking for rides is as old as the wheel itself. I gave a kid a ride one time so he could go down to his local junior college and register for classes. I hitched across half of AZ once when the tour bus I was with decided to leave two hours early and didn’t do a proper headcount. People ban hitching because they think it will keep “undesirables” out of of their highways and it is as cruel and stupid as criminalizing homelessness because “ew I don’t want to look at that.”
deleted by creator
Ah gotcha. No harm.
deleted by creator
New Jersey is one of like 3 US States to ban hitchhiking.
It would be better if the federal government would just ban hitchhiking laws like they did when a few US States still had laws preventing women from voting.
With the climate crisis, we definitely need to encourage ride sharing.
