Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is already beginning to implement the law.

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is already beginning to implement the law.

A city in Tennessee is using a recently passed ordinance essentially prohibiting homosexuality in public to try to ban library books that might violate the new rules.

Murfreesboro passed an ordinance in June banning “indecent behavior,” including “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct.” As journalist Erin Reed first reported, this ordinance specifically mentions Section 21-72 of the city code. The city code states that sexual conduct includes homosexuality.

Anyone who violates the new ordinance is barred from hosting public events or selling goods and services at public events for two years. Anyone who violates the ordinance “in the presence of minors” is barred for five years.

An ACLU-backed challenge to the ordinance has already been launched, but that hasn’t stopped city officials from implementing the measure. Last Monday, the Rutherford County steering committee met to discuss removing all books that might potentially violate the ordinance from the public library. The resolution was met with widespread outcry from city residents.

“When have the people who ban books ever been the good guys?” local activist Keri Lambert demanded during the Monday county meeting.

Murfreesboro city officials have already used the ordinance to ban four books that discuss LGBTQ themes. In August, the county library board pulled the books Flamer, Let’s Talk About It, Queerfully and Wonderfully Made, and This Book Is Gay.

The board also implemented a new library card system that categorizes books into certain age groups. When it takes effect next year, children and teenagers will only be able to check out books that correspond to their age group; they will need permission from a parent or guardian to check out “adult” books.

Library director Rita Shacklett worried in August that the new rules would prevent students from accessing books they need for a class. She explained that many classic high school books, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, are now classified as “adult.”

It’s unclear if the county steering committee plans to pull books such as the A Song of Ice and Fire series, which includes multiple depictions of heterosexual sexual conduct.

Murfreesboro’s new ordinance is part of a much larger wave of attacks on LGBTQ rights in Tennessee and the rest of the country. In the past year, the so-called Volunteer State became the first state to try to ban drag performances. That law was overturned in court.

In March, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow people to refuse to perform a marriage if they disagree with it, essentially gutting marriage equality. The bill was introduced in the Senate but deferred until next year.

link: https://newrepublic.com/post/176915/tennessee-town-ban-public-homosexuality

archive link: https://archive.ph/LFMMK

  • Tammo-Korsai@kbin.social
    121·
    a year ago

    When it takes effect next year, children and teenagers will only be able to check out books that correspond to their age group; they will need permission from a parent or guardian to check out “adult” books.

    Will the bible be in the adult section? It’s full of every kind of smut and crime you can think of.

  • Feidry@lemmy.world
    66·
    a year ago

    Oh man, I wish I still lived in Murfreesboro. I’m straight as could be but you better believe I’d find a buddy to kiss and hug in public just to piss off those backwards fuckwits.

  • DaDragon@kbin.social
    48·
    a year ago

    Ah yes, America, the land of freedom and of the free!

    Freedom to be free from people you dislike, it seems…

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      8·
      a year ago

      Except that this is just one city.

      If Quebec City bans books, would you say “Ah yes, Canada”?

      What about the American cities that do encourage freedom? Are they to be dismissed?

      • force@lemmy.world
        45·
        a year ago

        The fact that the country can’t effectively stop or prevent this, and half the people in charge along with their voters allow/agree with this stuff happening regularly, does make it a national problem. Injustice anywhere is representative of the whole nation. If your society is so weak that it can’t even start to try to put an end to a few fascists imposing their power on its own citizens without months of political arguing between a bunch of shitty corrupt rich old people, then the argument “it’s just one city!” falls apart. It just means this could potentially happen anywhere, like it is (in progress) in Florida right now.

        This shouldn’t be a common thing that’s happening in the first place. The fact that it is taints the entire country. We have the resources to effectively prevent, and when needed, crack down hard on far-right authoritarian bs, but the leaders are too busy arguing about if education is actually a good thing, or if we really need healthcare, or that putting poison in food is actually an expression of freedom by companies, while being paid millions by oil/auto/banking/etc. corporations to do so.

      • ElleChaise@kbin.social
        34·
        a year ago

        This is like when someone says “not all men” when someone’s discussing women’s issues with certain men, or saying “all lives matter” when discussing racism faced by black people in America… Yeah, we know there are good cities, this bad city that’s being discussed also happens to be American, and emblematic of the overall problems with American society. And as an American, I’m deeply concerned with the idea we should allow any city, no matter how small, to practice in discrimination. Definitely worth more than a brush-off.

        • El Barto@lemmy.world
          2·
          a year ago

          Good thing I don’t have children, precisely, because I knew the future was going to become even shittier, but good point.

      • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        4·
        a year ago

        What even is your angle here? Are you like a super patriotic progressive that hates when people make generalizations about the US based on dumb fucks in TN?

        So curious what this was all about lol

      • Squirrel@thelemmy.clubEnglish
        4·
        a year ago

        Highly unlikely to happen in Murfreesboro; it’s got a population of over 157k (as of 2021). Living just outside Murfreesboro, I’m interested to see if this is actually enforced. I can’t imagine it would go over well if attempted. Either way, it’s infuriating.

        • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          8·
          a year ago

          Highly unlikely to happen in Murfreesboro

          I bet a couple years ago you’d have said the same thing about the topic of the original post…

          • Squirrel@thelemmy.clubEnglish
            3·
            a year ago

            Being in the south, not so much. Still, there are limits to today’s intolerance in more populous areas.

    • ReallyKinda@kbin.social
      10·
      a year ago

      Anyone who violates the new ordinance is barred from hosting public events or selling goods and services at public events for two years. Anyone who violates the ordinance “in the presence of minors” is barred for five years.

      Sounds like it’s not a local border situation, probably more to do with city permits. Insane in 2023. Reminds me of the vagrancy laws.

  • ansiz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    a year ago

    There is a reason Red Dead Redemption 2 has a clan of inbred folks called the Murfree brood.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    10·
    a year ago

    I’m sure it’s one of those things where a woman in a string bikini would be fine, but a guy in pink silver hot pants and a rainbow mesh shirt isn’t.

  • BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world
    10·
    a year ago

    Do people in those states just have nothing better to do? Like get a hobby and stop thinking about other people’s sex lives.

    • stewie3128@lemmy.ml
      2·
      a year ago

      Shithole states. Keep NOLA and the Mississippi River, and go General Sherman on the rest. They cost more than they bring in anyway.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    4·
    a year ago

    They get elected, and then expect the taxpayers to subsidize laws they know are unconstitutional. Leftists give money to lawyers and then have less to contribute to elections.

  • Truck_kun@beehaw.orgEnglish
    3·
    a year ago

    Unless the homosexuals are sexing it up in public, it sounds a lot like their classification of ‘sexual conduct’ would also include displays of heterosexuality.

    Sounds like a puritan style ban on all forms of PDA; should either be equally applied to all sexuality, or struck from the books (in this case, seems to overly violate individual freedom, unless the locals overwhelmingly consider PDA to be indecent…). I wouldn’t go for the former option though… equality in enforcement would be a constant concern.