Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
You're assuming they're saying "nobody should be exposed to that" .
They might be saying "I don't want *my* kids to be exposed to that, until I say they're ready".
Instead of automatically assuming they want to tell everybody what to read, how about figuring out what they *really* want? Maybe they're using kids as an excuse to censor stuff, but what if they're sincerely looking for some control on what kids can do on their own? Parents can't oversee kids 24x7 or inside schools. What happened to "It takes a village..."?
It's not too different from saying liquor stores shouldn't let underage kids buy booze.
Would working with them be so terrible?
Like flagging books that might require a parental sign-off?
Maybe they're crackpot censors. But what if they aren't?
|
From the article (note the highlighted section):
Quote:
The bill calls on each library to establish a parental library review board composed of five adult residents of the library’s geographic area, to be elected by majority vote by members of the community; each board member would serve a term of two years. The board will determine what constitutes age-inappropriate sexual material through public hearings, at which community members can present their concerns about specific material to the parental review board.
The board can then order any material deemed age-inappropriate to be removed from public access. The board’s word would be final—potentially overriding the authority of both library staff and the library board of trustees.
|
That's an outright ban and banning is telling others what they can and can't do.