MO Bill Proposes Parental Review Board for “Age-Inappropriate” Material

[John F]

Deleted. shouldn't have skimmed the post.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The link in the article to the actual bill times out (https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bi.../4634H.01I.pdf), but is available through Google's caching: https://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../4634H.01I.pdf
Page 3, line 41.

Thanks, I missed the link. They deliberately left those two words out and that changes my stance in how I would criticize the bill. I'm still against it, but no longer view it as an outright ban; it's a partial ban that denies parents the right to choose what their children should be exposed to.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I nominate Missouri as the new so-called "nanny state"

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by meeera

And let's be clear here: the definition of what material is "sexual" can become very distorted in homophobic hands. There is no hot girl-on-girl action in Heather Has Two Mommies, yet that book has been challenged over and over, mostly recently just last week in Virginia.

https://wtkr.com/2020/01/16/vote-kee...ntary-schools/

Agreed; this bill is a slippery slope waiting to be enacted into law. Today it's Playboy, tomorrow its any book that supports gay rights.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

No assumption, that is what they are saying.
All kids will be prevented from accessing the material, not just theirs.



No, they aren't saying that.
If they were saying that, they would require an adult to be present to check the material out.



But that isn't what is being proposed.
People are entitled to criticize what has actually been suggested, rather than a better alternative that hasn't.

Totally agree. Parents have a right to determine what their kids should be exposed to in a public library, not what other kids should be exposed to.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Agreed; this bill is a slippery slope waiting to be enacted into law. Today it's Playboy, tomorrow its any book that supports gay rights.

I don't think it is unfair to say that today it is gay rights. The focus is sexuality, not sex.

https://www.lakenewsonline.com/news/...l-library-bill

Q: Why did you decide to introduce this bill?

BAKER: I decided to introduce the bill after reading about what is taking place in some of the libraries in our state and other states as well. We have a situation where events and materials are being promoted by our libraries that are inappropriate for minors and disregarding dissent. Our local library is great and is exactly what a library should be with great people at the helm that care about protecting children. However, there is an agenda by certain groups to introduce children to inappropriate adult themes using the vehicle of the tax funded library to do so and I think we need to address it. My intention is to protect our children from objectionable materials and events that are being allowed in some libraries.

Q: Was there any particular materials that prompted it?

BAKER:Events like the “Drag Queen Story Hour” in Houston, Tx. Last March. Where a pedophile convicted of assaulting an eight-year-old boy was allowed to perform before the children in the library. There are many other stories that will turn your stomach that are happening across the country and some in our own state. This bill is both reactionary and preventative.

[...]

Q: Did the “Drag Queen story hours” that have taken place in some Missouri librarians factor into your decision to introduce this bill?

BAKER: Yes

To add a couple of balancing quotes:

BAKER: [...] They claim I want to ban books and censor literature. There is no provision for that in the bill. All content would still be available for a parent or guardian to provide to their children. [...] They claim that I want to force my religion and morals upon those that frequent the library and in reality, I want everyone to have access to all views of faith and opposing philosophical views.

Baker, a minister and former dean of Ozark Bible Institute, is no stranger to taking stands for his beliefs.

Last year, he attracted scrutiny for pushing a bill encouraging public schools to offer elective courses on the Bible and requiring the state’s K-12 education agency to write up curriculum for the classes.

[MSWallack]

I came across a passage in a book that should definitely be banned from libraries because of its overt descriptions of both oral and anal sex and we certainly don't want kids exposed to those subjects:

He shall lie all night between my breasts.... His left hand under my head, and his right doth embrace me.... Thy young breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lillies.... Come, blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out.... My beloved put his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. Thy stature is like a palm tree, and thy breasts are clusters of grapes. I will go up the palm tree, and grasp the boughs. I am a wall, and my breasts are as towers.

Oh, wait. Never mind. That's from The Bible (Song of Solomon), so I guess it's OK, right?

[pwalker8]

As is frequently the case in these sort of things, a whole lot of straw men and projecting thrown up here. The basic question is should parents have the right to control what their children read, no more, no less.

It's an easy question to answer. The answer should not depend on is the subject matter something that _you_ think is morally objectionable or what _you_ think is morally good. If you think that you should be able to decide what other people's kids read, then my question is how would you feel if someone who disagrees with your personal views decided what your kids can read.

[Paperbackstash]

Let's all remember some of the ludicrous motions to ban popular books for kids based on the oddest reasons from school groups before. That's why I don't like the idea of this.

On one hand someone may say it's a good thing to restrict kids from "harmful books" - but what is harmful? It's too subjective. The top 11 books american groups tried to ban last year is an example of this - most of these books aren't harmful for children unless a person has an odd viewpoint or is missing the point of the books entirely.

I was an advanced reader and my parents let me read adult fiction in middle school. Not every parent would agree with that - I met someone whose parents wouldn't let her read Judy Blume at any age. Having the parents decide for their children, and the children decide for themselves, versus a 5 person committee is what should take place.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

Let's all remember some of the ludicrous motions to ban popular books for kids based on the oddest reasons from school groups before. That's why I don't like the idea of this.

On one hand someone may say it's a good thing to restrict kids from "harmful books" - but what is harmful? It's too subjective. The top 11 books american groups tried to ban last year is an example of this - most of these books aren't harmful for children unless a person has an odd viewpoint or is missing the point of the books entirely.

I was an advanced reader and my parents let me read adult fiction in middle school. Not every parent would agree with that - I met someone whose parents wouldn't let her read Judy Blume at any age. Having the parents decide for their children, and the children decide for themselves, versus a 5 person committee is what should take place.

1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11 on that list were all challenged for LGBT content. Not for harmful depictions thereof - just for containing it. As an adult who was in the closet during my teens, this sort of ban is devastating to kids who want to see themselves somewhere that isn't coming from the place of "you're going to hell." Granted, my parents would never have let me read them, but my parents didn't monitor my reading - I read too much for them to keep up with.

I also love that what started this was the age-old "gay=child predator" nonsense that many of us have been dealing with for decades.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's an outright ban and banning is telling others what they can and can't do.

It's 100% censorship.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

And let's be clear here: the definition of what material is "sexual" can become very distorted in homophobic hands. There is no hot girl-on-girl action in Heather Has Two Mommies, yet that book has been challenged over and over, mostly recently just last week in Virginia.

https://wtkr.com/2020/01/16/vote-kee...ntary-schools/

In a Massachusetts school, there was some disgruntled parents who wanted a book about two male penguins raising a chick banned. It was brought to court and the parents who waned the book banned lost. I think that's the correct outcome.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

I also love that what started this was the age-old "gay=child predator" nonsense that many of us have been dealing with for decades.

I have to agree that too many people almost automatically think of NAMBLA when gay is mentioned despite many in the LGBTQ community being vocal in speaking against them.

[binaryhermit]

Originally Posted by jhowell

You wouldn't want a 17 year old reading books about human sexuality or some young impressionable child exposed to Mommy, Mama, and Me.

I suspect almost 17 year olds could get content on the internet that would make the sort of content that this law would likely enable the banning of seem downright tame if they wanted to.

(Or is that the joke?)

[JSWolf]

I never ever had to have my mother's permission to borrow anything i borrowed from the library. Yes I did read books that were older then my age level. Yes, I read books with more adult themes. But I never went looking for books that were full of sex.

If this bill passes, that would mean that a lot of romance books would have to go and what about online services such as Overdrive? Does that mean that gets censored too?