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

[JSWolf]

delete post

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jhowell

As far as I can tell this is about keeping those books out of the library altogether. After all kids can pick up a book and read it inside the library without ever checking it out.

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've used libraries for a very long time and I never once wanted to check out books containing nudity or sex. But to ban these sort of books is censorship.

[tubemonkey]

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):

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.

[binaryhermit]

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

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A given: censorship isn't good.

Also: This is an extreme reaction but it is a reaction to an issue that keeps cropping up: parental controls.

The issue is twofold: first thing is, most forms of information and entertainment have parental controls. TVs, gaming consoles, phones, PCs, browsers, Kindles (and Kobos, I assume) all offer parents tools to manage content they deem appropriate for *their* kids. Libraries don't. Parents are expected to trust librarians and libraries.

And the second thing is, many people no longer trust *any* institutions to align with their interests. That is, increasingly, including libraries. A great many things that used to be locally controlled are being overidden by "higher" principles and levels of government (the federalization and homogenization of almost everything).

This is in line with the never-ending debates over sex education, school curricula, and the general culture wars. Look at the location: not California, Not New York, not the deep south.

It's not black and white on either end.
But if the camps do the usual and dig in and resort to the usual demonization of opponents instead of recognizing the real issue, nothing good will come of this. Because libraries are locally funded and if communities start seeing them as unresponsive to local mores, they'll start getting unresponsive come funding time.

This is just round one.

For the most part, I agree with this.

Frankly, this sort of thing could be handled fairly easily by showing a bit of common sense. Stick "inappropriate" material in a room that under aged kids can only enter with parents permission. There, problem solved. If parents want their kids to read the stuff, they can. If parents don't want their kids to read the stuff, they can't. But of course, everyone wants to force their personal choice on everyone else.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

For the most part, I agree with this.

Frankly, this sort of thing could be handled fairly easily by showing a bit of common sense. Stick "inappropriate" material in a room that under aged kids can only enter with parents permission. There, problem solved. If parents want their kids to read the stuff, they can. If parents don't want their kids to read the stuff, they can't. But of course, everyone wants to force their personal choice on everyone else.

The problem is who gets to decide what is age inappropriate. Given the usual rules on majority, you would simply need to convince 3 people that a book or programming was age inappropriate to have it removed from public access. And as near as I can tell from the news stories and looking at the bill, there is no process for appealing a decision.

Going by the news stories, what Ben Baker was upset about was not books but programming since some libraries in the state either held or supported Drag Queen Story Hour events. To quote from an article in the Library Journal, "However, Baker has insisted that the bill is not meant to censor material. In several interviews with local news outlets, he stated that his issues are not about library materials, but programming—specifically, Drag Queen Story Hour, which has prompted both anger and support across the country. “I’m trying to figure out a way for parents to have recourse if…the library board is saying 'Hey, we're OK with this' or even promoting it, which has happened,” Baker told the Springfield News-Leader."

[meeera]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The issue is one of one group of people people dictating what another group of people can and can't do in a public library. If they don't want their kids exposed to material of a sexual nature, then don't allow them to view or check out those materials. There's no need to ban those materials, because that then deprives access to those who wish to check them out.

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/

[binaryhermit]

That's probably a feature to these clowns.
(And a bug to most other people)

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

You're assuming they're saying "nobody should be exposed to that" .

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

They might be saying "I don't want *my* kids to be exposed to that, until I say they're ready".

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

Would working with them be so terrible?
Like flagging books that might require a parental sign-off?

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.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

From the article (note the highlighted section):

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

The quote in the article is highly (some might say deliberately) misleading.
The actual text is:

The board may order any material deemed to be age-inappropriate sexual material to be removed from public access by minors at the public library

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The quote in the article is highly (some might say deliberately) misleading.
The actual text is:

Two words that make all the difference.

But it's easer to hide them and demonize folks instead of dealing with their concerns.
Wait a while until they start losing funding support.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The quote in the article is highly (some might say deliberately) misleading.
The actual text is:

Where did you find the "by minors" bit? I didn't see it in the article and I based my comments on what the article said.

If the Library Journal failed to included those two words, then count me in the group that says they did it deliberately in order create sympathy for their point of view. They're to be condemned for their deceit.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DNSB

The problem is who gets to decide what is age inappropriate. Given the usual rules on majority, you would simply need to convince 3 people that a book or programming was age inappropriate to have it removed from public access. And as near as I can tell from the news stories and looking at the bill, there is no process for appealing a decision.

Going by the news stories, what Ben Baker was upset about was not books but programming since some libraries in the state either held or supported Drag Queen Story Hour events. To quote from an article in the Library Journal, "However, Baker has insisted that the bill is not meant to censor material. In several interviews with local news outlets, he stated that his issues are not about library materials, but programming—specifically, Drag Queen Story Hour, which has prompted both anger and support across the country. “I’m trying to figure out a way for parents to have recourse if…the library board is saying 'Hey, we're OK with this' or even promoting it, which has happened,” Baker told the Springfield News-Leader."

Why is that a problem? If the book is still available with parental permission, I don't see the issue. When I was a kid, kids were not allowed in the non children's sections. The librarians let me go in there and check out adult's books with my mother's permission.

[tubemonkey]

In an interview with KOAM News, Baker said, “The main thing is, I want to be able to take my kids to a library and make sure they’re in a safe environment, and that they’re not going to be exposed to something that is objectionable material.” He added, “Unfortunately, there are some libraries in the state of Missouri that have done this. And that’s a problem.”

I agree with him. I want to take my grandkids "to a library and make sure they’re in a safe environment, and that they’re not going to be exposed to something that is objectionable material." So I want all books and bibles about Christianity locked up in the same room with those "sex" books.

What say you, Rep Baker? Deal? If you don't want your kids exposed to sex until they're adults, then I don't want my grandkids exposed to religion until they're adults.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Where did you find the "by minors" bit? I didn't see it in the article and I based my comments on what the article said.

If the Library Journal failed to included those two words, then count me in the group that says they did it deliberately in order create sympathy for their point of view. They're to be condemned for their deceit.

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.