Re: Censorship of books in libraries

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in
school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession
librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and
imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to
one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in
violation of the law and withdrew it.

https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month detailing a
whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. I can't be bothered
to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I read them, thank you. You and I have similar opinions on censorship. I
wanted to see if anyone else cared about the issue of censorship by
punishing librarians using the criminal code.

There are laws about providing sexually explicit material to minors.
It's a felony to give a 10-year-old a Jenna Jameson porn DVD and tell
him to go enjoy himself.

Is this material a librarian in a public or school library has selected
ever that you have heard of?

I don't see how being a librarian shields you from having to obey those
laws or provides immunity from prosecution for breaking them.

We aren't talking about the Potter Stewart standard but material that
some people are going to declare "obscene" that you yourself wouldn't
agree with. You want a librarian subject to arrest and prosecution for a
difference of opinion for material that's not truly obscene?

I suppose there'd be some debate about what constitutes 'sexually
explicit' and where that line is, but the books I've seen at the heart
of these controversies, graphic novels showing-- not just describing,
but showing-- minors performing oral and anal gay sex on each other-- is
no different than any hardcore porn movie out there. If those don't
qualify as sexually explicit, I can't imagine what would.

In the immediate instance, that's not what got censored because the
overly broad law failed to define sexually explicit material the way you
used the term.

Art nudes, medical textbooks, mainstream movies, literature without
photographs or drawings of any kind, have all been censored at one time
or another under both state and federal law as you are well aware of.
None of this is material you would personally consider to be sexually
explicit.

The Comstock Act hasn't been found to be unconstitutional in all
instances, hence the legal theory that it can be used to ban the mailing
of mifepristone.