re: Judge rules school district must return books with graphic sex themes to school libraries

quote:

---

But Hank is not claiming a violation of the 1st here.

---

Ask him if the judge may have been politically motivated and that drove her decision.

quote:

---

I guess they have to carry that book in the library as well.

---

Bet Judge Duke wouldn’t like that.

quote:

---

Ask him if the judge may have been politically motivated and that drove her decision.

---

I know where you're coming from and you're correct. About Hank and SFP.

I'm addressing the posters who didn't even read to the bottom of his post.

quote:

---

I guess they have to carry that book in the library as well.

---

Yeah, I thought of that also.

Conservatives should start flooding elementary school libraries with books about the joy of shooting guns (especially books showing children shooting), intelligent design, etc.

For that matter, if someone could get something in somewhere that is pro-white supremacy, we'd find out real quick how committed the judiciary is to toeing the line on free speech for "political content."

quote:

---

Liberals will make the argument that social media censorship was not a violation of the first amendment in that it protected adults engaging voluntarily in said media, from being exposed to “misinformation”.

Liberals will also argue that exposing gay pornography to minors involuntarily through the school system is first amendment protected free speech.

---

Bingo.

quote:

---

What constitutional right do minors have to pornographic material in an education setting? I’ll hang up and listen.

---

What’s interesting about this case is that these aren’t the typical books you see getting banned. as far as i know none of the books are graphic novels.

This isn’t about that Queer book that has images of people having sex.

The books include Perks of Being a Wallflower, the Kite Runner, 13 Reasons Why.

And the School District pulled them, highlighted passages they thought were troubling and asked parents to weight in on whether they should be returned to the library in the sensitive reading section or outright banned.

The plaintiff brought emails that allegedly indicate the board said it was because of the agenda or whatever within the book:

The supreme court has a case directly related to this and it’s maybe the most coin flip case i’ve ever seen.

4 Justices rules that the book ban violated the first amendment

4 justices ruled it didn’t

and the 9th justice justice said: we can rule on this without deciding either way, and ruled that the Summary Judgement was inappropriate and the case should proceed to trial in the trial court. Essentially ruling on a procedural issue.

So it is valid to point to the plurality’s decision but probably just as valid to point to the Dissents.

I can’t imagine this Court would rule the same.

I also think having a sensitive book section is maybe the right idea. idk what that entails exactly but having these books where you can only check them out with a parents permission feels like a very valid way to go (not what’s being argued here)

They've spent most of their careers on the bench in the Obama/Clinton generation, where the shameless vilification of opposition political thinkers has become the norm. Where alternative ideas are immediately dismissed when the messenger is deemed unworthy.

Tyranny becomes very easy when your boot rests on the neck of a "nazi".

Did you see the judge? Probably lots of scissoring...

quote:

---

I also think having a sensitive book section is maybe the right idea

---

Do you remember the temptation of the part of the video store with the saloon doors on it? And kids don't need to check them out, they will likely be able to wander in and peruse whatever content they want.

This will end up with judges being able to approve (ie., create through amicus submissions by the LGB lobby) book lists that local school districts are to buy or make available to students. That would be compelled speech through the use of taxpayer funds for only approved content, would it not?

quote:

---

When a given book is rejected purely based upon a political view concerning its content (as is admitted here), you have a different kettle of fishies.

---

Where is this admitted? It appears the school district requested a hearing regarding the use of the evidence the judge used in coming to that conclusion. There is evidence in the records for some parents and some board members objections to the titles based on the themes of sexual identity. Nevertheless, the district avers that it went through a multipart procedure to determine the books at issue-- first looking at Goodbooks, then specifically reviewing the content, and then opening it up for parental comment. They specifically cite in their motion to oppose this passage from "The Bluest Eye" , which I don't think I could post here for content based reasons.

They submitted affidavits stating

quote:

---

More importantly, no Board director voted to remove any of the 18 books based on the viewpoint expressed therein. Further, although Board directors considered the fact that community input overwhelmingly favored removal, their decisions were not based upon the individual viewpoints of community members who participated in the review process. Rather, all Board members based their removal decisions on the specific content of each book that they believed to be incompatible with the educational mission of the District.

---

Supporting this position, they noted that some of the removed books were only removed from a middle school library but retained in a high school library. Indeed, they affirmatively state,

quote:

---

Board members considered many factors, including the problematic nature of the content, which included, without limitation, graphic violence, graphic sexual content, extreme drug and alcohol use, and suicidal ideation

---

I don't see where anyone admitted it was for political speech. The judge includes in her opinion some email discussion regarding lesbian identity in "You Should See Me in a Crown" for inclusion in the middle school library, but that was only 1 book, and not all of the books.

There could be a PICO violation, but taken the evidence in the light most favorable to the district, they have both averred a non-political basis and provided affidavits and evidence of both the passages and basis of their decisions. A permanent injunction seems premature.