The association, founded in 1876, condemned legislation that would threaten librarians and other educators with criminal prosecution for possessing “obscene” material.

The association, founded in 1876, condemned legislation that would threaten librarians and other educators with criminal prosecution for possessing “obscene” material.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      31·
      9 months ago

      I didn’t see any school do that. That’s not the point. The point is, if it were in schools, would that be considered “freedom of speech”?

      And if not, then we’ve established that “freedom of speech” does not protect pornographic content in children’s public libraries.

        • helenslunch@feddit.nl
          32·
          9 months ago

          It’s relevant because the question is not about what type of books are being “banned” but whether “freedom of speech” preserves the right to stock whatever books you want in a public school library.

          • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
            12·
            9 months ago

            If hustler releases a text only version of their magazines, that should be allowed.

            There is no reason to restrict information.

            There is a reason to restrict nude pinups, as there is not an educational purpose to them, they are entertainment.

            There is no reason to restrict non-sexual depictions of nudity.

            There is no reason to restrict sexual depictions of nudity, if the depiction supports a narrative of conflict resolution, safety, or another educational purpose.

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              31·
              9 months ago

              If hustler releases a text only version of their magazines, that should be allowed.

              In elementary schools? With children. Well that’s certainly an interesting take.

              There is no reason to restrict information.

              Strange, all sorts of other information is restricted from children by law…

              There is no reason to restrict non-sexual depictions of nudity.

              Some of these books have graphical depictions of sexual acts. I’m not sure why anyone would think that’s something important to have in a school library or programme.

              • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
                12·
                9 months ago

                I said

                if the depiction supports a narrative of conflict resolution, safety, or another educational purpose.

                The article says

                “We’re seeing attempts by advocacy groups to file criminal charges against librarians and educators for books that they would like to see out of the library, and over and over again, these prosecutors decline to prosecute because there is absolutely no evidence that the books meet the most minimal standards for obscenity under the Miller Test,” she said.

                The Miller Test is the U.S. Supreme Court’s legal test to determine what works are obscene. A book, a picture or a film is classified as obscene if it “describes or shows sexual conduct in a patently offensive way” or “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value.”

                Libraries also serve highschools.

                This article is completely age appropriate for a teenager even if it’s above your reading level.

                • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                  12·
                  9 months ago

                  Yes because courts and judges never cater to the demands of their political friends. And politicians never do things for no reason other than to spite “the other side”.

                  This article is completely age appropriate for a teenager

                  THAT IS LITERAL PORNOGRAPHY. I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS.

                  • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
                    11·
                    9 months ago

                    This text is pornography? It’s candid, and it’s opinionated in that it’s pointedly describing how women’s rights are being eroded.

                    With increasing attacks on reproductive rights, demand for emergency contraception among women is surging—and if guys are smart, they’ll gladly offer to cover the cost of it.

                    If ever there was a near-perfect business model in the United States designed around sex, it was the pharmaceutical industry wagering on drunk and horny people engaging in wild, sloppy, unprotected porking and instantly regretting it. Since forever ago, the coital community has been making questionable decisions with even more questionable people and the outcome, at least for a time, often resulted in some snot-nosed kid that nobody wanted being brought into the world nine months later. And while abortion was once common practice in the Land of the Free, increasing laws against terminating pregnancies, including the recent reversal of Roe v. Wade, has given women fewer choices after some guy they hardly know glazes their ovaries in the heat of the moment. Thankfully, along the Walk of Shame is a local pharmacy where any adult woman can purchase emergency contraceptives, such as Plan B—aka the “morning-after” pill—eliminating any possibility that some unwanted rug rat is going to come crawling from her snatch.

                    For the time being, anyway. Unfortunately, an alarming number of politicians at the state and federal level are presently dabbling in some bizarre, extremist God-fearing ethos that seems to have been stolen from Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, one that contends that women must have the babies they make, even if it was because they were raped by their drunken uncle. No doubt, right-wing politicians are waging war against emergency contraceptives, with the U.S. Supreme Court announcing recently that it plans to hear a case that could lead to a ban of the FDA-approved abortion drug mifepristone. So, a lot more women are taking advantage of Plan B while they still can. Recent research shows that demand for emergency contraception has surged in the United States in recent years, presumably because nobody with a pussy wants to take the chance of finding out they are with child, just to have Uncle Sam’s zealotry-inspired overstep force them to give birth.

                    “It’s cheaper than raising a kid for the next 18 years,” Sasha, a 22-year-old student at the University of Toledo, tells HUSTLERMagazine.com.

                    Of course, emergency contraceptives are certainly cheaper than bringing up children or paying 18-plus years of child support, for that matter, but these drugs are still plenty expensive. Considering that Plan B can cost as much as $50, enough clumsy copulation can break the bank for those trying to pay rent and even eat on occasion. “It was super expensive [for me] back in college,” reports Laura, a 34-year-old chef, who like a lot of women her age did some sexual exploration during those years of academia.

                    This text is fine.

                    The images around the text are absolutely pornography, if you can’t make the distinction between words and pictures you do need help.