Publishers and authors sue over Florida book ban law

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Either way, the object of the law is an attempt to keep material out of schools that parents think are inappropriate for their children.

Whom do you think should make these decisions? The publishers and authors who sell the books?

Why should one parent who objects to the phrase "made love" be able to deny access to a book for everyone else?

[slm]

In one respect this discussion seems to be covering the wrong question. In most countries--France and Japan as prominent examples--the main purposes of the school system is to inculcate a common ethos to everyone, even to students whose parents disagree with parts of that ethos.

This used to be true in the United States as well when prayer and bible study were part of the official curriculum. Of course, even then, the US permitted separate, parallel schools, which many other countries do not.

It seems to me that what books belong on a library shelves is a question of what the community wants the students to learn, not what some particular parents want their children to learn.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by slm

In one respect this discussion seems to be covering the wrong question. In most countries--France and Japan as prominent examples--the main purposes of the school system is to inculcate a common ethos to everyone, even to students whose parents disagree with parts of that ethos.

This used to be true in the United States as well when prayer and bible study were part of the official curriculum. Of course, even then, the US permitted separate, parallel schools, which many other countries do not.

It seems to me that what books belong on a library shelves is a question of what the community wants the students to learn, not what some particular parents want their children to learn.

In this day and age, the term 'community' includes the entire US and not just a local community.

[issybird]

Moderator Notice
There is a line and it's been crossed. Please refrain from political or morality-tinged comments going forward. You can always take it to P&R. I'm leaving the thread open, contingent on hewing more closely to the facts of the situation.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I never had "human biology instruction" in school and managed to have six kids. I guess I'm a "walking miracle."

Reproducing requires no instruction in the majority of (het) cases; taking advantage of the various options to not reproduce, or to reproduce only when desired, is more complicated and requires a certain set of knowledge and skills. As does STI avoidance. And before that, early sex ed involves safety and consent knowledge and skills that are often not taught (or not taught well) at home.

[Gardenman]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

A better approach is to keep "objectionable" books in a secured area. Then make parents who object to those books place their children on a No Read list. Librarians will then prohibit entry to that area to any child on the list.

This way, parents on both sides of the issue keep their parental rights intact.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

Why should one parent who objects to the phrase "made love" be able to deny access to a book for everyone else?

If these books in Florida are anything like the ones banned in Utah, I don't think their authors simply mention that the characters "made love." I'm guessing they get much more explicit than that.

[issybird]

When morality and politically-tinged comments are explicitly disallowed, don't go on to make them. I've deleted a post and I'm closing the thread. I don't think there's much left to say.