Why are book banners showing up at FCPS SB meetings

[Anonymous]

This is all very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

a speaker at a public forum cannot be fined by the FCC.

Citation?

U.S. Const. amend. I.

Hint: Actual FCC rulings would be a start…but since it appears you pulled that out of your sphincter so we won’t wait on you.

find a single case of the FCC fining a speaker for political comments at a government meeting. You know, the kind of political speech that is the most protected. I'll wait

Oh. Were they “political” comments now?

VA station fined for obscene content:
https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/fcc-slaps-virginia-tv-station-with-325000-indecency-fine-1201458034/

The FCC plans to issue what it says will be the highest fine ever against a TV station for a single incident of airing indecent content, slapping a $325,000 penalty against a Roanoke, Va., TV station for airing a sexually explicit video clip of an adult film website during a news broadcast.

This has no relevance to speech at a public forum, irrespective of whether it is political speech or not. (Note, however, that almost anything said by a member of the public at a school board meeting would count as political speech under 1st Amendment precedent.)

The issue isn’t he speech in the public forum. It was when that speech was broadcast. This is why so many live event are on delay. I would imagine going forward SB meeting won’t be broadcast lie or I’ll be on a delay. Since Republicans can’t control themselves. I guess next up is standing on tables no screaming, like in Loudoun?

if you're trying to fine the speaker, the issue is that it is a government forum set up so that members of the public can address their elected officials. This is the core of political speech protected by the first amendment. There is zero chance that you can come up with an instance of a speaker being fined under these circumstances

Again. The issue isn’t addressing the SB. The issue is broadcasting it. I’m fine with letting the FCC weigh in. I’m sure she got legal advice before pulling this stunt. And they said: here’s a loophole that lets you expose young kids to obscene material.

if the govenerment sets up the broadcast, then she has no part in it. She does have a right to address her elected officials that is protected by the constitution, they can't then broadcast the meeting and hold her responsible for the broadcast

Did she know it was being broadcast? If so, see the Janet Jackson Super Bowl halftime fine.

And no, obscene material isn’t protected speed.

And I’m struggling to understand why the GOP is so intent on defending the broadcast of obscene speech to young children. Let me guess, her free-dumb to do whatever she wants outweighs parents rights to protect our kids from porn?

I am so over your freedumb to broadcast porn to my kids, distribute semiautomatic weapons with no license, so schools can be shot up. Teach young kids unvaxxed and maskless.

Your freedumb hurts so may kids so much.

so it's porn? Isn't distributing porn to a minor a felony? When does the librarian get locked up?

Cite the statue you believe applies to the librarian in her official capacity as an FCPS employee. That gets around qualified immunity. We’ll wait

qualified immunity is civil not criminal.

Okay. Find the criminal statute that applies here. There isn’t one. The librarian clearly isn’t committing a crime. So, put up or shut up.

then it's clearly not porn. Pick one. Either she read porn and thus the school contained porn and distributed it to students or what she read wasn't porn and thus the school did nothing wrong. Pick one or the other

You’re the one saying librarians are felons. Which is ridiculous. So, answer the question— what criminal statute. Cite it. State? Federal?

because you're saying she put porn on TV. I don't think she did, but if it does qualify as porn, it logically follows those distributing it to minors are committing a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the usual suspects are suggesting they can unleash the full powers of the state on a mom who questions FCPS. It is just peak Fairfax Democrats - note these are the same people who spent several weeks defending the Fairfax NAACP official who showed up at a School Board meeting at Luther Jackson and said "Let Them Die" about people who disagree with her.

You are not nice people, nor do you have any sense of morality or sound priorities, and word is getting out.

At least we aren’t insisting it’s fine to broadcast porn to kids.

apparently distributing it to them through schools is fine though

No, don’t whataboutism. Defend the se did on the merits. Was what she did okay? Lots of GOOPERS here saying yes. Fox News loves it.

great logic- this woman read porn on TV. The woman was reading out of a book checked out from a school library, does that mean the school library had porn (which was her complaint)? whataboutism!!!!

Nope. Last time we explain the difference. The book could be fine for HS kids. She broadcast to an audience that she knew would include young children. For the FCC, the issue I what I appropriate for the audience. A SB audience includes 1st graders. Who can’t check the book out. That’s my answer. Not what about. That they are different audiences. One is 6, the other is 16

Now you was what she did okay?

High school freshman are not 16 nor are middle schoolers who can use the facility

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

a speaker at a public forum cannot be fined by the FCC.

Citation?

U.S. Const. amend. I.

Hint: Actual FCC rulings would be a start…but since it appears you pulled that out of your sphincter so we won’t wait on you.

find a single case of the FCC fining a speaker for political comments at a government meeting. You know, the kind of political speech that is the most protected. I'll wait

Oh. Were they “political” comments now?

VA station fined for obscene content:
https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/fcc-slaps-virginia-tv-station-with-325000-indecency-fine-1201458034/

The FCC plans to issue what it says will be the highest fine ever against a TV station for a single incident of airing indecent content, slapping a $325,000 penalty against a Roanoke, Va., TV station for airing a sexually explicit video clip of an adult film website during a news broadcast.

This has no relevance to speech at a public forum, irrespective of whether it is political speech or not. (Note, however, that almost anything said by a member of the public at a school board meeting would count as political speech under 1st Amendment precedent.)

The issue isn’t he speech in the public forum. It was when that speech was broadcast. This is why so many live event are on delay. I would imagine going forward SB meeting won’t be broadcast lie or I’ll be on a delay. Since Republicans can’t control themselves. I guess next up is standing on tables no screaming, like in Loudoun?

if you're trying to fine the speaker, the issue is that it is a government forum set up so that members of the public can address their elected officials. This is the core of political speech protected by the first amendment. There is zero chance that you can come up with an instance of a speaker being fined under these circumstances

Again. The issue isn’t addressing the SB. The issue is broadcasting it. I’m fine with letting the FCC weigh in. I’m sure she got legal advice before pulling this stunt. And they said: here’s a loophole that lets you expose young kids to obscene material.

if the govenerment sets up the broadcast, then she has no part in it. She does have a right to address her elected officials that is protected by the constitution, they can't then broadcast the meeting and hold her responsible for the broadcast

Did she know it was being broadcast? If so, see the Janet Jackson Super Bowl halftime fine.

And no, obscene material isn’t protected speed.

And I’m struggling to understand why the GOP is so intent on defending the broadcast of obscene speech to young children. Let me guess, her free-dumb to do whatever she wants outweighs parents rights to protect our kids from porn?

I am so over your freedumb to broadcast porn to my kids, distribute semiautomatic weapons with no license, so schools can be shot up. Teach young kids unvaxxed and maskless.

Your freedumb hurts so may kids so much.

so it's porn? Isn't distributing porn to a minor a felony? When does the librarian get locked up?

Cite the statue you believe applies to the librarian in her official capacity as an FCPS employee. That gets around qualified immunity. We’ll wait

qualified immunity is civil not criminal.

Okay. Find the criminal statute that applies here. There isn’t one. The librarian clearly isn’t committing a crime. So, put up or shut up.

then it's clearly not porn. Pick one. Either she read porn and thus the school contained porn and distributed it to students or what she read wasn't porn and thus the school did nothing wrong. Pick one or the other

You’re the one saying librarians are felons. Which is ridiculous. So, answer the question— what criminal statute. Cite it. State? Federal?

because you're saying she put porn on TV. I don't think she did, but if it does qualify as porn, it logically follows those distributing it to minors are committing a crime.

And all I’m asking for is a site to a statute that would apply to Librarian checking out material purchased by the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the usual suspects are suggesting they can unleash the full powers of the state on a mom who questions FCPS. It is just peak Fairfax Democrats - note these are the same people who spent several weeks defending the Fairfax NAACP official who showed up at a School Board meeting at Luther Jackson and said "Let Them Die" about people who disagree with her.

You are not nice people, nor do you have any sense of morality or sound priorities, and word is getting out.

At least we aren’t insisting it’s fine to broadcast porn to kids.

apparently distributing it to them through schools is fine though

No, don’t whataboutism. Defend the se did on the merits. Was what she did okay? Lots of GOOPERS here saying yes. Fox News loves it.

great logic- this woman read porn on TV. The woman was reading out of a book checked out from a school library, does that mean the school library had porn (which was her complaint)? whataboutism!!!!

Nope. Last time we explain the difference. The book could be fine for HS kids. She broadcast to an audience that she knew would include young children. For the FCC, the issue I what I appropriate for the audience. A SB audience includes 1st graders. Who can’t check the book out. That’s my answer. Not what about. That they are different audiences. One is 6, the other is 16

Now you was what she did okay?

High school freshman are not 16 nor are middle schoolers who can use the facility

Okay. One is 14 and one is 6.

Not familiar with SSs. But I went to Hayfield for my kids FCPS online PE test and it was two schools right?. Do kids MS kids and HS kids co-mingle in SSs? They don’t each lunch together, have PE together etc, right? That seems… unwise. Do MS and HS share the same library? Can they check out the same books? As this argument shows, kids grow up a lot from MS to HS. When schools are separate MS and Hs libraries have different materials.

[Anonymous]

There is one library for the school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how the usual suspects are suggesting they can unleash the full powers of the state on a mom who questions FCPS. It is just peak Fairfax Democrats - note these are the same people who spent several weeks defending the Fairfax NAACP official who showed up at a School Board meeting at Luther Jackson and said "Let Them Die" about people who disagree with her.

You are not nice people, nor do you have any sense of morality or sound priorities, and word is getting out.

The "not nice people" are the people who intentionally spread LIES and MISINFORMATION to get their candidates elected. And have no qualms about hurting schools and kids in the process.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is one library for the school

How does that work of the schools are housed in different buildings?

I think there is a larger issue here of MS and Hs libraries serving different populations. And this would be an issue with many, many books. Just too mitre for 7th graders. I’m also not sure about the wisdom of 7th graders and seniors mingling at school. It seems like that would cause problems. I always though SSs we’re still segregated. I didn’t think they threw the kids from the two schools together.

That sounds like a bad set up. Glad we have a separate MS and HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the usual suspects are suggesting they can unleash the full powers of the state on a mom who questions FCPS. It is just peak Fairfax Democrats - note these are the same people who spent several weeks defending the Fairfax NAACP official who showed up at a School Board meeting at Luther Jackson and said "Let Them Die" about people who disagree with her.

You are not nice people, nor do you have any sense of morality or sound priorities, and word is getting out.

The "not nice people" are the people who intentionally spread LIES and MISINFORMATION to get their candidates elected. And have no qualms about hurting schools and kids in the process.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Neither Democrats (party officials and elected, not the populace) nor Republicans (party officials and elected, not the populace) have any shame.

See: the (previously) mostly Democrat and now 100% Democrat FCPS paying millions to a law firm in the past two years trying to shut down parents attempting to get justice for its abuse of special needs children.
See: Republicans trying to say Obama was actually a foreigner
See: Democrats swearing a vaccine developed under Trump was unsafe until Biden was in office
See: Karl Frisch swearing that the graphic book in a school library is supportive of the LGBTQIA+ community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

a speaker at a public forum cannot be fined by the FCC.

Citation?

U.S. Const. amend. I.

Hint: Actual FCC rulings would be a start…but since it appears you pulled that out of your sphincter so we won’t wait on you.

find a single case of the FCC fining a speaker for political comments at a government meeting. You know, the kind of political speech that is the most protected. I'll wait

Oh. Were they “political” comments now?

VA station fined for obscene content:
https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/fcc-slaps-virginia-tv-station-with-325000-indecency-fine-1201458034/

The FCC plans to issue what it says will be the highest fine ever against a TV station for a single incident of airing indecent content, slapping a $325,000 penalty against a Roanoke, Va., TV station for airing a sexually explicit video clip of an adult film website during a news broadcast.

This has no relevance to speech at a public forum, irrespective of whether it is political speech or not. (Note, however, that almost anything said by a member of the public at a school board meeting would count as political speech under 1st Amendment precedent.)

You need to get a refund from whatever 4th tier law school you got your JD from.

I wouldn't call Michigan 4th tier, but to each their own

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

a speaker at a public forum cannot be fined by the FCC.

Citation?

U.S. Const. amend. I.

Hint: Actual FCC rulings would be a start…but since it appears you pulled that out of your sphincter so we won’t wait on you.

find a single case of the FCC fining a speaker for political comments at a government meeting. You know, the kind of political speech that is the most protected. I'll wait

Oh. Were they “political” comments now?

VA station fined for obscene content:
https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/fcc-slaps-virginia-tv-station-with-325000-indecency-fine-1201458034/

The FCC plans to issue what it says will be the highest fine ever against a TV station for a single incident of airing indecent content, slapping a $325,000 penalty against a Roanoke, Va., TV station for airing a sexually explicit video clip of an adult film website during a news broadcast.

This has no relevance to speech at a public forum, irrespective of whether it is political speech or not. (Note, however, that almost anything said by a member of the public at a school board meeting would count as political speech under 1st Amendment precedent.)

The issue isn’t he speech in the public forum. It was when that speech was broadcast. This is why so many live event are on delay. I would imagine going forward SB meeting won’t be broadcast lie or I’ll be on a delay. Since Republicans can’t control themselves. I guess next up is standing on tables no screaming, like in Loudoun?

if you're trying to fine the speaker, the issue is that it is a government forum set up so that members of the public can address their elected officials. This is the core of political speech protected by the first amendment. There is zero chance that you can come up with an instance of a speaker being fined under these circumstances

There are exceptions to protected political speech, no porn is one. Come on, man. Con Law 1.

Pornography is protected by the 1st Amendment, obscenity (which is a subset of pornography) is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the usual suspects are suggesting they can unleash the full powers of the state on a mom who questions FCPS. It is just peak Fairfax Democrats - note these are the same people who spent several weeks defending the Fairfax NAACP official who showed up at a School Board meeting at Luther Jackson and said "Let Them Die" about people who disagree with her.

You are not nice people, nor do you have any sense of morality or sound priorities, and word is getting out.

The "not nice people" are the people who intentionally spread LIES and MISINFORMATION to get their candidates elected. And have no qualms about hurting schools and kids in the process.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Neither Democrats (party officials and elected, not the populace) nor Republicans (party officials and elected, not the populace) have any shame.

See: the (previously) mostly Democrat and now 100% Democrat FCPS paying millions to a law firm in the past two years trying to shut down parents attempting to get justice for its abuse of special needs children.
See: Republicans trying to say Obama was actually a foreigner
See: Democrats swearing a vaccine developed under Trump was unsafe until Biden was in office
See: Karl Frisch swearing that the graphic book in a school library is supportive of the LGBTQIA+ community.

You don't think this graphic novel is supportive of the LGBTQ+ community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slightly off-topic but is "astro-turfers" a more modern day "carpet-bagger"?

Is this a real term or just used here on DCUM?

Astro-turf is a term that has been around for at least 15 years, since campaigns were first moving online. It essentially means “fake grassroots.” Like, political firms or campaigns mobilizing paid people and activists to show up at a School Board meeting and pretend that it’s just a regular parent with a concern rather than a political activist who heard these two books were causing a political firestorm in another district and decided to misrepresent them here in order to make the current SB look bad. An astroturf campaign would be a coordinated effort to amplify this misinformation online over and over. Like, posting here and pretending to be a regular parent who is concerned about “smut” in books rather than just people who hate the current SB, haven’t read the books, and are just repeating the same lines to make FCPS look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats had a coordinated attack on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine until Trump's Orange behind was out of office, THEN the vaccine developed with the help of his Warp Speed initiative was safe and effective.

GOP and assorted affiliated/sympathetic groups couldn't attack Democrat officials' support for stocking graphic sex novels in school libraries if Democrats weren't jumping up supporting them. (Thanks Karl Frisch and Stella Pekarsky).

Stop giving evidence for the view that there is some leftist Demcrat effort to corrupt children, that'd be great.

Ffs. There are no such thing as “graphic sex novels” in FCPS. Graphic novel is a term for a book in comic book format. So there is one book about a non-binary person who is exploring eir gender identity…reflecting on eir body, figuring out life as a young adult…all kinds of awkward stuff. And there are a couple of scenes in that memoir about sex. Certainly no more explicit than most young adult fiction. The drawings are cartoons and don’t even involve an actual penis. That is hardly “graphic sex”. There are as many panels about menstruation. It’s not even remotely arousing nor is it intended to be so.

Please stop amplifying lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats had a coordinated attack on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine until Trump's Orange behind was out of office, THEN the vaccine developed with the help of his Warp Speed initiative was safe and effective.

GOP and assorted affiliated/sympathetic groups couldn't attack Democrat officials' support for stocking graphic sex novels in school libraries if Democrats weren't jumping up supporting them. (Thanks Karl Frisch and Stella Pekarsky).

Stop giving evidence for the view that there is some leftist Demcrat effort to corrupt children, that'd be great.

Ffs. There are no such thing as “graphic sex novels” in FCPS. Graphic novel is a term for a book in comic book format. So there is one book about a non-binary person who is exploring eir gender identity…reflecting on eir body, figuring out life as a young adult…all kinds of awkward stuff. And there are a couple of scenes in that memoir about sex. Certainly no more explicit than most young adult fiction. The drawings are cartoons and don’t even involve an actual penis. That is hardly “graphic sex”. There are as many panels about menstruation. It’s not even remotely arousing nor is it intended to be so.

Please stop amplifying lies.

I’ve seen it. It’s a drawing that shows people participating in oral sex. I don’t think that image is appropriate in a school. I’m honestly disturbed that some people are okay with this.