Why are book banners showing up at FCPS SB meetings

[Anonymous]

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

Please cite this exception in any ruling.

Was the meeting live streaming? Could she have also violated the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA)? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

The FCC isn’t insane enough to ignore the first amendment for there to be any precedent. Everyone knows that speech before government bodies is protected, as much as certain people despise that freedom (remember LCPS trying to fire an employee for expressing their view)

They aren’t ignoring it, but there are restrictions. Are you one of those “there are no restrictions on guns” types too?

“ For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M.

Finally, the courts have ruled that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. ”

File a complaint here:
https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=33794

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DP. If your high schooler is interested in seeing sexual images, they can find far worse thing elsewhere very easily. This book has the image in the context of a positive message about sexual respect and staying within your comfort zone rather than feeling pressured to do something you don’t want to do. That is a good thing for teens to be exposed to.

Then you have no trouble with the woman reading from those books and showing the pictures.

Time, place and manner. There is a difference between what someone chooses to read for themselves and someone deciding to broadcast the content the way she did. I don’t not think the content is offensive but also understand why someone might not want to be blasted with it without warning.

None of us here are saying people should be forced to read these books against their will, which is essentially what this woman did to listeners. We simply think a high school library should be allowed to circulate these books for those who *want* to read them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. If your high schooler is interested in seeing sexual images, they can find far worse thing elsewhere very easily. This book has the image in the context of a positive message about sexual respect and staying within your comfort zone rather than feeling pressured to do something you don’t want to do. That is a good thing for teens to be exposed to.

Then you have no trouble with the woman reading from those books and showing the pictures.

Time, place and manner. There is a difference between what someone chooses to read for themselves and someone deciding to broadcast the content the way she did. I don’t not think the content is offensive but also understand why someone might not want to be blasted with it without warning.

None of us here are saying people should be forced to read these books against their will, which is essentially what this woman did to listeners. We simply think a high school library should be allowed to circulate these books for those who *want* to read them.

Let me see if I've got this correct:

1. A concerned parent reads from a book at a school board meeting, to demonstrate that the book contents are not appropriate for the school library.
2. Outrage ensues from other parents who agree that the content is inappropriate.
3. Outrage also ensues from other folks who, though they believe that the content is acceptable for high school, believe that the content is inappropriate for a broadcast internet stream to a likely extremely small audience, claiming that children could be exposed to said content.

I presume that the argument is that the content is okay for a 9th grader, but not for an 8th grader. My...that's a fine line.

And then to attack the parent for supposed broadcast of inappropriate content is mindboggling hutzpah.. And I think that such assertions are made with a straight face. Amazing.

FWIW, my high school freshman is 13 (birthday soon), and it'd be nice to preserve her innocence for a while longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. If your high schooler is interested in seeing sexual images, they can find far worse thing elsewhere very easily. This book has the image in the context of a positive message about sexual respect and staying within your comfort zone rather than feeling pressured to do something you don’t want to do. That is a good thing for teens to be exposed to.

Then you have no trouble with the woman reading from those books and showing the pictures.

Time, place and manner. There is a difference between what someone chooses to read for themselves and someone deciding to broadcast the content the way she did. I don’t not think the content is offensive but also understand why someone might not want to be blasted with it without warning.

None of us here are saying people should be forced to read these books against their will, which is essentially what this woman did to listeners. We simply think a high school library should be allowed to circulate these books for those who *want* to read them.

Let me see if I've got this correct:

1. A concerned parent reads from a book at a school board meeting, to demonstrate that the book contents are not appropriate for the school library.
2. Outrage ensues from other parents who agree that the content is inappropriate.
3. Outrage also ensues from other folks who, though they believe that the content is acceptable for high school, believe that the content is inappropriate for a broadcast internet stream to a likely extremely small audience, claiming that children could be exposed to said content.

I presume that the argument is that the content is okay for a 9th grader, but not for an 8th grader. My...that's a fine line.

And then to attack the parent for supposed broadcast of inappropriate content is mindboggling hutzpah.. And I think that such assertions are made with a straight face. Amazing.

FWIW, my high school freshman is 13 (birthday soon), and it'd be nice to preserve her innocence for a while longer.

FCPS Back to School and COVID updates are broadcast into thousands of households. There is very large engagement in these meetings. Everyone is angry. Everyone wants answers. Everyone i upset about pauses and wants info on testing and quarantines. And there 180,000 kids and 35,000 staff involved. The audience was huge. It was on TV. And parents watching on their TV set in early evening had their elementary school aged kids in the room. You want to protect your 13 year old? My 7 year old saw this. Too late for her to stay innocent.

I’m sorry you aren’t engaged in the school system. Some of us haven’t been ble to zone out on our kids education this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS Back to School and COVID updates are broadcast into thousands of households. There is very large engagement in these meetings. Everyone is angry. Everyone wants answers. Everyone i upset about pauses and wants info on testing and quarantines. And there 180,000 kids and 35,000 staff involved. The audience was huge. It was on TV. And parents watching on their TV set in early evening had their elementary school aged kids in the room. You want to protect your 13 year old? My 7 year old saw this. Too late for her to stay innocent.

I’m sorry you aren’t engaged in the school system. Some of us haven’t been ble to zone out on our kids education this year.

It's a basic tenet of 1st Amendment law that (with few exceptions), the rights of the speaker are not limited by the effect of the speech on a listener. The best way to protect your 7 year-old is to not have her watch a school board meeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS Back to School and COVID updates are broadcast into thousands of households. There is very large engagement in these meetings. Everyone is angry. Everyone wants answers. Everyone i upset about pauses and wants info on testing and quarantines. And there 180,000 kids and 35,000 staff involved. The audience was huge. It was on TV. And parents watching on their TV set in early evening had their elementary school aged kids in the room. You want to protect your 13 year old? My 7 year old saw this. Too late for her to stay innocent.

I’m sorry you aren’t engaged in the school system. Some of us haven’t been ble to zone out on our kids education this year.

It's a basic tenet of 1st Amendment law that (with few exceptions), the rights of the speaker are not limited by the effect of the speech on a listener. The best way to protect your 7 year-old is to not have her watch a school board meeting.

Do you say the same thing about the 2nd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. If your high schooler is interested in seeing sexual images, they can find far worse thing elsewhere very easily. This book has the image in the context of a positive message about sexual respect and staying within your comfort zone rather than feeling pressured to do something you don’t want to do. That is a good thing for teens to be exposed to.

Then you have no trouble with the woman reading from those books and showing the pictures.

Time, place and manner. There is a difference between what someone chooses to read for themselves and someone deciding to broadcast the content the way she did. I don’t not think the content is offensive but also understand why someone might not want to be blasted with it without warning.

None of us here are saying people should be forced to read these books against their will, which is essentially what this woman did to listeners. We simply think a high school library should be allowed to circulate these books for those who *want* to read them.

Let me see if I've got this correct:

1. A concerned parent reads from a book at a school board meeting, to demonstrate that the book contents are not appropriate for the school library.
2. Outrage ensues from other parents who agree that the content is inappropriate.
3. Outrage also ensues from other folks who, though they believe that the content is acceptable for high school, believe that the content is inappropriate for a broadcast internet stream to a likely extremely small audience, claiming that children could be exposed to said content.

I presume that the argument is that the content is okay for a 9th grader, but not for an 8th grader. My...that's a fine line.

And then to attack the parent for supposed broadcast of inappropriate content is mindboggling hutzpah.. And I think that such assertions are made with a straight face. Amazing.

FWIW, my high school freshman is 13 (birthday soon), and it'd be nice to preserve her innocence for a while longer.

LOL, your 13 yo already knows a whole lot more than you realize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS Back to School and COVID updates are broadcast into thousands of households. There is very large engagement in these meetings. Everyone is angry. Everyone wants answers. Everyone i upset about pauses and wants info on testing and quarantines. And there 180,000 kids and 35,000 staff involved. The audience was huge. It was on TV. And parents watching on their TV set in early evening had their elementary school aged kids in the room. You want to protect your 13 year old? My 7 year old saw this. Too late for her to stay innocent.

I’m sorry you aren’t engaged in the school system. Some of us haven’t been ble to zone out on our kids education this year.

It's a basic tenet of 1st Amendment law that (with few exceptions), the rights of the speaker are not limited by the effect of the speech on a listener. The best way to protect your 7 year-old is to not have her watch a school board meeting.

First, one of the exceptions you mention is broadcast TV between 6am and 10pm, when it must be appropriate for the reasonably intended audience. Which for an early evening SB meeting is… parents with young kids around.

Second, do you even hear yourself? My kid now has to protected from *FCPS SB meetings* because God forbid we expect adults to act like adults. There is something seriously off kilter when the right says with a straight face that it’s okay if SB meetings on a return to school agenda (as opposed to FLE) are inappropriate for children to hear. Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. If your high schooler is interested in seeing sexual images, they can find far worse thing elsewhere very easily. This book has the image in the context of a positive message about sexual respect and staying within your comfort zone rather than feeling pressured to do something you don’t want to do. That is a good thing for teens to be exposed to.

Then you have no trouble with the woman reading from those books and showing the pictures.

Time, place and manner. There is a difference between what someone chooses to read for themselves and someone deciding to broadcast the content the way she did. I don’t not think the content is offensive but also understand why someone might not want to be blasted with it without warning.

None of us here are saying people should be forced to read these books against their will, which is essentially what this woman did to listeners. We simply think a high school library should be allowed to circulate these books for those who *want* to read them.

Let me see if I've got this correct:

1. A concerned parent reads from a book at a school board meeting, to demonstrate that the book contents are not appropriate for the school library.
2. Outrage ensues from other parents who agree that the content is inappropriate.
3. Outrage also ensues from other folks who, though they believe that the content is acceptable for high school, believe that the content is inappropriate for a broadcast internet stream to a likely extremely small audience, claiming that children could be exposed to said content.

I presume that the argument is that the content is okay for a 9th grader, but not for an 8th grader. My...that's a fine line.

And then to attack the parent for supposed broadcast of inappropriate content is mindboggling hutzpah.. And I think that such assertions are made with a straight face. Amazing.

FWIW, my high school freshman is 13 (birthday soon), and it'd be nice to preserve her innocence for a while longer.

LOL, your 13 yo already knows a whole lot more than you realize.

Meanwhile, her 13 year old is snapchatting topless pics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS Back to School and COVID updates are broadcast into thousands of households. There is very large engagement in these meetings. Everyone is angry. Everyone wants answers. Everyone i upset about pauses and wants info on testing and quarantines. And there 180,000 kids and 35,000 staff involved. The audience was huge. It was on TV. And parents watching on their TV set in early evening had their elementary school aged kids in the room. You want to protect your 13 year old? My 7 year old saw this. Too late for her to stay innocent.

I’m sorry you aren’t engaged in the school system. Some of us haven’t been ble to zone out on our kids education this year.

It's a basic tenet of 1st Amendment law that (with few exceptions), the rights of the speaker are not limited by the effect of the speech on a listener. The best way to protect your 7 year-old is to not have her watch a school board meeting.

First, one of the exceptions you mention is broadcast TV between 6am and 10pm, when it must be appropriate for the reasonably intended audience. Which for an early evening SB meeting is… parents with young kids around.

Second, do you even hear yourself? My kid now has to protected from *FCPS SB meetings* because God forbid we expect adults to act like adults. There is something seriously off kilter when the right says with a straight face that it’s okay if SB meetings on a return to school agenda (as opposed to FLE) are inappropriate for children to hear. Seriously?

This isn't a left-right issue. It's the First Amendment! (And at the risk of covering well-trodden ground in this thread, the FCC cannot fine someone for their speech at an open government hearing, irrespective of whether it is televised; the First Amendment is no less powerful during prime time.)

It's perfectly reasonable to say that none of this should be discussed at a school board hearing or that speakers should choose their words more carefully. But none of that goes to the rights of the speaker to make the speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS Back to School and COVID updates are broadcast into thousands of households. There is very large engagement in these meetings. Everyone is angry. Everyone wants answers. Everyone i upset about pauses and wants info on testing and quarantines. And there 180,000 kids and 35,000 staff involved. The audience was huge. It was on TV. And parents watching on their TV set in early evening had their elementary school aged kids in the room. You want to protect your 13 year old? My 7 year old saw this. Too late for her to stay innocent.

I’m sorry you aren’t engaged in the school system. Some of us haven’t been ble to zone out on our kids education this year.

It's a basic tenet of 1st Amendment law that (with few exceptions), the rights of the speaker are not limited by the effect of the speech on a listener. The best way to protect your 7 year-old is to not have her watch a school board meeting.

First, one of the exceptions you mention is broadcast TV between 6am and 10pm, when it must be appropriate for the reasonably intended audience. Which for an early evening SB meeting is… parents with young kids around.

Second, do you even hear yourself? My kid now has to protected from *FCPS SB meetings* because God forbid we expect adults to act like adults. There is something seriously off kilter when the right says with a straight face that it’s okay if SB meetings on a return to school agenda (as opposed to FLE) are inappropriate for children to hear. Seriously?

This isn't a left-right issue. It's the First Amendment! (And at the risk of covering well-trodden ground in this thread, the FCC cannot fine someone for their speech at an open government hearing, irrespective of whether it is televised; the First Amendment is no less powerful during prime time.)

It's perfectly reasonable to say that none of this should be discussed at a school board hearing or that speakers should choose their words more carefully. But none of that goes to the rights of the speaker to make the speech.

You may a tough time with this, but sometimes even your precious FREEDOMS have restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS Back to School and COVID updates are broadcast into thousands of households. There is very large engagement in these meetings. Everyone is angry. Everyone wants answers. Everyone i upset about pauses and wants info on testing and quarantines. And there 180,000 kids and 35,000 staff involved. The audience was huge. It was on TV. And parents watching on their TV set in early evening had their elementary school aged kids in the room. You want to protect your 13 year old? My 7 year old saw this. Too late for her to stay innocent.

I’m sorry you aren’t engaged in the school system. Some of us haven’t been ble to zone out on our kids education this year.

It's a basic tenet of 1st Amendment law that (with few exceptions), the rights of the speaker are not limited by the effect of the speech on a listener. The best way to protect your 7 year-old is to not have her watch a school board meeting.

First, one of the exceptions you mention is broadcast TV between 6am and 10pm, when it must be appropriate for the reasonably intended audience. Which for an early evening SB meeting is… parents with young kids around.

Second, do you even hear yourself? My kid now has to protected from *FCPS SB meetings* because God forbid we expect adults to act like adults. There is something seriously off kilter when the right says with a straight face that it’s okay if SB meetings on a return to school agenda (as opposed to FLE) are inappropriate for children to hear. Seriously?

This isn't a left-right issue. It's the First Amendment! (And at the risk of covering well-trodden ground in this thread, the FCC cannot fine someone for their speech at an open government hearing, irrespective of whether it is televised; the First Amendment is no less powerful during prime time.)

It's perfectly reasonable to say that none of this should be discussed at a school board hearing or that speakers should choose their words more carefully. But none of that goes to the rights of the speaker to make the speech.

You may a tough time with this, but sometimes even your precious FREEDOMS have restrictions.

Fortunately the federal courts have spoken clearly on this one. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
FCPS Back to School and COVID updates are broadcast into thousands of households. There is very large engagement in these meetings. Everyone is angry. Everyone wants answers. Everyone i upset about pauses and wants info on testing and quarantines. And there 180,000 kids and 35,000 staff involved. The audience was huge. It was on TV. And parents watching on their TV set in early evening had their elementary school aged kids in the room. You want to protect your 13 year old? My 7 year old saw this. Too late for her to stay innocent.

I’m sorry you aren’t engaged in the school system. Some of us haven’t been ble to zone out on our kids education this year.

It's a basic tenet of 1st Amendment law that (with few exceptions), the rights of the speaker are not limited by the effect of the speech on a listener. The best way to protect your 7 year-old is to not have her watch a school board meeting.

First, one of the exceptions you mention is broadcast TV between 6am and 10pm, when it must be appropriate for the reasonably intended audience. Which for an early evening SB meeting is… parents with young kids around.

Second, do you even hear yourself? My kid now has to protected from *FCPS SB meetings* because God forbid we expect adults to act like adults. There is something seriously off kilter when the right says with a straight face that it’s okay if SB meetings on a return to school agenda (as opposed to FLE) are inappropriate for children to hear. Seriously?

This isn't a left-right issue. It's the First Amendment! (And at the risk of covering well-trodden ground in this thread, the FCC cannot fine someone for their speech at an open government hearing, irrespective of whether it is televised; the First Amendment is no less powerful during prime time.)

It's perfectly reasonable to say that none of this should be discussed at a school board hearing or that speakers should choose their words more carefully. But none of that goes to the rights of the speaker to make the speech.

You may a tough time with this, but sometimes even your precious FREEDOMS have restrictions.

Fortunately the federal courts have spoken clearly on this one. . .

Not in the ways you say. Speech on broadcast TV is limited during prime time. Freedom of expression isn’t absolute in government meetings. Etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. If your high schooler is interested in seeing sexual images, they can find far worse thing elsewhere very easily. This book has the image in the context of a positive message about sexual respect and staying within your comfort zone rather than feeling pressured to do something you don’t want to do. That is a good thing for teens to be exposed to.

Then you have no trouble with the woman reading from those books and showing the pictures.

Time, place and manner. There is a difference between what someone chooses to read for themselves and someone deciding to broadcast the content the way she did. I don’t not think the content is offensive but also understand why someone might not want to be blasted with it without warning.

None of us here are saying people should be forced to read these books against their will, which is essentially what this woman did to listeners. We simply think a high school library should be allowed to circulate these books for those who *want* to read them.

Let me see if I've got this correct:

1. A concerned parent reads from a book at a school board meeting, to demonstrate that the book contents are not appropriate for the school library.
2. Outrage ensues from other parents who agree that the content is inappropriate.
3. Outrage also ensues from other folks who, though they believe that the content is acceptable for high school, believe that the content is inappropriate for a broadcast internet stream to a likely extremely small audience, claiming that children could be exposed to said content.

I presume that the argument is that the content is okay for a 9th grader, but not for an 8th grader. My...that's a fine line.

And then to attack the parent for supposed broadcast of inappropriate content is mindboggling hutzpah.. And I think that such assertions are made with a straight face. Amazing.

FWIW, my high school freshman is 13 (birthday soon), and it'd be nice to preserve her innocence for a while longer.

LOL, your 13 yo already knows a whole lot more than you realize.

Meanwhile, her 13 year old is snapchatting topless pics.

Meanwhile, you're the parent that has open bottles of alcohol when the neighborhood kids stop by...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. If your high schooler is interested in seeing sexual images, they can find far worse thing elsewhere very easily. This book has the image in the context of a positive message about sexual respect and staying within your comfort zone rather than feeling pressured to do something you don’t want to do. That is a good thing for teens to be exposed to.

Then you have no trouble with the woman reading from those books and showing the pictures.

Time, place and manner. There is a difference between what someone chooses to read for themselves and someone deciding to broadcast the content the way she did. I don’t not think the content is offensive but also understand why someone might not want to be blasted with it without warning.

None of us here are saying people should be forced to read these books against their will, which is essentially what this woman did to listeners. We simply think a high school library should be allowed to circulate these books for those who *want* to read them.

Let me see if I've got this correct:

1. A concerned parent reads from a book at a school board meeting, to demonstrate that the book contents are not appropriate for the school library.
2. Outrage ensues from other parents who agree that the content is inappropriate.
3. Outrage also ensues from other folks who, though they believe that the content is acceptable for high school, believe that the content is inappropriate for a broadcast internet stream to a likely extremely small audience, claiming that children could be exposed to said content.

I presume that the argument is that the content is okay for a 9th grader, but not for an 8th grader. My...that's a fine line.

And then to attack the parent for supposed broadcast of inappropriate content is mindboggling hutzpah.. And I think that such assertions are made with a straight face. Amazing.

FWIW, my high school freshman is 13 (birthday soon), and it'd be nice to preserve her innocence for a while longer.

LOL, your 13 yo already knows a whole lot more than you realize.

Meanwhile, her 13 year old is snapchatting topless pics.

Meanwhile, you're the parent that has open bottles of alcohol when the neighborhood kids stop by...

PP is just unfortunately a leftist stereotype, of the "we're coming for your children (and will crush you if you try to protect them) variety. The idea that any child isn't or shouldn't be engaged in and/or exposed to sexual activity or adult sexual content is offensive to them.

The normal Democrats need to keep that type in check.