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:
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, my friends, is faux outrage, a common tactic of the left to silence conservatives. The likelihood of any children attending a school board meeting is infinitesimally small. And if the content isn't appropriate for a school board meeting, it's not appropriate for the school.

Do you actually have kids in FCPS? If you did, you’d realize that many, many families - especially those with young kids - will watch the SB meeting on TV at home.

And context is important. Obviously. Faux obtuse.

Just to be clear then. You're okay with the content in school library, but not in the school board meeting. Got it. 'Nuf said.

So....do you have a kid in FCPS or not?

Yes. I wouldn't be posting otherwise. I appreciate you trying to attach motives though. Another tactic of the left.

You don't think motives are important? You'd be OK with non-FCPS parents stirring the pot for their own political motives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. . .

Citation?

This is a good primer: https://www.nsba.org/ASBJ/2019/October/First-Amendment

Here is the key conclusion:

"I hope the take-away from this article is clear. School boards must be extremely cautious about restricting what citizens say during the period set aside for public comments at school board meetings. Generally, if a school board is going to allow for public comment (which is not constitutionally required), it must allow the public to speak about any matter within the school board’s authority."

And here is just one of the many court opinions on the issue (this one from July 2021): https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0156p-06.pdf

In that case, the school board adopted a rule prohibiting speech that was “antagonistic,” “abusive” and “personally directed.” The 6th Circuit struck down the rule as impermissible viewpoint discrimination. In reaching its holding, the court cited the well-established principle that a government entity cannot prohibit offensive speech in a public forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

they'll possibly fine the tv station, but there is zero chance they will fine the speaker.

[Anonymous]

In DCUM land where people love to redshirt, Freshman are 14-15 for summer birthdays.

Now all of a sudden people think 12-13 years olds have access to high school libraries. Using extremes to prove your point doesn't help.

These books are on a shelf, not visible unless you are searching for them or ask the librarian for material on this subject. They would be checked out by 14-18 year olds. Use actual facts. If you think they are inappropriate for 14-18 year olds, say that. No need to bring ES and MS students into the mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In DCUM land where people love to redshirt, Freshman are 14-15 for summer birthdays.

Now all of a sudden people think 12-13 years olds have access to high school libraries. Using extremes to prove your point doesn't help.

These books are on a shelf, not visible unless you are searching for them or ask the librarian for material on this subject. They would be checked out by 14-18 year olds. Use actual facts. If you think they are inappropriate for 14-18 year olds, say that. No need to bring ES and MS students into the mix.

People are bringing MS into it because these books are in at least one secondary school's library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In DCUM land where people love to redshirt, Freshman are 14-15 for summer birthdays.

Now all of a sudden people think 12-13 years olds have access to high school libraries. Using extremes to prove your point doesn't help.

These books are on a shelf, not visible unless you are searching for them or ask the librarian for material on this subject. They would be checked out by 14-18 year olds. Use actual facts. If you think they are inappropriate for 14-18 year olds, say that. No need to bring ES and MS students into the mix.

In FCPS, there are some secondary schools which have 7th grade through 12th grade (Robinson, Hayfield and Lake Braddock). A PP confirmed that there is one library for these schools, which is accessed by the middle school and high school students. That's why you have people bringing up whether a 12 yo should have access to this material. It's a legitimate issue given how large those schools were, so it results in thousands of middle schoolers having access.

Lawn Boy doesn't really bother me. There are plenty of books where if you read passages outloud, it's uncomfortable. I think images are a different game altogether and Gender Queer should be removed. We'd never be OK if the book depicted images of a young girl imagining giving an older man a blow job. Or kids where the girl was the one giving a boy the blow job because the boy wanted to experiment. Just because this is all in pursuit of gender identity doesn't make it acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

they'll possibly fine the tv station, but there is zero chance they will fine the speaker.

I wonder what the consequences will be down the line from this abuse...

No more school board broadcasts?

No more speaker time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In DCUM land where people love to redshirt, Freshman are 14-15 for summer birthdays.

Now all of a sudden people think 12-13 years olds have access to high school libraries. Using extremes to prove your point doesn't help.

These books are on a shelf, not visible unless you are searching for them or ask the librarian for material on this subject. They would be checked out by 14-18 year olds. Use actual facts. If you think they are inappropriate for 14-18 year olds, say that. No need to bring ES and MS students into the mix.

In FCPS, there are some secondary schools which have 7th grade through 12th grade (Robinson, Hayfield and Lake Braddock). A PP confirmed that there is one library for these schools, which is accessed by the middle school and high school students. That's why you have people bringing up whether a 12 yo should have access to this material. It's a legitimate issue given how large those schools were, so it results in thousands of middle schoolers having access.

Lawn Boy doesn't really bother me. There are plenty of books where if you read passages outloud, it's uncomfortable. I think images are a different game altogether and Gender Queer should be removed. We'd never be OK if the book depicted images of a young girl imagining giving an older man a blow job. Or kids where the girl was the one giving a boy the blow job because the boy wanted to experiment. Just because this is all in pursuit of gender identity doesn't make it acceptable.

Well the end of the book is actually positive. The main character didn't like the experimenting and isn't comfortable with such explicit sexual acts (at age 25). Then it goes on to discuss consent, pressure, finding a partner comfortable with limits and things that you do not want to do. Even talk about being asexual and everything that comes with it. Other than the graphics, the book has good material.

Maybe an alternative would be to edit those pictures out by the publisher. I do think it's an important book for older teens and young adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

they'll possibly fine the tv station, but there is zero chance they will fine the speaker.

I wonder what the consequences will be down the line from this abuse...

No more school board broadcasts?

No more speaker time?

that would be a great look, how would the phrase it, "a mother read expects from a book found in a secondary school library that was so offensive that we can no longer have speakers at school board meetings"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

they'll possibly fine the tv station, but there is zero chance they will fine the speaker.

I wonder what the consequences will be down the line from this abuse...

No more school board broadcasts?

No more speaker time?

Pekarsky and Keys Gamarra had a town hall last night, and I submitted this question. They didn’t answer it. But, they obviously can’t have this happen again. And look at LCPS to see where this crap leads— parent standing on tables yelling and spitting. Threats. Arrests. At a minimum, they are going to have to put public comments on a time delay so they can interrupt the broadcast of these “adults” and their Freedumbs. I think that’s a legally tough thing to do, because they are a governmental body making split second decisions about what to censor.

I guess their other options are to start the broadcast after public comments, stop public comments or post the meeting afterward with a warning if there is inappropriate content. I hope they don’t do the last one. I like having the livestreams. I I like to listen to them with my teen and tween. They should understand how the decisions fetching their schools are made, and one will be a 2024 voter.

I guess my vote would be to start broadcasting after public comments. I think the Indian community and virtual education is an example of a group using this process well. So was Open FCPS last year.

I hate that it only takes one awful adult to screw up citizen engagement on important topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

they'll possibly fine the tv station, but there is zero chance they will fine the speaker.

I wonder what the consequences will be down the line from this abuse...

No more school board broadcasts?

No more speaker time?

that would be a great look, how would the phrase it, "a mother read expects from a book found in a secondary school library that was so offensive that we can no longer have speakers at school board meetings"

Sorry you're dumb AF and haven't figured out context yet. Maybe have your fictional children explain it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

they'll possibly fine the tv station, but there is zero chance they will fine the speaker.

I wonder what the consequences will be down the line from this abuse...

No more school board broadcasts?

No more speaker time?

that would be a great look, how would the phrase it, "a mother read expects from a book found in a secondary school library that was so offensive that we can no longer have speakers at school board meetings"

Sorry you're dumb AF and haven't figured out context yet. Maybe have your fictional children explain it to you.

I'm sorry, if some makes you clutch your pearls so much if it's read in public, maybe it doesn't belong in a school library

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

they'll possibly fine the tv station, but there is zero chance they will fine the speaker.

I wonder what the consequences will be down the line from this abuse...

No more school board broadcasts?

No more speaker time?

Pekarsky and Keys Gamarra had a town hall last night, and I submitted this question. They didn’t answer it. But, they obviously can’t have this happen again. And look at LCPS to see where this crap leads— parent standing on tables yelling and spitting. Threats. Arrests. At a minimum, they are going to have to put public comments on a time delay so they can interrupt the broadcast of these “adults” and their Freedumbs. I think that’s a legally tough thing to do, because they are a governmental body making split second decisions about what to censor.

I guess their other options are to start the broadcast after public comments, stop public comments or post the meeting afterward with a warning if there is inappropriate content. I hope they don’t do the last one. I like having the livestreams. I I like to listen to them with my teen and tween. They should understand how the decisions fetching their schools are made, and one will be a 2024 voter.

I guess my vote would be to start broadcasting after public comments. I think the Indian community and virtual education is an example of a group using this process well. So was Open FCPS last year.

I hate that it only takes one awful adult to screw up citizen engagement on important topics.

the activists would love that because it would lead to lawsuits over viewpoint discrimination that they would end up winning. Either they have comments and deal with offensive material on occasion or they cut out the comments. I have no problem with them airing the meeting post comments because the rest will still likely be recorded by activists and posted if anything off the rails happens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't want to belabor this, but a government entity cannot restrict the scope of permissible speech at a hearing simply by broadcasting the hearing on TV. The speaker's First Amendment rights do not change simply because the hearing is broadcast. (The other examples cited above re FCC fines are not relevant because none involved political speech or a public forum.)

You are correct that freedom of expression is not absolute at a government meeting. But any restriction is subject to strict scrutiny. A restriction against quoting from the text of a book that is apparently in FCPS school libraries would never survive strict scrutiny. (Nor would an across-the-board ban on the use of certain language. A ban on profanity may survive a facial challenge -- it's viewpoint neutral and there is arguably a compelling government interest, though that's far from certain -- but it would never survive an as-applied challenge in the circumstances being discussed.)

Here is the short of it -- the content of books in school libraries is unquestionably a relevant topic for discussion at a school board meeting (irrespective of whether one has a problem with the content or does not). Quoting that content is also relevant to any discussion about the content. A government entity cannot shut down that speech simply because it may offend other listeners, absent truly extraordinary circumstances (this is essentially the heckler's veto doctrine).

Let’s see what the FCC says. I assume this mom got legal advice before doing this

they'll possibly fine the tv station, but there is zero chance they will fine the speaker.

I wonder what the consequences will be down the line from this abuse...

No more school board broadcasts?

No more speaker time?

that would be a great look, how would the phrase it, "a mother read expects from a book found in a secondary school library that was so offensive that we can no longer have speakers at school board meetings"

Sorry you're dumb AF and haven't figured out context yet. Maybe have your fictional children explain it to you.

I'm sorry, if some makes you clutch your pearls so much if it's read in public, maybe it doesn't belong in a school library

I don't mind hearing it. My HS kid doesn't mind hearing it.

My neighbor's 6 year old probably shouldn't have heard it though...