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:

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...

it's a school board meeting, there are topics that may not be appropriate for a six year old. Would you flip out if they discussed instances of teachers abusing students of what their plans are moving forward?

[Anonymous]

Virginia Criminal Code - just sayin

18.2-374.1

" 'Child pornography' means SEXUALLY EXPLICIT VISUAL MATERIAL which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor."

18.2-374.1:1

"C. Any person who knowingly . . . DISTRIBUTES . . . PURCHASES, or possesses with intent to . . . distribute, transmit, or display child pornography . . . shall be punished by not less than five years nor more than 20 years in a state correctional facility."

"F. For purposes of this section it may be inferred by text, title or appearance that a person who is depicted as or presents the appearance of being less than 18 years of age in sexually explicit visual material is less than 18 years of age."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If someone is being provocative and simply trolling for entertainment with no value added, then as stated, there's no value added, and we all wish those folks would head elsewhere. And there is an argument to be made that parents have can add more value based on experience. However, logic is logic, and if someone want to chime with a thoughtful response, then I'm all for it.

I do find the constant insertion politics and references to Trump / GOP astroturfers a bit annoying, as if that invalidates the argument that such content simply doesn't belong in school libraries. And I'd say the bulk of such arguments come from the left. Though, indeed, I've made a couple of comments regarding the left's use of faux outrage and motives to distract from the argument, as that is a tried and true (and unfortunately somewhat effective) tactic from the left. I'll repeat, if you can't attack the argument, attack the person making the argument. This is why the go-to argument from the left is to claim "racist" at every opportunity. Ugh, now I just inserted politics.

[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?

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

I think this is the best option. Start the broadcast after public comment. I think it’s ASAP because groups like Open FCPS last year and virtual option this year have used these sessions to effectively advance real concerns within the broader FCPS community. And they won’t be as effective if they can’t bring awareness to the huge virtual audience. But, now they have notice content nobody thinks is okay for young kids could be broadcast. They have to limit legal liability ad protect FCPS kids from the loonies.

I hate that’s what it’s going to take though.

We really can’t become LCPS. The inmates rerunning the asylum at their meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

it's a school board meeting, there are topics that may not be appropriate for a six year old. Would you flip out if they discussed instances of teachers abusing students of what their plans are moving forward?

If they explicitly described physical and sexual abuse without a trigger warning, and showed enlarged photos of bruises and welts? They don’t do that.

[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).

NBC just finished a 6 part podcast on Southlake Texas and their school board. It was about CRT, but that was just the issue that conservatives used to rally support to take over the board. There is absolutely a playbook and turning school board meetings into political theater is part of it.

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

I think this is the best option. Start the broadcast after public comment. I think it’s ASAP because groups like Open FCPS last year and virtual option this year have used these sessions to effectively advance real concerns within the broader FCPS community. And they won’t be as effective if they can’t bring awareness to the huge virtual audience. But, now they have notice content nobody thinks is okay for young kids could be broadcast. They have to limit legal liability ad protect FCPS kids from the loonies.

I hate that’s what it’s going to take though.

We really can’t become LCPS. The inmates rerunning the asylum at their meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

NBC just finished a 6 part podcast on Southlake Texas and their school board. It was about CRT, but that was just the issue that conservatives used to rally support to take over the board. There is absolutely a playbook and turning school board meetings into political theater is part of it.

NBC just finished a 6 part podcast on Southlake Texas and their school board. It was about CRT, but that was just the issue that conservatives used to rally support to take over the board. There is absolutely a playbook and turning school board meetings into political theater is part of it.

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

I think this is the best option. Start the broadcast after public comment. I think it’s ASAP because groups like Open FCPS last year and virtual option this year have used these sessions to effectively advance real concerns within the broader FCPS community. And they won’t be as effective if they can’t bring awareness to the huge virtual audience. But, now they have notice content nobody thinks is okay for young kids could be broadcast. They have to limit legal liability ad protect FCPS kids from the loonies.

I hate that’s what it’s going to take though.

We really can’t become LCPS. The inmates rerunning the asylum at their meetings.

[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:

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...

it's a school board meeting, there are topics that may not be appropriate for a six year old. Would you flip out if they discussed instances of teachers abusing students of what their plans are moving forward?

If they explicitly described physical and sexual abuse without a trigger warning, and showed enlarged photos of bruises and welts? They don’t do that.

so you're ok with your six year old listening to a discussion about teachers abusing students?

[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?

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

I think this is the best option. Start the broadcast after public comment. I think it’s ASAP because groups like Open FCPS last year and virtual option this year have used these sessions to effectively advance real concerns within the broader FCPS community. And they won’t be as effective if they can’t bring awareness to the huge virtual audience. But, now they have notice content nobody thinks is okay for young kids could be broadcast. They have to limit legal liability ad protect FCPS kids from the loonies.

I hate that’s what it’s going to take though.

We really can’t become LCPS. The inmates rerunning the asylum at their meetings.

NBC just finished a 6 part podcast on Southlake Texas and their school board. It was about CRT, but that was just the issue that conservatives used to rally support to take over the board. There is absolutely a playbook and turning school board meetings into political theater is part of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Virginia Criminal Code - just sayin

18.2-374.1

" 'Child pornography' means SEXUALLY EXPLICIT VISUAL MATERIAL which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor."

18.2-374.1:1

"C. Any person who knowingly . . . DISTRIBUTES . . . PURCHASES, or possesses with intent to . . . distribute, transmit, or display child pornography . . . shall be punished by not less than five years nor more than 20 years in a state correctional facility."

"F. For purposes of this section it may be inferred by text, title or appearance that a person who is depicted as or presents the appearance of being less than 18 years of age in sexually explicit visual material is less than 18 years of age."

What are you are you saying? There Is no identifiable minor.

[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:

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...

it's a school board meeting, there are topics that may not be appropriate for a six year old. Would you flip out if they discussed instances of teachers abusing students of what their plans are moving forward?

If they explicitly described physical and sexual abuse without a trigger warning, and showed enlarged photos of bruises and welts? They don’t do that.

so you're ok with your six year old listening to a discussion about teachers abusing students?

I ont have my kids listen to a restraint and seclusion meeting, no. But this meeting had a boring public agenda, plus a back to school update. The agenda was fine for kids. Th speaker, not s much.

I think starting the live-stream after speakers is a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

it's a school board meeting, there are topics that may not be appropriate for a six year old. Would you flip out if they discussed instances of teachers abusing students of what their plans are moving forward?

You mean explicitly describing sexual abuse?

Yes, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I literally DGAF about the school board.

I do GAF when GOP astroturfers try to hurt our schools and our kids.

You *legit* don’t like the books? Submit a request for review. Tell your kids not to read them. Don’t spread misinformation (it’s not pedophilia FFS) or throw a tantrum at the school board to get a spot on the RWNJ channels.

It’s intellectually dishonest to play dumb on the GOP’s role here.

So many cliches. Can you go away for a spell while people try to clean up this mess?

Truth hurts.

I'll be here calling out the astroturfers each and every time.

Repeating an earlier comment: This can't be an issue about parenting and what is appropriate for the school library. Try to engage, and you'll be attacked.

For the left, EVERY issue is about politics. Politics IS their religion, sadly. This is you.

If it were an issue about parenting, then parents would have brought it up with the librarian or principal. No, it had to be a big public spectacle. A political stunt.

And enough with the intellectual dishonesty. We all know WHY this is being discussed NOW and WHO is pushing it.

I do NOT want politics in school. And I certainly don't want politicians and their lackeys (hello, PDE) hurting our schools for their own personal benefit.

It's all about politics to you. In reality, though, it's very simple. A parent uncovered this mess and made it public. Why? Because sunlight is the best disinfectant. And now concerned parents like me are aware. You'd rather that such material fly below the radar. If you're proud of this material and believe it's appropriate, then why do you care if it's existence is made public?

Same. I would never have known. I am grateful she brought this to the attention of the school board!

Thank you. It’s been eye-opening to see just how proprietary some posters are about FCPS’s “right” to do whatever it wants, regardless of the views of parents, accompanied by the suggestion that any concerns about clearly obscene material should be meekly conveyed to some bureaucratic “committee” that can then find a way to conveniently ignore them.

No the materials committee is a long-established process, used by school and public libraries across the country for a long time. It's effective if you want to have say on the materials available (though it's not effective if you want to grandstand). You submit a complaint, it's reviewed very thoughtfully. They give all the perspectives weight and then a decision is made that you can then appeal. At that point, you could put your appeal to the School Board. The process is the same if you claim the material represents a racist perspective, is inappropriate for children, has inaccurate information. It's not ignored--it happens regularly at libraries throughout the country. It's not meek, it's effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If someone is being provocative and simply trolling for entertainment with no value added, then as stated, there's no value added, and we all wish those folks would head elsewhere. And there is an argument to be made that parents have can add more value based on experience. However, logic is logic, and if someone want to chime with a thoughtful response, then I'm all for it.

I do find the constant insertion politics and references to Trump / GOP astroturfers a bit annoying, as if that invalidates the argument that such content simply doesn't belong in school libraries. And I'd say the bulk of such arguments come from the left. Though, indeed, I've made a couple of comments regarding the left's use of faux outrage and motives to distract from the argument, as that is a tried and true (and unfortunately somewhat effective) tactic from the left. I'll repeat, if you can't attack the argument, attack the person making the argument. This is why the go-to argument from the left is to claim "racist" at every opportunity. Ugh, now I just inserted politics.

As stated multiple times previously, if you have a legit complaint about content there are ways of addressing it that aren’t political stunts.

This thread is about WHY book banners pulled this political stunt. If you want to start a sincere thread on actual books that you’ve actually read and have sincere concerns, please start a new thread.

[Anonymous]

This thread is about WHY book banners pulled this political stunt. If you want to start a sincere thread on actual books that you’ve actually read and have sincere concerns, please start a new thread.

My observation: She objected to the books and probably wanted the School Board and the public to be aware of what is in our public school libraries. I certainly had no idea. I will now pay far more attention to what materials are being purchased.

My opinion is still out on Lawn Boy as I have not read it. However, I believe that Gender Queer has no place in a school library. The pics posted online are enough for me to form my opinion.

And, from my own experience with contacting SB members--which have been few--the response has been disappointing. Form letters that did not address the specific question/complaint. In fact, since my responses came from her assistant, I question whether my member even read them.