Why are book banners showing up at FCPS SB meetings

[Anonymous]

FCPS already cut public participation from 3 minutes to two minutes.

Some school boards make it even shorter.

Looks like there's a trend. Some school boards REALLY don't want parents inconveniencing elected officials with their opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FCPS already cut public participation from 3 minutes to two minutes.

Some school boards make it even shorter.

Looks like there's a trend. Some school boards REALLY don't want parents inconveniencing elected officials with their opinions.

Or maybe they just want to get business done. You can talk to your elected officials when you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS already cut public participation from 3 minutes to two minutes.

Some school boards make it even shorter.

Looks like there's a trend. Some school boards REALLY don't want parents inconveniencing elected officials with their opinions.

Or maybe they just want to get business done. You can talk to your elected officials when you want.

Office hours are always an option.

Email/letters...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So then changing a photo to a drawing changes the material from constituting criminal child porn, up to 20 years in prison, to a book worthy of 50 pages of defense? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS already cut public participation from 3 minutes to two minutes.

Some school boards make it even shorter.

Looks like there's a trend. Some school boards REALLY don't want parents inconveniencing elected officials with their opinions.

Or maybe they just want to get business done. You can talk to your elected officials when you want.

I attended Pekarsky and Keys Gamarra’s town hall last night. They took questions. There were only 24 people on the Zoom session. Including them and there assistants. 20 people got an hour of attention. They also had office hours pre-COVID. My rep still does them virtually. She also responds to email. They will engage. I mean, maybe not if you are abusive. But in general, you just need to be willing to show up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So then changing a photo to a drawing changes the material from constituting criminal child porn, up to 20 years in prison, to a book worthy of 50 pages of defense? Really?

Again. It was a stick figure. Not an identifiable kid. You can argue that the law should apply. But you are saying it does. And that’s a LIE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So then changing a photo to a drawing changes the material from constituting criminal child porn, up to 20 years in prison, to a book worthy of 50 pages of defense? Really?

Again. It was a stick figure. Not an identifiable kid. You can argue that the law should apply. But you are saying it does. And that’s a LIE

A stick figure? You're talking about the images in Gender Queer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So then changing a photo to a drawing changes the material from constituting criminal child porn, up to 20 years in prison, to a book worthy of 50 pages of defense? Really?

Again. It was a stick figure. Not an identifiable kid. You can argue that the law should apply. But you are saying it does. And that’s a LIE

I never said that. I simply quoted the virginia code. So you lie.

But repeating my point above, it's curious how sexually explicit visual material depicting a minor goes from being felonious to instead being worthy of almost 50 pages of defense, and PRAISE, by so many people when you use a drawing rather than a photo.

[Anonymous]

“ Again. It was a stick figure. Not an identifiable kid. ”

The images I saw were illustrations not a specific kid but they were not stick figures and they were VERY graphic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Again. It was a stick figure. Not an identifiable kid. ”

The images I saw were illustrations not a specific kid but they were not stick figures and they were VERY graphic

The image was of two adult females.

*for clarity, there is not a graphic image of a "kid"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Again. It was a stick figure. Not an identifiable kid. ”

The images I saw were illustrations not a specific kid but they were not stick figures and they were VERY graphic

The image was of two adult females.

*for clarity, there is not a graphic image of a "kid"

Right, they are both wrong. It was graphic images of two women.

Not stick figures. Not kids.

Still inappropriate for a MS library

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Again. It was a stick figure. Not an identifiable kid. ”

The images I saw were illustrations not a specific kid but they were not stick figures and they were VERY graphic

The image was of two adult females.

*for clarity, there is not a graphic image of a "kid"

Right, they are both wrong. It was graphic images of two women.

Not stick figures. Not kids.

Still inappropriate for a MS library

Though, I'll add that while the storyline makes it clear that the characters are NOT minors, they are drawn to look much younger than they really are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Again. It was a stick figure. Not an identifiable kid. ”

The images I saw were illustrations not a specific kid but they were not stick figures and they were VERY graphic

The image was of two adult females.

*for clarity, there is not a graphic image of a "kid"

Right, they are both wrong. It was graphic images of two women.

Not stick figures. Not kids.

Still inappropriate for a MS library

Though, I'll add that while the storyline makes it clear that the characters are NOT minors, they are drawn to look much younger than they really are.

Right. Its as if the publishers of Sailor Moon said "no, its not creepy. the character is 25", but then kept drawing her as a schoolgirl

[Anonymous]

I am all for cultural exploration but what exactly is there to explore in "Lawn Boy" by Paulsen? It's listed as 12+. Have you read the book? I am a 40 year old woman and I was disgusted by the so-called language in this "young adult" novel. I don't want my 12 year old to read this, let alone have access to this "literature". It doesn't belong in school libraries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am all for cultural exploration but what exactly is there to explore in "Lawn Boy" by Paulsen? It's listed as 12+. Have you read the book? I am a 40 year old woman and I was disgusted by the so-called language in this "young adult" novel. I don't want my 12 year old to read this, let alone have access to this "literature". It doesn't belong in school libraries.

Here you go:
https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/forms/is706.pdf

There is a process to have the book reviewed.