Virginia republicans go to court to ban books from being SOLD in Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do they think this is pedophelia - - where is the age of the people in the artwork noted? Looks like two men to me.

One does look younger than the other, but neither of them look like children. I think three may be a certain degree of projection going on by some people who claim to see pedophilia.

I don't remember what the one in the book looks like, it's also not an exact copy but artist's interpretation. But even if this were an exact copy of some ancient art, why does it belong in a book geared towards the teenagers? The book is popular and controversial, probably a lot of copies around, so this image gets a LOT of eyeballs. On the other hand, an ancient art piece in a dusty corner of some academic museum gets very little eye-traffic probably, especially by minors. By taking this image from academic obscurity and making it very public you are essentially "advertising" and promoting this image to wide audiences. It's precisely the problem parents have - promotion of certain materials to minors, not mere existence of these materials (especially in academic settings) that have low probability reaching their kid's eyeballs.

+1
And this is only one of the graphic images in this book. Describing the others gets a big "FORBIDDEN" sign, which is beyond ironic. But the gaslighting will predictably continue, even after these deniers have been proven wrong, again and again. Seems they actually *want* kids to view these pictures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do they think this is pedophelia - - where is the age of the people in the artwork noted? Looks like two men to me.

One does look younger than the other, but neither of them look like children. I think three may be a certain degree of projection going on by some people who claim to see pedophilia.

I don't remember what the one in the book looks like, it's also not an exact copy but artist's interpretation. But even if this were an exact copy of some ancient art, why does it belong in a book geared towards the teenagers? The book is popular and controversial, probably a lot of copies around, so this image gets a LOT of eyeballs. On the other hand, an ancient art piece in a dusty corner of some academic museum gets very little eye-traffic probably, especially by minors. By taking this image from academic obscurity and making it very public you are essentially "advertising" and promoting this image to wide audiences. It's precisely the problem parents have - promotion of certain materials to minors, not mere existence of these materials (especially in academic settings) that have low probability reaching their kid's eyeballs.

Then don’t buy the book. But the idea that bookstores in Virginia should be prohibited from selling it because you don’t want your kids to see it is absolutely ridiculous.

It's not about me or any individuals. It's all about how this book can be technically classified. If it is admitted that it contains imagery of children in sexual situations then some busy lawyers certainly can make a case to classify it as "child porn". I am not a lawyer and cannot comment on whether to classify something as child porn it has to be actual photo/video and cannot be drawings/art/text. Can books be classified as any type of pornography? If they are then they are subject to legal action, and there is no argument to make, it's not about politics or left vs. right, conservative vs. progressive. It's all about the law that prohibits ownership and distribution of imagery where children are depicted in sexual context. If it's classified this way, it's gone not only in VA, but the entire US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genderqueer has a Greek style drawing of a naked adult man touching the penis of a child

Prove it

Go buy the book from a bookstore and see. But don't post the pic here, it's NSFW.

Better keep your kids out of museums with Ancient Greek art and pottery since that's where the drawing came from.

When are you freaks going to try to close down the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England for displaying such smut? It's only been there since 1683.

https://collections.ashmolean.org/collection/search/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/relevance/object/24343

The image to at RWNJs are getting so worked up about (which is on page 136 of the book) is copied from this Ancient Greek art posted by someone pages back in this thread. It is currently on display at the Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, which is part of University of Oxford.

This kind of ignorance is why it is impossible to take you book banner seriously. You simply have no clue what you are talking about.

Why do they think this is pedophelia - - where is the age of the people in the artwork noted? Looks like two men to me.

One does look younger than the other, but neither of them look like children. I think three may be a certain degree of projection going on by some people who claim to see pedophilia.

I don't remember what the one in the book looks like, it's also not an exact copy but artist's interpretation. But even if this were an exact copy of some ancient art, why does it belong in a book geared towards the teenagers? The book is popular and controversial, probably a lot of copies around, so this image gets a LOT of eyeballs. On the other hand, an ancient art piece in a dusty corner of some academic museum gets very little eye-traffic probably, especially by minors. By taking this image from academic obscurity and making it very public you are essentially "advertising" and promoting this image to wide audiences. It's precisely the problem parents have - promotion of certain materials to minors, not mere existence of these materials (especially in academic settings) that have low probability reaching their kid's eyeballs.

Then don’t buy the book. But the idea that bookstores in Virginia should be prohibited from selling it because you don’t want your kids to see it is absolutely ridiculous.

It's not about me or any individuals. It's all about how this book can be technically classified. If it is admitted that it contains imagery of children in sexual situations then some busy lawyers certainly can make a case to classify it as "child porn". I am not a lawyer and cannot comment on whether to classify something as child porn it has to be actual photo/video and cannot be drawings/art/text. Can books be classified as any type of pornography? If they are then they are subject to legal action, and there is no argument to make, it's not about politics or left vs. right, conservative vs. progressive. It's all about the law that prohibits ownership and distribution of imagery where children are depicted in sexual context. If it's classified this way, it's gone not only in VA, but the entire US.

Well, the judge disagreed with you.