Youngkin is a book banner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

I do. Why are you so afraid of it?

Would you also ban screenings of “Roots” in school?

How about Toni Morrison books?

No, I don’t support the government providing Toni Morrison books to kindergartners for many reasons.

I have not seen roots so I won’t comment but I have no issues based on the summary.

You people are really naive about the motivations of people who seek to normalize exposing children to sexual content.

Really? You oppose schools (not “the government”) giving Toni Morrison books to kindergartners? Heck, if a kindergartner could read and understand any Toni Morrison book that would make him a phenom.

I meant, as you knew full well, I was talking about its presence in secondary school curricula— notably AP courses— that flared as controversial when Youngkin was running. Some of those books contain — gasp — sexual situations. Should high school students be protected from it?

Roots is just straight-up woke CRT stuff. Divisive as hell since it makes white people feel guilty about slavery. Must be banned, right? Can’t make white children uncomfortable.

Can you read? I said that I would likely support “roots” in schools.

Sorry, I’m not going to engage with someone who disagrees with the factual statement that public schools (which I fully support) are part of the state.

It’s your emphasis on it that’s offensive. You sound like one of those people who sneer about “government schools.” As if government is bad.

Schools should teach comprehensive age-appropriate sex education, full stop. School libraries should contain a wide variety of materials, even things you might consider sexually explicit (but reasonable people do not.) They also should teach CRT and equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin is not only a book banner he is a liar.

VA better watch out or he will stay King of VA til the end of time.

School Choice too woo hoo VA voted in an idiot,racist POS

Awwwwww..... look kids, an unhinged human!

Better than a MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

Guess we can’t have any books with profanity. Or quotes by the orange POTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

I do. Why are you so afraid of it?

Would you also ban screenings of “Roots” in school?

How about Toni Morrison books?

No, I don’t support the government providing Toni Morrison books to kindergartners for many reasons.

I have not seen roots so I won’t comment but I have no issues based on the summary.

You people are really naive about the motivations of people who seek to normalize exposing children to sexual content.

Really? You oppose schools (not “the government”) giving Toni Morrison books to kindergartners? Heck, if a kindergartner could read and understand any Toni Morrison book that would make him a phenom.

I meant, as you knew full well, I was talking about its presence in secondary school curricula— notably AP courses— that flared as controversial when Youngkin was running. Some of those books contain — gasp — sexual situations. Should high school students be protected from it?

Roots is just straight-up woke CRT stuff. Divisive as hell since it makes white people feel guilty about slavery. Must be banned, right? Can’t make white children uncomfortable.

Can you read? I said that I would likely support “roots” in schools.

Sorry, I’m not going to engage with someone who disagrees with the factual statement that public schools (which I fully support) are part of the state.

"likely"?

[Anonymous]

Younkin wants to run for president on the backs of Virginians, so of course he's going to eventually go full right wing fruit loop like DeSantis, if possible..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

I do. Why are you so afraid of it?

Would you also ban screenings of “Roots” in school?

How about Toni Morrison books?

No, I don’t support the government providing Toni Morrison books to kindergartners for many reasons.

I have not seen roots so I won’t comment but I have no issues based on the summary.

You people are really naive about the motivations of people who seek to normalize exposing children to sexual content.

Really? You oppose schools (not “the government”) giving Toni Morrison books to kindergartners? Heck, if a kindergartner could read and understand any Toni Morrison book that would make him a phenom.

I meant, as you knew full well, I was talking about its presence in secondary school curricula— notably AP courses— that flared as controversial when Youngkin was running. Some of those books contain — gasp — sexual situations. Should high school students be protected from it?

Roots is just straight-up woke CRT stuff. Divisive as hell since it makes white people feel guilty about slavery. Must be banned, right? Can’t make white children uncomfortable.

Can you read? I said that I would likely support “roots” in schools.

Sorry, I’m not going to engage with someone who disagrees with the factual statement that public schools (which I fully support) are part of the state.

It’s your emphasis on it that’s offensive. You sound like one of those people who sneer about “government schools.” As if government is bad.

Schools should teach comprehensive age-appropriate sex education, full stop. School libraries should contain a wide variety of materials, even things you might consider sexually explicit (but reasonable people do not.) They also should teach CRT and equity.

Oh, but CRT isn't "taught," PP, remember? It's a totally made up thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

I do. Why are you so afraid of it?

Would you also ban screenings of “Roots” in school?

How about Toni Morrison books?

NP. It's not an issue of being "afraid" of it. The PP states that s/he doesn't support the government providing sexually explicit material to children and you state that you do.

Tell me that you're a perv without telling me that you're a perv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

I do. Why are you so afraid of it?

Would you also ban screenings of “Roots” in school?

How about Toni Morrison books?

NP. It's not an issue of being "afraid" of it. The PP states that s/he doesn't support the government providing sexually explicit material to children and you state that you do.

Tell me that you're a perv without telling me that you're a perv.

Yeah it is. Why are you afraid of the possibility that your child might go to a library and read these books?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of Youngkin but totally agree with the book banning.

Imagine standing up and saying, "Yes, I support banning books."

Banning certain books in schools?
Absolutely. There is no reason to have books that encourage heterosexual or homosexual sex through graphics.

Someone referenced Romeo and Juliet earlier...... If you have actually *read* Romeo and Juliet, you would know that Shakespeare did not graphically describe what they were doing.

I think people who believe some of these books should be available in schools are in the very small minority. And, most probably don't have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of Youngkin but totally agree with the book banning.

Imagine standing up and saying, "Yes, I support banning books."

Banning certain books in schools?
Absolutely. There is no reason to have books that encourage heterosexual or homosexual sex through graphics.

Someone referenced Romeo and Juliet earlier...... If you have actually *read* Romeo and Juliet, you would know that Shakespeare did not graphically describe what they were doing.

I think people who believe some of these books should be available in schools are in the very small minority. And, most probably don't have children.

You are so simple-minded and gullible.

I have children and am completely against censorship
I am for having educators and librarians pick out the best age appropriate books. Not screaming parent nut jobs.

If I don't want my child to pick out a book I will instruct them not too. Try some parenting, lady

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a fan of Youngkin but totally agree with the book banning.

Imagine standing up and saying, "Yes, I support banning books."

Banning certain books in schools?
Absolutely. There is no reason to have books that encourage heterosexual or homosexual sex through graphics.

Someone referenced Romeo and Juliet earlier...... If you have actually *read* Romeo and Juliet, you would know that Shakespeare did not graphically describe what they were doing.

I think people who believe some of these books should be available in schools are in the very small minority. And, most probably don't have children.

Well, there's an odd idea.

Does Peanuts encourage pulling the football away from someone about to kick it, through graphics? Does Good Night Moon encourage painting your room green, through graphics? Does Where The Wild Things Are encouraging letting the wild rumpus start, through graphics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

People seriously don’t seem to know how libraries work. Librarians exercise discretion in what they buy all the time. It’s called accessions. It’s why you see lots of copies of “Harry Potter” and no copies of “The Turner Diaries”. Yet no one accuses school librarians of being book banners for not keeping copies of The Anarchist Cookbook” in circulation. iIts certainly not due to the lack of demand, sadly.

So if we recognize that someone is going to make choices about what is and isn’t available in school libraries, then the argument isn’t really over “whether” it’s over “who”. And it’s certainly reasonable to want that power to be vested in someone subject to a transparent, democratic process. You might disagree, but it certainly has nothing to do with “book banning”.