Anonymous
09/25/2021 16:12
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Fine with me. In general, I am anti censorship but I am certainly not going to die on the hill of “Lawn Boy.”
I personally don't think it's worth defending, but on the other hand, it is worth defending as it will just lead to parents combing over tons of books in the library, trigging these challenges, and tying up educators who are just trying to get kids reading and back in the groove of school this year. Censorship is a slippery slope.
Frankly, there are TONS of great books out there for kids to read. The books in question don't fit into the category of "great books." If you want your kid to read them, buy them or go to a public library.
I am a former educator and not keen on book banning, but I also believe schools should be selective about the books they purchase for their libraries given limited funding.
Why aren’t they “great”?
Because they are way too sexually explicit for a high school library. They are porn.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 16:05
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Fine with me. In general, I am anti censorship but I am certainly not going to die on the hill of “Lawn Boy.”
I personally don't think it's worth defending, but on the other hand, it is worth defending as it will just lead to parents combing over tons of books in the library, trigging these challenges, and tying up educators who are just trying to get kids reading and back in the groove of school this year. Censorship is a slippery slope.
Frankly, there are TONS of great books out there for kids to read. The books in question don't fit into the category of "great books." If you want your kid to read them, buy them or go to a public library.
I am a former educator and not keen on book banning, but I also believe schools should be selective about the books they purchase for their libraries given limited funding.
Why aren’t they “great”?
Curious about this as well seeing as the actual literary review journals that librarians use to select books gave both of these books pretty solidly positive reviews.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 15:48
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Don’t kid yourself. Those books will not be back.
The books are fine and will be back after the idiotic MAGA parents move on to their next target of faux outrage.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 15:46
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Fine with me. In general, I am anti censorship but I am certainly not going to die on the hill of “Lawn Boy.”
I personally don't think it's worth defending, but on the other hand, it is worth defending as it will just lead to parents combing over tons of books in the library, trigging these challenges, and tying up educators who are just trying to get kids reading and back in the groove of school this year. Censorship is a slippery slope.
Frankly, there are TONS of great books out there for kids to read. The books in question don't fit into the category of "great books." If you want your kid to read them, buy them or go to a public library.
I am a former educator and not keen on book banning, but I also believe schools should be selective about the books they purchase for their libraries given limited funding.
Why aren’t they “great”?
Anonymous
09/25/2021 15:45
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Fine with me. In general, I am anti censorship but I am certainly not going to die on the hill of “Lawn Boy.”
I personally don't think it's worth defending, but on the other hand, it is worth defending as it will just lead to parents combing over tons of books in the library, trigging these challenges, and tying up educators who are just trying to get kids reading and back in the groove of school this year. Censorship is a slippery slope.
Frankly, there are TONS of great books out there for kids to read. The books in question don't fit into the category of "great books." If you want your kid to read them, buy them or go to a public library.
I am a former educator and not keen on book banning, but I also believe schools should be selective about the books they purchase for their libraries given limited funding.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 15:44
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
+1
There is no pedophilia or pornography.
Asra is pushing lies as part of a GOP astroturfing effort in FCPS.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 15:34
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Fine with me. In general, I am anti censorship but I am certainly not going to die on the hill of “Lawn Boy.”
I personally don't think it's worth defending, but on the other hand, it is worth defending as it will just lead to parents combing over tons of books in the library, trigging these challenges, and tying up educators who are just trying to get kids reading and back in the groove of school this year. Censorship is a slippery slope.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 15:34
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Don’t kid yourself. Those books will not be back.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 15:32
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Fine with me. In general, I am anti censorship but I am certainly not going to die on the hill of “Lawn Boy.”
Anonymous
09/25/2021 15:25
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
The books were pulled and the review process triggered. This is not the SB agreeing that they are inappropriate. It is forming a committee as laid out in the regulation about school library material challenges.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 14:47
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Apparently the school board agrees that it is. The books were both pulled.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 14:46
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
I just can’t with your post. Ick.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 14:43
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
You are completely nuts.
There is no “pedophilia” in either book.
A cartoon drawing of a sexual act is not pornography unless it is objectively indented to sexually arouse the reader. Is it prurient and salacious? It is ridiculous to claim so. No kid - not even in 7th grade, is turning to page 46 of a graphic novel about queerness in order to get off. Actual porn is right in his hands on his phone. It’s not 1923.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 14:38
Subject: School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Poor kids. Whatever happened to just reading Judy Blume?
forever by Judy Blume was one of the most challenged books when I was a kid. Selective memory.
Anonymous
09/25/2021 14:31
Subject: Re:School Board Meeting 9/23
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think we forget that some kids in our schools have been subject to sexual trauma.
To Kill a Mockingbird triggered my sexual trauma in school. It was required reading and I had to write an essay on it. So there was no option and my parents didn’t know the book or of my sexual trauma so I felt I had no where to turn.
Sure, exposing kids to all the bad things that happen in the world can seem like you are doing them some good when they have this far lived rather carefree, but some kids have been exposed to this in real life not just on paper and don’t yet have the ability to even process it.
Having it on a bookshelf in a school library, a space that should feel safe, and coming across it accidentally or by required reading should not happen there. Not where they should feel safe and where they spend the majority of their youth.
There was no rape scene because Mayella Sewell was not raped. There were implications that her father had possibly sexually abused her, but there was NO rape in the book. Just a rape trial, and the word rape.
Interesting. Especially since the rape scene was not described, as I recall. You were asked to write an essay on rape? Certainly, the book revolved around the defense of a rape, but I don't recall any graphic details. I've read it more than once but it's been many years, so perhaps I don't recall. But, I sure don't remember a rape scene.