Virginia high school banned “To Kill a Mockingbird” “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn”

originally posted by: DBCowboy
For everyone who applauds the school board and the parent, I imagine you'd also support the situation if the parent didn't want sex-ed taught, or Islam taught, or evolution taught.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Sex Ed (learning about your body, hygiene and consequences of sexual activity) equals casual use of the N-Word?

Teaching about religions equals casual use of the N-Word?

Teaching a scientific theory..Equals casual use of the N-Word?

Honestly very curious how your logic centers operate.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I am well aware of the Puritanism of the right, and we can go back In time to face them together. But now, it isn't the right we have to worry about...yet.

a reply to: Indigo5

It just has to be a complaint filed by the parent.

Apparently you're good with that.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DBCowboy

How are you sure of that, precisely?

I am just curious, because no mention of such a thing has been made as of yet. As far as anyone in this thread is aware, the books are still on library shelves in the school district concerned.

Chris Holland, the superintendent for Accomack County Public Schools, confirmed the book had been suspended while they took measures to determine if it should be permanently banned.

milo.yiannopoulos.net...

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No problem with it. But Annee did not supplied any coherent argumentation. What I understand is: "Old world is bad" and "We are living in much better, future world".

We are living in capitalistic society and peasants should be disciplined exactly as Annee show us. It is called conformity.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Both sides are guilty of this. I know you're on a mission and all that - but, seriously:

Censorship in the United States
An Illustrated History and Timeline

Old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, toothless Adams," one supporter of challenger Thomas Jefferson called the incumbent president. But Adams got the last laugh, signing a bill in 1798 that made it illegal to criticize a government official without backing up one's criticisms in court. 25 people were arrested under the law, though Jefferson pardoned its victims after he defeated Adams in the 1800 election.

Later sedition acts focused primarily on punishing those who advocated civil disobedience. The Sedition Act of 1918, for example, targeted draft resisters.

If you're looking for a clear-cut villain in the history of U.S. censorship, you've found him.

In 1872, feminist Victoria Woodhull published an account of an affair between a celebrity evangelical minister and one of his parishioners. Comstock, who despised feminists, requested a copy of the book under a fake name, then reported Woodhull and had her arrested on obscenity charges.

He soon became head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, where he successfully campaigned for a 1873 federal obscenity law, commonly referred to as the Comstock Act, that allowed warrantless searches of the mail for "obscene" materials.

Comstock later boasted that during his career as censor, his work led to the suicides of 15 alleged "smut-peddlers."

Like the Hays Code, the Comics Code Authority is a voluntary industry standard. Because comics are still primarily read by children, and because it has historically been less binding on retailers than the Hays Code was on distributors, the CCA is less dangerous than its film counterpart. This may be why it is still in use today, though most comic book publishers ignore it and no longer submit material for CCA approval.

The driving force behind the CCA was the fear that violent, dirty, or otherwise questionable comics might turn children into juvenile delinquents--the central thesis of Frederic Wertham's 1954 bestseller Seduction of the Innocent (which also argued, less credibly, that the Batman-Robin relationship might turn children gay).

The massive military study titled United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, later known as the Pentagon Papers, was supposed to be classified. But when excerpts of the document were leaked to the New York Times in 1971, which published them, all hell broke loose--with President Richard Nixon threatening to have journalists indicted for treason, and federal prosecutors attempting to block further publication. (They had reason to do so; the documents revealed that U.S. leaders had--among other things--specifically taken measures to prolong and escalate the unpopular war.)

In June 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Times could legally publish the Papers.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 mandated a federal prison sentence of up to two years for anyone who...

uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.

The Supreme Court mercifully struck the Act down in ACLU v. Reno (1997), but the concept of the bill was revived with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998, which criminalized any content deemed "harmful to minors." Courts immediately blocked COPA, which was formally struck down in 2009.

1918 The Sedition Act of 1918 targets anarchists, socialists, and other left-wing activists who opposed U.S. participation in World War I. Its passage, and the general climate of authoritarian law enforcement that surrounded it, marks the closest the United States has ever come to adopting an officially fascist, nationalist model of government.

Text 1940 The Alien Registration Act of 1940 (named the Smith Act after its sponsor, Rep. Howard Smith of Virginia) targeted anyone who advocated that the United States government be overthrown or otherwise replaced (which, just as it had during World War I, usually meant left-wing pacifists) - and also required that all adult non-citizens register with government agencies for monitoring. The Supreme Court later substantially weakened the Smith Act with its 1957 rulings in Yates v. United States and Watkins v. United States.

1969 In Tinker v. Des Moines, a case in which students were punished for wearing black armbands in protest against the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court held that public school and university students do receive some First Amendment free speech protection.

The bizarre war against AP U.S. history courses

It started at least 90 years ago with evolution, when Tennessee banned the teaching of any theory that contradicted the biblical story of the divine creation of man, leading to the infamous Scopes monkey trial. The Supreme Court ultimately struck down such laws, but battles over teaching, or not teaching, evolution in public schools continue to this day. Many parts of the country that have relaxed their objections to teaching evolution have now pivoted to try to ban or sabotage teaching about climate change. Sex ed — at least the kind that actually educates kids about sex, rather than its absence — has come under similar attacks. Now, more recently, states have started trying to ban the teaching of U.S. history.

After facing national criticism, Fisher withdrew his bill this week and said he plans to submit a new one requiring a state “review” of the AP course rather than its complete defunding. But Oklahoma is far from alone in wanting to reinvent the wheel by creating its own, allegedly more patriotic version of advanced coursework. Policymakers in Georgia, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina and Colorado have agitated to scrap or doctor the AP course, citing its “liberal bias” and supposed focus on U.S. “blemishes.” The Republican National Committee likewise called on Congress last year to withhold funding from the nonprofit that developed the course, the College Board, because its AP course “emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.” In Colorado, where a local school board proposed revamping the AP curriculum to make sure it does “not encourage or condone civil disorder [or] social strife,” some brave students decided to demonstrate the virtues of civil disorder and social strife by peacefully protesting.

There's obviously more

I wonder why it is you can't be honest about history - or human nature?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DBCowboy

How are you sure of that, precisely?

I am just curious, because no mention of such a thing has been made as of yet. As far as anyone in this thread is aware, the books are still on library shelves in the school district concerned.

Chris Holland, the superintendent for Accomack County Public Schools, confirmed the book had been suspended while they took measures to determine if it should be permanently banned.

milo.yiannopoulos.net...

Milo Yiannopoulos...Banned from twitter for trolling black celebrities with racist tweets.

Briebart's/Bannon's emissary to the Alt-Right..

And I have watched his talks and read his material..He is simply a horrible person to his core.

In one interview he admits he is likely a sociopath and is proud of that.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Actually, I titled it based on the article. As per the rules.

But you didn't bother to correct it in your OP

Either because you believed it - or you agreed with it

Your position is clear - so why try to squirm out of it?

If you want banning and censorship, just admit it.

Questioning people's integrity? Just because someone calls you on something doesn't mean they're for censorship

The book is banned.

You're either for banning or against it.

So many are dancing around it. At least some members simply state they want it banned and aren't playing word games to justify the ban.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The book is banned.

Is it?

What's involved with an actual ban? How are they planning on enforcing this ban?

After 22 pages of this nonsense I can do summary:

There are people who believe they can create bubble world. They can. I do not want to live in bubble.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Both sides are guilty of this. I know you're on a mission and all that - but, seriously:

Perhaps...But only one ideology right now is attacking a local school district for selecting it's own literature.

The bible is allowed to be taught in schools..as long as it is presented in a secular, non-evangelical manner for educational purposes.

The left has never contested children learning about the bible in public schools, only the teaching of the Bible for religious promotional purposes.

The right has regularly complained about Islam being included in any curriculum of religions of the world.

Now they are complaining that a work of fiction which uses the N-Word casually might be excluded from some small school district in VA.

It seems to me that their is only one ideology that is looking to censor and mandate state and city level educational material right now and over-ride local school board decisions.

"States Rights"...like "Fiscal Conservatism" and many other things Conservatives used to claim as pillars of their platform apparently were early days "Fake News"

a reply to: JanAmosComenius

What I understand is: "Old world is bad" and "We are living in much better, future world".

Our world is and isn't better - that's up for discussion too. These things we hold dear - like the classics? We're free (at least for now) to question them. Same as evolution - same as the Bible

The magic is in the discussion

She's entitled to her opinion. We are all also free to question the rules

Or, are we not?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The book is banned.

No it isn't?

Why are you repeating that lie after we just got done explaining your fake headline?

In response to a formal complaint from a parent, Accomack County Public Schools Superintendent Chris Holland said the district has appointed a committee to recommend whether the books should remain in the curriculum and stay in school libraries.

District policy calls for the formation of the committee — which can include a principal, teachers and parents — when a parent formally files a complaint.

Link

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
After 22 pages of this nonsense I can do summary:

There are people who believe they can create bubble world. They can. I do not want to live in bubble.

It's a safe space and a very artificial one.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well then...

That is outrageous. For the record, and by the record, I mean for the feckless, lazy cretins who have not read my participation in the thread thus far, and would have known if they did what my opinion on the matter is...

I think that is terrible. Banning a book on these grounds is like banning chemistry classes because bombs have chemicals in them.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Everybody is entitled to have opinion. But if you are engaged in policy discussion, you should use some common tools like logic. Annee is right to be offended by those books, and she supplied "reason" why she is offended. But I do not understand it. May be in your words. What is bad on those books?

a reply to: Indigo5

I agree with you. If you doubt me, you should read through my list of examples :-)

But, in all honesty Indigo - at different points in history, in different countries, and even in our own - it happens on all sides. It's human nature. We should acknowledge that because it's the truth

At this particular point in time here in our own country I think we need to be able to have these discussions without naming a villain. Certain people (as we can all see) are on a mission. They need an enemy. They can't have this discussion without an enemy

It's a weakness that a lot of people can't resist. The fact that people won't discuss the value of freedom of speech without trying to take it away from one group of people should be a warning sign for everyone. This thread is an attack on Liberals/Progressives - even though nobody can actually prove that that's who's behind this story. The story isn't even about a ban - yet

So - we can make the facts be whatever we want - again. This is what you and I should be fighting for now - that people speak plainly and honestly - using real, verifiable facts

a reply to: TrueBrit

The idea that they would even consider a permanent ban is frightening and very indicative of where we might be heading.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No problem with it. But Annee did not supplied any coherent argumentation. What I understand is: "Old world is bad" and "We are living in much better, future world".

We are living in capitalistic society and peasants should be disciplined exactly as Annee show us. It is called conformity.

You have a vivid imagination.

Lets make these required reading instead.

I Am Jazz

Rethinking Normal: A Memoir in Transition

Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality

Making Gay History: The Half Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights