In Idaho they just passed a new law making any thing LGBTQ+ adult material! And require people to be an adult! The Constitution? What Constitution?
Just look at Trump’s platform and Project 2025…
Isn’t it funny that Trump and the Republicans swear up and down that they are following Project 2025 but everything they do is in the Project 2025GOP law forces library to require ID from patrons under 30 to access “adult” books
The adult book section includes books with queer themes, something a new law defines as "sexual" content.
LGBTQ Nation
By Matt Keeley
July 23, 2024An Idaho library sign went viral on Reddit earlier this month for stating that all patrons under the age of 30 must show a photo ID proving that they’re above 18 years old to access an adults-only section. The sign is real, and it’s part of a troubling trend affecting librarians, communities, and free speech rights nationwide.
Earlier this year, Idaho’s Republican-led government passed House Bill 710, forcing libraries to recategorize challenged books — including children’s books with LGBTQ+ themes — as being for adults only. The law is similar to censorious legislation introduced in other red states, and a similar law could be enacted nationwide if former President Donald Trump gets reelected and puts Project 2025 into effect.
Just look at Trump’s platform and Project 2025…
One more nail in to the coffin...
Donald Trump’s running mate can’t claim he knew nothing about the extremist Project 2025 after this.The New RepublicRobert McCoyJuly 24, 2024As Trump desperately tries to separate his campaign from Project 2025, users on X have noted one big problem: J.D. Vance wrote the foreword to a forthcoming book by the plan’s lead author, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts.On the Amazon product page, the promotional material for the book, titled Dawn’s Early Light, highlights Roberts’s role in composing Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation proposal for a conservative overhaul of the federal government.The product page also includes a favorable review from Vance. “Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism,” the review says. “We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.”
But hey! He swears he is knows nothing about Project 2025!
Meanwhile children are being banned!
The Republicans are worried. They are afraid that the children will see the bigotry and animosity behind their policies… that they will see the lies for what they are.
The Republicans are always preaching “Parent’s Rights” but their hypocrisy is amazing, they scream and yell about the rights of parents to chose their education for their children but at the same time they are yanking LGBTQ+ books off the shelves for the parents to choose what their children read.
The First Amendment be damned!
Like I said, the Republicans don’t care about the court rulings.
And then we have the Republican VP candidate saying to blow-off the courts if the courts rule against Trump!
“R” is for going backwards
“D” is for going forwards.
Vote for the future… vote D.
When parents sign their child up to get a library card, they have the option to allow their kids to check out any books in the library, or to restrict them to the children’s section on the first floor, Wright said. If a child has a restricted library card, they must be accompanied by a parent to the third-floor adult library and sign an affidavit every single time they go to the adult section.
“Doing so acts as an affirmative defense if the parent were to later file an action against the library,” Wright said.
The vagueness of the statute has librarians like Scheline nervous about what could be challenged. She says, hypothetically, that a patron could object to a children’s book about two mothers who go to a parent-teacher conference. In that instance, she would have to file that book alongside literature actually meant for adults, where it would never get circulated among young readers.
“We have children in our school district who have same-sex parents. And those children deserve to see themselves reflected in literature. They deserve to go to the shelf that is designed for children, and they deserve to check out a book that reflects their home life,” she said. “And I will not, will not, move those books and begrudge those children of books that reflect themselves in literature. It does not matter what my views are on the book itself. I will not move the book.”
“Those are the only problems I’ve had at the library. But yet, here the government is, ‘Let’s go ahead and reach our big giant long arm onto this little tiny library and create a penalty if they have LGBTQ books in their kids section. Let’s not just give them a slap on the hand, because they’re promoting homosexuality. Let’s go ahead and slap them with the $250 fines, plus civil penalties. Because God forbid that we’d be a modern society in 2024. We don’t want our children to be subjected to kindness, humility, virtue and gentleness.’ So that is how I feel about the bill,” Scheline said.
In 1982 the Supreme Court…Tallahassee DemocratBy Douglas Soule USA NetworkJuly 24, 2024Another legal battle has begun over Florida's book bans, with significant stakes, as the sued school district is launching a controversial defense that could shake First Amendment law nationwide.[...]Facing a federal lawsuit over its removal and restriction of school library books, county school district officials say such decisions are actually protected by the First Amendment, which they are accused of violating."(Our) actions constitute government speech for which no First Amendment protections attach," they wrote in a Friday court filing.That argument has also been used multiple times in the courts by Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration and other school districts, who maintain that governments can remove any school library book regardless of reason.It's set off alarm bells for many First Amendment advocates, some labeling it as authoritarianism. Its appearance in another case creates another chance that a judge agrees with the argument, potentially elevating it to higher courts where far-reaching precedent could be set.
No, of course not. The Republicans don’t care what the courts have ruled, they want to make a point, being that they are tough on gays (The right-wing conservative consider all LGBTQ+ people as “gay”) and then when the law gets overturned they blame it of the liberal activist judges.Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. issued an opinion 40 years ago asserting that under the First Amendment, “Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.”
You might think that such a statement would put an end to the current trend among legislators and school officials of banning books that are deemed to be unsettling or inappropriate for students.
Strangely enough, even though Supreme Court precedents usually last for a long time, Brennan’s forceful 1982 pronouncement opposing the removal of books from school libraries has mostly been ignored. The opinion that Brennan issued was in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico.
The Pico decision “may well be the most overlooked Supreme Court decision involving students’ rights in the nation’s history,” said Yale Law School professor Justin Driver in an interview. Driver is the author of “The Schoolhouse Gate,” a book about students’ First Amendment rights.
And then we have the Republican VP candidate saying to blow-off the courts if the courts rule against Trump!
Like I said the Republicans just ignore the laws that they don’t like and follow the ones they like.In the days since Judge Aileen Cannon issued her inexplicable 93-page dismissal of the classified-documents case against Donald Trump, I’ve been coming back to something JD Vance said on a podcast in 2021.
Mr. Vance, the Ohio senator and now Mr. Trump’s running mate, predicted on the podcast that the former president, who had been recently disgraced by his insurrectionary attempt to overturn the 2020 election, would nevertheless run again in 2024. Should Mr. Trump win, Mr. Vance said, he had some advice: “Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.” And if the courts ruled against him? No problem, Mr. Vance said: Just blow them off.
“We are in a late republican period,” he added, alluding to weakness in the ancient Roman Republic. “If we’re going to push back against it, we have to get pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.”
His interviewer, Jack Murphy, prominent in the right-wing pro-masculinity world, agreed and said, “Among some of my circle, the phrase ‘extra-constitutional’ has come up quite a bit.” Mr. Murphy said it was necessary “to become a little more robust in our behavior” in order to “refound the country,” and Mr. Vance responded, “That’s exactly right.”
“R” is for going backwards
“D” is for going forwards.
Vote for the future… vote D.
But not all the news is bad...
July 24, 2024Gay and transgender “panic” defenses are no longer viable in Michigan courtrooms under legislation signed Tuesday by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.Michigan is the 20th state to outlaw such defenses, which allow individuals accused of violent crimes to receive lesser sentences by arguing that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity caused them to panic. While gay and trans “panic” defenses — referred to collectively as the LGBTQ “panic” defense — are not freestanding defenses, they are used in conjunction with other legal strategies to reduce the severity of charges or sentencing.Michigan’s law significantly expands legal protections for LGBTQ people against discrimination, prejudice and hate crimes by specifying that a defendant cannot use a person’s actual or perceived identity to demonstrate “reasonable provocation” or to show they acted in the heat of passion.
Connecticut passed a similar law back in 2019, PA19-27 AN ACT CONCERNING GAY AND TRANSGENDER PANIC DEFENSE.
No comments:
Post a Comment