Ban
 

Law is an example of something that is un-enforceable and not necessary due to the fact that responsible parents can monitor and control access on a devise.


N

It is books in the school library. Of course, kids could get an older friend to buy the book online or wherever. Or get it from a public library.

I volunteered at a Palm Harbor, FL library from 2000 through 2003 or so and recall one young lady who was checking out all kinds of romance novels. The very racy kind.

Yes there are some people who shouldn't have children. Some of them might not even want them. If only there was some medical procedure that could prevent the birth of unwanted children to girls and women who were victims of crimes against their bodies, that didn't require that the conception be identified before most women even know they're pregnant.

Kids under 16 shouldn't even have phones!

The Senate is planning on passing it. And the Governor will sign off on it.

Not according to the Governor, at least not in its current form.

Some of us got past the Dick and Jane books and were on to bigger and better things. School libraries, that I knew of, never had ONLY required reading in them. We were allowed to select any book we wanted, there was no section we weren't "allowed" to check. If I, in 3rd grade, wanted to read Catcher in the Rye, I could check the book out. if I, in 7th grade, wanted to return to Dick and Jane, I could. If I was reading Catcher in the Rye in 3rd grade and didn't understand a concept I'd ask my parents. And they would explain.

Of course, that would require that the parents be directly involved in the upbringing of their own children.

That ship has sailed. A variety of classic literature has been banned in various public schools for decades. In Florida, if a girl REALLY has to go to the bathroom, but the girl's room is full and the boy's room is empty, she just has to pee in her pants. Or else risk breaking the law by going into the boy's room. In Florida public schools, if the kids are talking about what they want to be when they grow up, Johnny isn't ALLOWED to say "I want to be like my two mommies, they're both doctors!" If 13-year-old Susie, who only just started menstruating a year before and her periods aren't regular yet, becomes victim of a crime by her uncle and becomes pregnant, she has to give birth all because she didn't know she was pregnant until she was in her third month, and by the time she was able to schedule an abortion, she would've been in her 16th week, and that is illegal in Florida. Parents of minor children living in poverty could've received an extra $120/month in the summer to accommodate the lunches their kids can't get in school, while school is out for the summer. But Florida chose to reject that. That amounts to less than $1.50 per day per kid for 5 days per week, to help offset the cost of lunches for those kids.

Children in Florida have no rights. Florida forces women to give birth in the name of "right to life" but once that life is outside the womb, Florida doesn't want to know about it.

really
 

how will they enforce that??

Well one can agree or disagree that a child engaged on a learning site as a child curbs public displays of unhappiness. (Think how many hate children in restaurants in TV)

Tablets and phones Very helpful when a child is autistic, just for the parents well being.

Our son, Behavioral Psychologist for autistic children, programs phones and tablets that are providing much needed help for child and parents.

A phone and a four year old autistic child can be a godsend no matter how you look at it.

The bill doesn't prohibit children from accessing social media, the bill prohibits social media from establishing accounts for children. The onus is on the social media site to verify the age of the account holder and disallow accounts from those under a certain age.

I believe the bill says the personal identification information that is used for verification cannot be retained by the social media site. To me, this means there will be no proof that verification was performed.

Social media sites cannot ask for verification from just those under 18; how would they know? They must ask for verification from everyone. This means you and I will need to provide personal information to X, FB, ToTV, and others in order to keep our accounts.

One possible approach (taken by some porn sites in other states) is to block access for the entire state. Those with VPNs may be able to get around this though even then their experience will be be lessened since the site won't know where you actually are.

Enforcement: The Department of Legal Affairs is authorized to adopt rules to bring action for violations of the new statutes. It seems to be unclear how it will be enforced.

So, are we asking parents to monitor their child's social media or they will be fined or punished in some other way? Hmmm...would love to hear how that law will be enforced.

That is not at all what the bill says.

On the other hand, holding parents accountable for what they allow or enable their children to do to others is not such a bad idea.

Outrage
 

Oh the outrage! Parents shouldn’t care about their children or their habits /s

We selected any book we wanted also, age appropriate. So how would Catcher in the Rye appeal to a third grader?

There are so many wonderful, educational, mind and character building books available for children under the age of eighteen. Why not allow access for the more mature subject matter after turning 18?

I think your post is extremely political.

Or the cruelest…

And thus, witnessing the collapse of society and humanity. Stay tuned…

Is that the freedom to bully, attack, sexually exploit and harm other children. Some freedom!

It’s about the collapse of society and ruination of our future, our children. Swirling the drain…

Allow access? As if access should be denied until the Govt chooses to allow it? That seems to be the opposite of how our Constitution is written: Govt stays out of the way until it can present a very good reason to interfere.

No books should be banned without a very good reason. Essentially, the written word should be considered speech and afforded first amendment protections. Parents can choose what comes into their homes, private businesses can choose what is discussed within their walls, social media companies can choose what topics are allowed, but Govt (schools, public libraries) should not be allowed to censor speech simply because they don't like the message.

What is wrong about choosing appropriate mind and character building books for children to read while preventing access to more mature material? I don't trust those who desire to force those choices on parents. Too often those who demand to control access to information use words like "indoctrination" and "target" in their justifications. I fear that their choice of "appropriate" books will train the next generation to be just as intolerant as they are. Not all books would be banned, only those with the "wrong" viewpoint. I would prefer that future generations learn about all viewpoints.

Or the government trying to save our children because parents can’t figure out how to do that.

So many holes in this… if all parents were paying attention or had an interest in what their minor children are being exposed to at school, these reading levels would be established for children and adults.

I’m thinking I am far more tolerant than you espouse to be since many of the social issues being addressed are within our extended family.

Did you and others ever question yourselves as to how you are able to function at this point without being subjected to all books available on the planet since first grade? Don’t you wonder how skewed your perspective is since you couldn’t read all books from age 6 to 18? (Do these books mean different things if read after the age of eighteen?)

Right! Also, how do we expect sexual predators to operate without access to children?


It would be interesting to see how many parents who work in IT Administration and Security allow their young children access to social media.

It seems a lot of parents disagree with that characterization and with the book banning that is happening in schools. They *want* the choice but the choice is being taken from them.

Is that the "I can't be _____ I have a _____ friend" argument?

"Diary of Anne Frank" and "Huckleberry Finn" before I was a teenager. Wish "The Bluest Eye" had been available back then. I actually see how my perspective was skewed by NOT reading more of the viewpoints that are being censored today. I would have been a kinder, more understanding, and less prejudiced young adult if I had been exposed to a more diverse experience in school.

Few children live such sheltered lives and I doubt your parents would have let you read those books from the sound of it. We were raised to have empathy.

I remember clearly the our child’s friend complained our child talked to everyone, even the retarded child on the bus. I smiled and explained we taught our children we are all equal, no one is superior. The friend looked at me for a moment and then shook his head affirmatively. Teaching moment coming from a parent and that’s what is missing. All the books in the world can’t guarantee perspective just by reading them.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 View Post
It seems a lot of parents disagree with that characterization and with the book banning that is happening in schools. They *want* the choice but the choice is being taken from them.


Is that the "I can't be _____ I have a _____ friend" argument?



Low, low argument. I’m not going to list family member instances for your inspection. Is everyone who lives in The Villages too special to have family dynamics that don’t match perfection?

Totally Familiar
 

I’m also familiar with the fact that not everyone has the right to “enhanced “ expression or reception of free speech. One cannot or does not have the right to say whatever you want in a crowded movie theater or on a plane.

Of course children have the right to an education, in fact, they don’t have the right to skip school but are obligated through compulsory law. This is of course because they don’t always know everything and haven’t the discernment skills needed to survive.

Many support the Chinese owned Tik Tok hoping they continue to program our youth? Or Facebook continuing with Instagram. This comes from congress’ interviews “Haugen has leaked one Facebook study that found that 13.5% of U.K. teen girls in one survey say their suicidal thoughts became more frequent after starting on Instagram.

Another leaked study found 17% of teen girls say their eating disorders got worse after using Instagram.

About 32% of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse, Facebook's researchers found, which was first reported by the Journal.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., accused Facebook of intentionally targeting children under age 13 with an "addictive" product — despite the app requiring users be 13 years or older.”-NPR

Why? Perhaps poorly educated?

No problems for 30+ years until someone's feathers were ruffled. What happened to the old term: about fixing something which is not broken.

And who is going to enforce it? Police have a lot of better things to do like nabbing speeders in golf carts.

Yes, writer is political, but it started with original post