[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aces4

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?

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.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by asianthree

Sorry this comes under “Government trying to parent a child that they don’t know, or pay for. Then pass a law that basically say you are unfit to parent and this is the first right we are going to remove.

Wait for the second law that states when, and how many girls you are allowed. Didn’t a country already do that……..

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

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

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?)

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Bob.Betty

Who are you (the government) to decide what my child can or can't do on social media?

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aces4

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.

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.

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.

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

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?)

"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.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

"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.

[Aces4]

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?

[Normal]

Originally Posted by FredMitchell

It seems like nobody here is familiar with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which the Supreme Court has found applies to all states as well!

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?

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Disney not it’s own state like they thought they was.

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

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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

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

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by Aces4

I think your post is extremely political.

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