This apoplectic faux-outrage knee-jerk "Gah! Book Banning!" fallacy is just as old, tired, and worn out as the "Racist" card played so often. Both are tattered and threadbare from over(ab)use. No one is saying that perverted heathen can't write and draw their explicit and graphic sexual fantasies to their hearts' content, and the law doesn't enjoin publishers from printing this fetid slop. It just says that they have to indicate when graphic pornography is part of it, and prohibits the wasteful and ignominious use of tax dollars by publicly funded schools from stocking this mind-raping defecation. It's wicked and illegitimate to force children to roll around in the verbal vomit of this debauched diarrhea and expect them not to stink afterwards.
The real question is this: Why are you and others so intent on raping the innocence of children by exposing them to such graphic perversion? Why do kids need to read radically explicit descriptions of fellatio, anal sex, rape and murder, self-harm, drug use and rampant promiscuity? What possible redeeming value is there in soaking this putrescent dung into their minds?
Reacting against people like you who want to decide for everybody what to read and call it "pornography" when it's really about you not loving your neighbor is what faux outrage looks like. The reason why the law doesn't enjoin printing what you call "fetid slop" is because of a little case called Flynt v Rumsfeld in which the court ruled (including conservative justices) that the 1st Amendment cannot be limited just because others don't like the content. Don't like what you think is out there? Then don't let YOUR kids read it. You don't have the right to decide for the entire country.
In case your comprehension is lacking, let me reiterate what I originally said and I'll use smaller words. People can "create" stories about children being raped and murdered, and girls being sexually abused by adults, and children having anal sex with each other, all in extremely graphic detail. Authors can include rampant drug use, profanity, and all sorts of immoral filth. Publishers can print it. IF you're so debased and twisted that you think this kind of fetid slop is worthy of shoving in your children's mouths and souls, YOU PAY FOR IT. Our tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund your demonic child abuse nor anyone else's.
how dare you? This right here is what's wrong with Republicans. You immediately assume that nobody but you wants to protect children. Parents have a responsibility to decide what their children read. Parents do not have a responsibility to decide what everybody else gets to read. Get off your "moral" high horse. America is a free country for a reason, and not because people are telling me what I'm allowed to read. You all pulled Anne Frank off the shelf for being sexual when she related her first kiss for Christ's sake.
You just literally made the same argument WE are making against these books and why they shouldn’t be in the school library. The school doesn’t have the right to expose my children to literature I, the parent, doesn’t want.
You want to read it to your kid, you buy it and read it to them, after all, it’s a free country like you said. That isn’t the argument being had.
The point is that taxpayers shouldn’t be funding things that violate Texas law and Parents rights.
Everything Craig said. I’d like to add, that since people are claiming that exposing minors to pornography is now “freedom of speech” then I guess I should be able to make a gift of a Christian Bible to every school child and that is likewise freedom of speech. Oh, and while we’re at it, I can send all of my kids to school in t-shirts that say “there are only two genders” and that’s also freedom of speech.
I guess we need to release all the pedophiles from prison who were convicted over exposing minors to pornography 🤔 the logical conclusion of “exposing minor children to pornography” is that those children are being mentally and psychologically abused, set up for more abuse, and all without their parents knowledge (and consent doesn’t even matter! Parents can’t give “consent” for their child to be exposed to pornography 🙄)
Yes because the Christian bible has zero references to pornography. Just multiple wives, rape, killing, etc. The only part of the Bible that doesn't have that is the New Testament which you people conveniently ignore. Love your neighbor as yourself means everyone whether you agree with them or not. Don't like it? Take it up with Jesus Christ.
You completely misunderstand Scripture. That’s not what it means, and like Satan, you’re twisting it to use for your own selfish, and wrong, arguments.
You’re a hypocrite, and this trolling you’re doing is really subpar. Do better.
Umm, do you know this Jesus, the one who started off His ministry telling people to repent? I mean, are you born again and call yourself a follower of Him? Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior, the Son of God, the bright and morning star, the one who called people who opposed Him hypocrites, once called a non-Jew a dog, called pharisees children of satan, and said hell would be more tolerable for Sodom than those who have His Word but don't obey Him? He even once or twice turned over some thieves' tables and beat them with a whip. That the Jesus you're referring to? I guess Christ's actions aren't very Christlike, in your estimation.
How about the little thing called DECENCY? And FYI -- we do ban books in America. But only the ones that uphold American values. Look at the outrage that liberals had over bringing in Prager U curriculum.
Little thing called the First Amendment. We don't ban books in America. My dad didn't do two tours in Nam for this fascist shit.
This apoplectic faux-outrage knee-jerk "Gah! Book Banning!" fallacy is just as old, tired, and worn out as the "Racist" card played so often. Both are tattered and threadbare from over(ab)use. No one is saying that perverted heathen can't write and draw their explicit and graphic sexual fantasies to their hearts' content, and the law doesn't enjoin publishers from printing this fetid slop. It just says that they have to indicate when graphic pornography is part of it, and prohibits the wasteful and ignominious use of tax dollars by publicly funded schools from stocking this mind-raping defecation. It's wicked and illegitimate to force children to roll around in the verbal vomit of this debauched diarrhea and expect them not to stink afterwards.
The real question is this: Why are you and others so intent on raping the innocence of children by exposing them to such graphic perversion? Why do kids need to read radically explicit descriptions of fellatio, anal sex, rape and murder, self-harm, drug use and rampant promiscuity? What possible redeeming value is there in soaking this putrescent dung into their minds?
Reacting against people like you who want to decide for everybody what to read and call it "pornography" when it's really about you not loving your neighbor is what faux outrage looks like. The reason why the law doesn't enjoin printing what you call "fetid slop" is because of a little case called Flynt v Rumsfeld in which the court ruled (including conservative justices) that the 1st Amendment cannot be limited just because others don't like the content. Don't like what you think is out there? Then don't let YOUR kids read it. You don't have the right to decide for the entire country.
In case your comprehension is lacking, let me reiterate what I originally said and I'll use smaller words. People can "create" stories about children being raped and murdered, and girls being sexually abused by adults, and children having anal sex with each other, all in extremely graphic detail. Authors can include rampant drug use, profanity, and all sorts of immoral filth. Publishers can print it. IF you're so debased and twisted that you think this kind of fetid slop is worthy of shoving in your children's mouths and souls, YOU PAY FOR IT. Our tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund your demonic child abuse nor anyone else's.
Only pedophiles want to push pornography on children. I'm guessing that's not what your Dad fought for.
how dare you? This right here is what's wrong with Republicans. You immediately assume that nobody but you wants to protect children. Parents have a responsibility to decide what their children read. Parents do not have a responsibility to decide what everybody else gets to read. Get off your "moral" high horse. America is a free country for a reason, and not because people are telling me what I'm allowed to read. You all pulled Anne Frank off the shelf for being sexual when she related her first kiss for Christ's sake.
You just literally made the same argument WE are making against these books and why they shouldn’t be in the school library. The school doesn’t have the right to expose my children to literature I, the parent, doesn’t want.
You want to read it to your kid, you buy it and read it to them, after all, it’s a free country like you said. That isn’t the argument being had.
The point is that taxpayers shouldn’t be funding things that violate Texas law and Parents rights.
You and no other adult has any right to expose under age kids to obscene material- this includes your own children. It's against the law.
Everything Craig said. I’d like to add, that since people are claiming that exposing minors to pornography is now “freedom of speech” then I guess I should be able to make a gift of a Christian Bible to every school child and that is likewise freedom of speech. Oh, and while we’re at it, I can send all of my kids to school in t-shirts that say “there are only two genders” and that’s also freedom of speech.
I guess we need to release all the pedophiles from prison who were convicted over exposing minors to pornography 🤔 the logical conclusion of “exposing minor children to pornography” is that those children are being mentally and psychologically abused, set up for more abuse, and all without their parents knowledge (and consent doesn’t even matter! Parents can’t give “consent” for their child to be exposed to pornography 🙄)
Yes because the Christian bible has zero references to pornography. Just multiple wives, rape, killing, etc. The only part of the Bible that doesn't have that is the New Testament which you people conveniently ignore. Love your neighbor as yourself means everyone whether you agree with them or not. Don't like it? Take it up with Jesus Christ.
You completely misunderstand Scripture. That’s not what it means, and like Satan, you’re twisting it to use for your own selfish, and wrong, arguments.
You’re a hypocrite, and this trolling you’re doing is really subpar. Do better.
Umm, do you know this Jesus, the one who started off His ministry telling people to repent? I mean, are you born again and call yourself a follower of Him? Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior, the Son of God, the bright and morning star, the one who called people who opposed Him hypocrites, once called a non-Jew a dog, called pharisees children of satan, and said hell would be more tolerable for Sodom than those who have His Word but don't obey Him? He even once or twice turned over some thieves' tables and beat them with a whip. That the Jesus you're referring to? I guess Christ's actions aren't very Christlike, in your estimation.
How about the little thing called DECENCY? And FYI -- we do ban books in America. But only the ones that uphold American values. Look at the outrage that liberals had over bringing in Prager U curriculum.
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/some-texas-education-leaders-denounce-conservative-prageru-curriculum-materials/