Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in
school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession
librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to
one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in
violation of the law and withdrew it.

https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in
school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession
librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to
one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.

https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month detailing a
whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 11:43:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in
school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to
one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.

https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I didn't see the three articles! Then again, if it's
a mere youtube link without description it hardly
qualifies as an "article", nor does a blind X-twitter link.

Why don't you give more descriptive titles for your posts?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 9, 2024 at 12:46:52 PM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 11:43:38 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""<ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in
school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession
librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and
imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to
one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in
violation of the law and withdrew it.



https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month detailing a >> whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. I can't be bothered >> to
go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I didn't see the three articles! Then again, if it's
a mere youtube link without description it hardly
qualifies as an "article", nor does a blind X-twitter link.

Good thing it was neither one of those, then, yes?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/9/2024 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in
school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession
librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and
imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to
one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in
violation of the law and withdrew it.


https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I'm not looking it up, either, but iirc it was the instance of a liberal bookstore that promoted itself as carrying books of all persuasions,
then caved to the censorious demands of clientele. At the very least,
the left-leaning store voiced briefly the virtues of free speech
...which heresy a right-leaning store would've strangled at birth.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:49 -0400
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on
censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books
in school libraries is optional so leave book selection to
profession librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines
and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn
due to one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided
it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.


https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the
left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month
detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left.
I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I'm not looking it up, either, but iirc it was the instance of a
liberal bookstore that promoted itself as carrying books of all
persuasions, then caved to the censorious demands of clientele. At
the very least, the left-leaning store voiced briefly the virtues of
free speech ...which heresy a right-leaning store would've strangled
at birth.

Bullshit!!! Flagrant, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the right have a LOT more respect for free speech than
most of those on the left. We aren't the ones that are bending over
backwards to suppress free speech like the recent Hate Speech law in
Scotland that J. K. Rowling has so bravely challenged or the Online
Harms Bill that Trudeau is trying to inflict on us in this country.


--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 18:27:13 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in
school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession
librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to
one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.

https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

One book that was long censored in eastern Europe during the Cold War
was 1984. It finally became possible to read it after the various
revolutions of 1989 when eastern Europe finally became free of Soviet occupation. Time and time and time again, I've seen people comment at
how amazed they are that Orwell so precisely described the situation in
their countries under communism when he'd never been there.

Those countries also censored the likes of Solzhenitsyn until well into Gorbachev's perestroika/glasnost campaigns. I remember talking to one
guy on a class, a Soviet emigre (and Jewish refusenik) and finding that
he'd only just read Gulag Archipelago when I had first read it several
years before; prior to that, the book could only be read in "samizdat"
form in the Soviet Union. (Samizdat was when typed copies were
circulated among trusted friends; photocopiers couldn't be used because
every Soviet copier had a watermark that made it very easy to determine precisely which copier had made the copy, making it much easier to
determine who had done the copying.)

I understand it is strictly forbidden to refer to - or draw - Winnie the
Pooh in China because too many people see a resemblance to Xi Jinping
and no one wants anything drawn or said that might be construed as a
criticism of him.

I'm sure there are any number of other things forbidden in China and
even "democratic" Russia. I know that Russians faced significant jail
time if they called the current "conflict" in Ukraine a war: the only acceptable term was "special military operation". There have been some
claims that even Putin is calling it a war now but I'm not sure if
anyone else dares to call it that yet.

--
Rhino

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/9/2024 4:55 PM, Rhino wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:49 -0400
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on
censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books
in school libraries is optional so leave book selection to
profession librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines
and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn
due to one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided
it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.


https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the
left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month
detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left.
I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I'm not looking it up, either, but iirc it was the instance of a
liberal bookstore that promoted itself as carrying books of all
persuasions, then caved to the censorious demands of clientele. At
the very least, the left-leaning store voiced briefly the virtues of
free speech ...which heresy a right-leaning store would've strangled
at birth.

Bullshit!!! Flagrant, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the right have a LOT more respect for free speech than
most of those on the left. We aren't the ones that are bending over
backwards to suppress free speech like the recent Hate Speech law in
Scotland that J. K. Rowling has so bravely challenged or the Online
Harms Bill that Trudeau is trying to inflict on us in this country.

Showing results for "liberal conservative book banning" [Google]

"While activists across the political spectrum have sought to
restrict or protest some forms of literature, the vast majority of book challenges are from conservative-leaning groups, researchers say. Only a handful of efforts have also come from liberal sources, mainly targeting
books with racist or offensive language." (Jan 12, 2023)

How conservative and liberal book bans differ amid rise in ...
ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
https://abcnews.go.com › story

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 9, 2024 at 2:47:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 4:55 PM, Rhino wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:49 -0400
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on
censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books
in school libraries is optional so leave book selection to
profession librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines
and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn
due to one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided
it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.



https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the
left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month
detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left.
I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I'm not looking it up, either, but iirc it was the instance of a
liberal bookstore that promoted itself as carrying books of all
persuasions, then caved to the censorious demands of clientele. At
the very least, the left-leaning store voiced briefly the virtues of
free speech ...which heresy a right-leaning store would've strangled
at birth.

Bullshit!!! Flagrant, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the right have a LOT more respect for free speech than
most of those on the left. We aren't the ones that are bending over
backwards to suppress free speech like the recent Hate Speech law in
Scotland that J. K. Rowling has so bravely challenged or the Online
Harms Bill that Trudeau is trying to inflict on us in this country.

How conservative and liberal book bans differ amid rise in ...
ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
https://abcnews.go.com › story

Oh, goody! A leftist media outlet is going to give me another lecture on how "it's different when we do it".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/9/2024 6:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 2:47:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 4:55 PM, Rhino wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:49 -0400
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on
censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in >>>>>> school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books >>>>>> in school libraries is optional so leave book selection to
profession librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines >>>>>> and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn
due to one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided >>>>>> it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.



https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the
left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month
detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. >>>>> I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I'm not looking it up, either, but iirc it was the instance of a
liberal bookstore that promoted itself as carrying books of all
persuasions, then caved to the censorious demands of clientele. At
the very least, the left-leaning store voiced briefly the virtues of >>>> free speech ...which heresy a right-leaning store would've strangled >>>> at birth.

Bullshit!!! Flagrant, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the right have a LOT more respect for free speech than
most of those on the left. We aren't the ones that are bending over
backwards to suppress free speech like the recent Hate Speech law in
Scotland that J. K. Rowling has so bravely challenged or the Online
Harms Bill that Trudeau is trying to inflict on us in this country.

How conservative and liberal book bans differ amid rise in ...
ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
https://abcnews.go.com › story

Oh, goody! A leftist media outlet is going to give me another lecture on how "it's different when we do it".

Yeah, the man with one watch always knows what time it is. Twice a day.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/9/2024 6:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 2:47:31 PM PDT, "moviePig" <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 4:55 PM, Rhino wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:49 -0400
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on
censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in >>>>>> school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books >>>>>> in school libraries is optional so leave book selection to
profession librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines >>>>>> and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn
due to one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided >>>>>> it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.



https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the
left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month
detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. >>>>> I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I'm not looking it up, either, but iirc it was the instance of a
liberal bookstore that promoted itself as carrying books of all
persuasions, then caved to the censorious demands of clientele. At
the very least, the left-leaning store voiced briefly the virtues of >>>> free speech ...which heresy a right-leaning store would've strangled >>>> at birth.

Bullshit!!! Flagrant, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the right have a LOT more respect for free speech than
most of those on the left. We aren't the ones that are bending over
backwards to suppress free speech like the recent Hate Speech law in
Scotland that J. K. Rowling has so bravely challenged or the Online
Harms Bill that Trudeau is trying to inflict on us in this country.

How conservative and liberal book bans differ amid rise in ...
ABC News - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos
https://abcnews.go.com › story

Oh, goody! A leftist media outlet is going to give me another lecture on how "it's different when we do it".

Btw, I notice you found it necessary to delete the short excerpt from
the article. Speaking of 'banning' and such...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:55:32 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Bullshit!!! Flagrant, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the right have a LOT more respect for free speech than
most of those on the left. We aren't the ones that are bending over
backwards to suppress free speech like the recent Hate Speech law in
Scotland that J. K. Rowling has so bravely challenged or the Online
Harms Bill that Trudeau is trying to inflict on us in this country.

Agreed - I have been watching my local public library to see how long
they will keep Savage Messiah (a bio of Jordan Peterson) in print.

The author is definitely not a Peterson fanboi but when the time comes
that won't be taken into account. Our library hasn't withdrawn JK
Rowling yet...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of >>inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in
school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession >>librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and >>imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to
one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in >>violation of the law and withdrew it.

https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month detailing a >whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. I can't be bothered to >go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I read them, thank you. You and I have similar opinions on censorship. I
wanted to see if anyone else cared about the issue of censorship by
punishing librarians using the criminal code.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <uv6fsu$12itq$2@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of >>inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in >>school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession >>librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and >>imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to >>one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in >>violation of the law and withdrew it.

https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6
cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month detailing a >whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. I can't be bothered >to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I read them, thank you. You and I have similar opinions on censorship. I wanted to see if anyone else cared about the issue of censorship by
punishing librarians using the criminal code.

There are laws about providing sexually explicit material to minors.
It's a felony to give a 10-year-old a Jenna Jameson porn DVD and tell
him to go enjoy himself.

I don't see how being a librarian shields you from having to obey those
laws or provides immunity from prosecution for breaking them.

I suppose there'd be some debate about what constitutes 'sexually
explicit' and where that line is, but the books I've seen at the heart
of these controversies, graphic novels showing-- not just describing,
but showing-- minors performing oral and anal gay sex on each other-- is
no different than any hardcore porn movie out there. If those don't
qualify as sexually explicit, I can't imagine what would.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in >>>>school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of >>>>inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books in >>>>school libraries is optional so leave book selection to profession >>>>librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines and >>>>imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn due to >>>>one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided it was in >>>>violation of the law and withdrew it.

https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month detailing a >>>whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left. I can't be bothered >>>to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I read them, thank you. You and I have similar opinions on censorship. I >>wanted to see if anyone else cared about the issue of censorship by >>punishing librarians using the criminal code.

There are laws about providing sexually explicit material to minors.
It's a felony to give a 10-year-old a Jenna Jameson porn DVD and tell
him to go enjoy himself.

Is this material a librarian in a public or school library has selected
ever that you have heard of?

I don't see how being a librarian shields you from having to obey those
laws or provides immunity from prosecution for breaking them.

We aren't talking about the Potter Stewart standard but material that
some people are going to declare "obscene" that you yourself wouldn't
agree with. You want a librarian subject to arrest and prosecution for a difference of opinion for material that's not truly obscene?

I suppose there'd be some debate about what constitutes 'sexually
explicit' and where that line is, but the books I've seen at the heart
of these controversies, graphic novels showing-- not just describing,
but showing-- minors performing oral and anal gay sex on each other-- is
no different than any hardcore porn movie out there. If those don't
qualify as sexually explicit, I can't imagine what would.

In the immediate instance, that's not what got censored because the
overly broad law failed to define sexually explicit material the way you
used the term.

Art nudes, medical textbooks, mainstream movies, literature without
photographs or drawings of any kind, have all been censored at one time
or another under both state and federal law as you are well aware of.
None of this is material you would personally consider to be sexually
explicit.

The Comstock Act hasn't been found to be unconstitutional in all
instances, hence the legal theory that it can be used to ban the mailing
of mifepristone.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/2024 12:12 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow
flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to
force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)

Times change.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <pddg1jplu1h6adta0btur2sg3leatg6d8t@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)

And of course Effa, like most of the left, continues to perpetuate lies,
like the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from saying they're gay anywhere in the text of the bill.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <uv9d3j$er2f$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com>
wrote:

On 4/11/2024 12:12 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >> flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >> force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first movie (Mary Poppins)

Times change.

And not always for the better.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <uv8sua$1o05o$2@dont-email.me>, fredp1571@gmail.com wrote:

On 4/9/24 4:55 PM, Rhino wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:49 -0400
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on
censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books
in school libraries is optional so leave book selection to
profession librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines
and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn
due to one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided
it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the
left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month
detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left.
I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I'm not looking it up, either, but iirc it was the instance of a
liberal bookstore that promoted itself as carrying books of all
persuasions, then caved to the censorious demands of clientele. At
the very least, the left-leaning store voiced briefly the virtues of
free speech ...which heresy a right-leaning store would've strangled
at birth.

Bullshit!!! Flagrant, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the right have a LOT more respect for free speech than
most of those on the left. We aren't the ones that are bending over
backwards to suppress free speech like the recent Hate Speech law in
Scotland that J. K. Rowling has so bravely challenged or the Online
Harms Bill that Trudeau is trying to inflict on us in this country.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

None of which have happened.

Big Lie noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.

--
"Rhino, when do I say things I *can't* back up with citations of
fact? Go ahead... go and find something I stated as fact that you
don't think I can back up."
-- FPP <fredp151@gmail.com>
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

atropos@mac.com wrote:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow
flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to
force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)

And of course Effa, like most of the left, continues to perpetuate lies,
like the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from saying >they're gay anywhere in the text of the bill.

And THAT is why you don't get your news from the DNC and MSNBC!

--
Let's go Brandon!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/24 2:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uv9d3j$er2f$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com>
wrote:

On 4/11/2024 12:12 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >>>> flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >>>> force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)

Times change.

And not always for the better.

So true, that's why AZ reenacted a Civil War era abortion ban, right? LOL!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/11/24 9:43 AM, FPP wrote:

On 4/9/24 4:55 PM, Rhino wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:38:49 -0400
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2024 2:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 9, 2024 at 11:27:13 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman""
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Is the left or the right winning the race to the bottom on
censorship?

Once again, I make the distinction between curriculum and books in
school libraries. The former might be subject to complaints of
inappropriateness by parents as it's mandatory. But reading books
in school libraries is optional so leave book selection to
profession librarians and not parents.

That's not the law in Missouri. Librarians can be subject to fines
and imprisonment for sexually explicit material on bookshelves.

A graphic novel adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale was withdrawn
due to one panel depicting a rape. The high school library decided
it was in violation of the law and withdrew it.


https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-libraries-lawsuits-fines-prison-0914fa6cbb2a99b540cbbd28a38179b4

Looks like the right is winning. What books are censored on the
left?

I've posted an article at least three times in the last month
detailing a whole raft of conservative books censored by the Left.
I can't be bothered to go look it up again for a fourth re-post.

I'm not looking it up, either, but iirc it was the instance of a
liberal bookstore that promoted itself as carrying books of all
persuasions, then caved to the censorious demands of clientele.  At
the very least, the left-leaning store voiced briefly the virtues of
free speech ...which heresy a right-leaning store would've strangled
at birth.

Bullshit!!! Flagrant, unadulterated BULLSHIT!

Those of us on the right have a LOT more respect for free speech than
most of those on the left. We aren't the ones that are bending over
backwards to suppress free speech like the recent Hate Speech law in
Scotland that J. K. Rowling has so bravely challenged or the Online
Harms Bill that Trudeau is trying to inflict on us in this country.

Oh, for fuck's sake.  Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

How can you even have a dialogue with that guy, he's one of the
stupidest people I've ever seen on this group.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <uvbhk8$2dmiq$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 4/11/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <pddg1jplu1h6adta0btur2sg3leatg6d8t@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >>> flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >>> force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)

And of course Effa, like most of the left, continues to perpetuate lies, like the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from saying they're gay anywhere in the text of the bill.

And Obamacare wasn't ever actually referred to as Obamacare until
Republicans tagged it that way But you never objected to using that term,
did you?

Neither did Obama. He called it that, too. And his campaign sold it on t-shirts.

Explaining why Florida's 'Parental Rights' bill is called 'don't say gay' and more WHY DO SOME PEOPLE CALL THE BILL 'DON'T SAY GAY'?

The bill as originally filed prohibited school districts from encouraging "classroom discussion" about sexual orientation or gender identity in "primary grade levels". Opponents of the bill interpreted that provision to be a ban on speaking about LGBTQ topics in classrooms and started using the "don't say gay" moniker.

When proposed, it was quite accurate.

Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as 'don't say
gay'.

In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex lives
to themselves and out of the classroom.

Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/12/2024 6:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvbhk8$2dmiq$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 4/11/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <pddg1jplu1h6adta0btur2sg3leatg6d8t@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >>>>> flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >>>>> force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first >>>> movie (Mary Poppins)

And of course Effa, like most of the left, continues to perpetuate lies, >>> like the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from saying >>> they're gay anywhere in the text of the bill.

And Obamacare wasn't ever actually referred to as Obamacare until
Republicans tagged it that way But you never objected to using that term,
did you?

Neither did Obama. He called it that, too. And his campaign sold it on t-shirts.

Explaining why Florida's 'Parental Rights' bill is called 'don't say gay' >>> and more WHY DO SOME PEOPLE CALL THE BILL 'DON'T SAY GAY'?

The bill as originally filed prohibited school districts from encouraging >>> "classroom discussion" about sexual orientation or gender identity in
"primary grade levels". Opponents of the bill interpreted that provision to >>> be a ban on speaking about LGBTQ topics in classrooms and started using the >>> "don't say gay" moniker.

When proposed, it was quite accurate.

Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as 'don't say gay'.

In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex lives
to themselves and out of the classroom.

Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.

I wonder if "don't say genitals" (aka 'the Ken rule') was included...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:42:31 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)

Sure. It's Dems that want to ban books. Right.

Hardly - just saying what I choose to spend my not unlimited budget on
- or not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as 'don't say >gay'.

In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex lives
to themselves and out of the classroom.

Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.

More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/12/24 9:48 AM, FPP wrote:

On 4/11/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <pddg1jplu1h6adta0btur2sg3leatg6d8t@4ax.com>,
  The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake.  Banning books, banning drag shows, banning
rainbow
flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill,
trying to
force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first
movie (Mary Poppins)

And of course Effa, like most of the left, continues to perpetuate lies,
like the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from saying
they're gay anywhere in the text of the bill.

And Obamacare wasn't ever actually referred to as Obamacare until
Republicans tagged it that way
But you never objected to using that term, did you?

It's been dubbed that for a reason, lunkhead. Let me educate you once
again.

Explaining why Florida’s ‘Parental Rights’ bill is called ‘don’t say
gay’ and more
WHY DO SOME PEOPLE CALL THE BILL ‘DON’T SAY GAY’?

The bill as originally filed prohibited school districts from
encouraging “classroom discussion” about sexual orientation or gender
identity in “primary grade levels.” Opponents of the bill interpreted
that provision to be a ban on speaking about LGBTQ topics in
classrooms and started using the “don’t say gay” moniker.

When proposed, it was quite accurate.

Maybe he's thinking it should've been called the "Don't Say Anim8r" bill.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/12/24 5:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvbhk8$2dmiq$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 4/11/24 3:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <pddg1jplu1h6adta0btur2sg3leatg6d8t@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 10:43:22 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

Oh, for fuck's sake. Banning books, banning drag shows, banning rainbow >>>>> flags, banning the words "climate change", Don't Say Gay bill, trying to >>>>> force Disney because they didn't like what they said.

Nobody believes you.

Hardly - though I personally am not spending money on Disney for my
granddaughter (who turns 2 within the next month) as frankly they're
NOT the Disney of my childhood when my grandmother took me to my first >>>> movie (Mary Poppins)

And of course Effa, like most of the left, continues to perpetuate lies, >>> like the "Don't Say Gay" bill, which doesn't prohibit anyone from saying >>> they're gay anywhere in the text of the bill.

And Obamacare wasn't ever actually referred to as Obamacare until
Republicans tagged it that way But you never objected to using that term,
did you?

Neither did Obama. He called it that, too. And his campaign sold it on t-shirts.

You're lying as usual. He didn't "call it that" he acquiesced because
he's a smart politician and did that to defuse the situation you stupid worthless fucking bastard.

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/barack-obama-obamacare-103589


Obama: You can call it ‘Obamacare’

The president also reminded viewers that the deadline for coverage is
March 31.

By Jose DelReal

02/17/2014 09:38 AM EST

It may not be polling well, but President Barack Obama isn’t too worried about the Affordable Care Act’s nickname, Obamacare, or the health care law’s impact on his legacy.

Explaining why Florida's 'Parental Rights' bill is called 'don't say gay' >>> and more WHY DO SOME PEOPLE CALL THE BILL 'DON'T SAY GAY'?

The bill as originally filed prohibited school districts from encouraging >>> "classroom discussion" about sexual orientation or gender identity in
"primary grade levels". Opponents of the bill interpreted that provision to >>> be a ban on speaking about LGBTQ topics in classrooms and started using the >>> "don't say gay" moniker.

When proposed, it was quite accurate.

Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as 'don't say gay'.

In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex lives
to themselves and out of the classroom.

Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <uvgj0h$3kt9v$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 4/13/24 12:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as
'don't say gay'.

In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex
lives to themselves and out of the classroom.

Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.

More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.

Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
way up.

That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.

You guys are the geniuses of incrementalism. You did it masterfully with destroying the criminal justice system here in California.

It started with Newsom unilaterally doing away with the death penalty
despite the fact that the people of California not only passed it into
law through their elected representatives, but then they reaffirmed
their support for it overwhelmingly in two subsequent ballot measures.
But Newsom overrode all 40 million of us and imposed his own political preference by fiat.

(There's that precious 'muh democracy' that y'all are always so worried
about.)

And he and his fellow Dems in the Assembly said, "Don't worry, even
without the death penalty the really bad guys will still be in prison
for life without parole."

A few years go by, then the same characters start talking about how not
giving people the chance for parole is too cruel, so they started
passing laws giving LWOP convicts the ability to challenge their
sentences and have them converted to life *with* possibility of parole.

Then came Prop 47 and Prop 57. One started the process of releasing all non-violent criminals from state prisons. The other reclassified a whole
host of objectively violent crimes as 'non-violent' so they would
qualify for release and downgraded dozens of felonies to misdemeanors so criminals wouldn't even be sent to prison in the first place. This was
sold to the public by Kamala Harris as "The Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Initiative".

Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.

Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with
the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes
are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed
into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics.

All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew
they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes
for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and
vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.

What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do
'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless
hellscape instead of a civilized society?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:05:42 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.

So was Charles Manson eligible for this? As I recall he didn't
actually take part in any murders personally but had beyond any doubt
coached his followers in what to do. (And he's DEFINITELY one that I
as prosecutor would not only demand he be required to die in jail but
to be buried in the prison yard without right of access by his family
- and would say the same about Clifford Olson and Robert Pickton -
both multiple killers) But apparently that's not allowed in our
beknighted societies.

Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with
the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes
are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed
into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics.

That's appalling - if they're going to retain the 3-strike rule surely
sexual trafficking of minors should be #1 on the list of non-fatal
crimes that qualify for such treatment. If it's NOT going to be then
perhaps they need to abolish the 3-strikes rule preferably in favor of something tougher.

All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a >well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew
they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes
for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and
vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses >shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public >wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.

What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do >'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless
hellscape instead of a civilized society?

Just as long as it's suitable "equal" and gives suitable sentencing
discounts by virtue of race and social group eh? Mention the name
"Gladue" to Rhino and I and see how far we spit!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 08:42:55 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.

Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
way up.

That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.

You seriously believe 5 and 6 year olds should be exposed to the same
materials as 16 and 17 year olds? That's the clear implication of what
you said.

I remember in jr high we had our sex ed class where having seen "Boy
to Man" in grades 7 and 8, in grade 9 the teacher asked us if we'd
like to see "Girl to Woman" (which is what the girls' portion of the
class had been viewing). It was mostly ho-hum and I learned little.

(While I didn't have an older sister I had found my Mom's pads and so
forth and had been curious enough to check out at the library
precisely what they had been used for - and learned what it meant when
they weren't needed - e.g. either pregnancy or menopause - I didn't
yet know menstruation could be altered by the pill)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 14, 2024 at 5:29:11 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:05:42 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.

So was Charles Manson eligible for this?

He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still
alive.

One of his acolytes has already been released.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

So was Charles Manson eligible for this?

He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still >alive.

One of his acolytes has already been released.

That's Squeaky right?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/15/24 1:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 14, 2024 at 5:29:11 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:05:42 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released" >>> has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.

So was Charles Manson eligible for this?

He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still alive.

One of his acolytes has already been released.

So the answer is no because it wasn't implemented then. Do you speak
English?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/15/24 3:38 AM, FPP wrote:

On 4/14/24 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvgj0h$3kt9v$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 4/13/24 12:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as
'don't say gay'.

In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex
lives to themselves and out of the classroom.

Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.

More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.

Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
way up.

That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.

You guys are the geniuses of incrementalism. You did it masterfully with
destroying the criminal justice system here in California.

It started with Newsom unilaterally doing away with the death penalty
despite the fact that the people of California not only passed it into
law through their elected representatives, but then they reaffirmed
their support for it overwhelmingly in two subsequent ballot measures.
But Newsom overrode all 40 million of us and imposed his own political
preference by fiat.

(There's that precious 'muh democracy' that y'all are always so worried
about.)

And he and his fellow Dems in the Assembly said, "Don't worry, even
without the death penalty the really bad guys will still be in prison
for life without parole."

A few years go by, then the same characters start talking about how not
giving people the chance for parole is too cruel, so they started
passing laws giving LWOP convicts the ability to challenge their
sentences and have them converted to life *with* possibility of parole.

Then came Prop 47 and Prop 57. One started the process of releasing all
non-violent criminals from state prisons. The other reclassified a whole
host of objectively violent crimes as 'non-violent' so they would
qualify for release and downgraded dozens of felonies to misdemeanors so
criminals wouldn't even be sent to prison in the first place. This was
sold to the public by Kamala Harris as "The Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Initiative".

Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.

Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with
the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes
are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed
into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics.

All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a
well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew
they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes
for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and
vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses
shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public
wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.

What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do
'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless
hellscape instead of a civilized society?

You are exhausting.  You talk about "lawless", but you're being led by a
man the judge called a rapist, and is facing 88 felony charges.

He's been found liable for fraud, defamation and rape.
But, sure... leftists are lawless.

Could he be referring to Lucy Lawless?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/14/24 2:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvgj0h$3kt9v$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 4/13/24 12:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as
'don't say gay'.

In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex
lives to themselves and out of the classroom.

Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.

More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around
here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.

Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
way up.

That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.

You guys are the geniuses of incrementalism. You did it masterfully with destroying the criminal justice system here in California.

It started with Newsom unilaterally doing away with the death penalty
despite the fact that the people of California not only passed it into
law through their elected representatives, but then they reaffirmed
their support for it overwhelmingly in two subsequent ballot measures.
But Newsom overrode all 40 million of us and imposed his own political preference by fiat.

That's horrific. How does this compare to the Roe v Wade situation?

(There's that precious 'muh democracy' that y'all are always so worried about.)

And he and his fellow Dems in the Assembly said, "Don't worry, even
without the death penalty the really bad guys will still be in prison
for life without parole."

A few years go by, then the same characters start talking about how not giving people the chance for parole is too cruel, so they started
passing laws giving LWOP convicts the ability to challenge their
sentences and have them converted to life *with* possibility of parole.

Then came Prop 47 and Prop 57. One started the process of releasing all non-violent criminals from state prisons. The other reclassified a whole
host of objectively violent crimes as 'non-violent' so they would
qualify for release and downgraded dozens of felonies to misdemeanors so criminals wouldn't even be sent to prison in the first place. This was
sold to the public by Kamala Harris as "The Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Initiative".

Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.

Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with
the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes
are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed
into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics.

All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew
they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes
for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and
vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.

What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do 'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless
hellscape instead of a civilized society?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/15/24 3:41 AM, FPP wrote:

On 4/15/24 2:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Apr 14, 2024 at 5:29:11 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 12:05:42 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if >>>> he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be
released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.

So was Charles Manson eligible for this?

He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still
alive.

One of his acolytes has already been released.

Gosh, ONE!  THAT many?

What about "already?" After forty or fifty years a person has "already"
been released.

Trump is talking about releasing hundreds of violent convicts who
assaulted and maimed cops threatened to assassinate government officials
and tried to overthrow the government, and you guys cheer him on.

No comment?  Did you lapse back into your coma again?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 15, 2024 at 12:04:35 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

So was Charles Manson eligible for this?

He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still
alive.

One of his acolytes has already been released.

That's Squeaky right?

Yes, and Leslie Van Houten, also. She was the one who stabbed Rosemary
LaBianca 14 times.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 15, 2024 at 1:38:35 AM PDT, "FPP" <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/14/24 3:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <uvgj0h$3kt9v$1@dont-email.me>, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com>
wrote:

On 4/13/24 12:57 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 15:11:32 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Nope. It prohibited 'don't say straight' every bit as much as
'don't say gay'.

In other words, it was telling teachers to keep their personal sex
lives to themselves and out of the classroom.

Hardly an unreasonable position for anyone who isn't a lunatic.

More to the point, it's restricted to 'primary age' kids which around >>>> here means grades 1-3. Which in my opinion is totally reasonable. If
it were grades 9-12 I likely would feel differently.

Sure. Until it isn't. You start there and they quickly worked their
way up.

That's how it's done. Once you see the nose of a camel in the tent,
it's quickly followed by the rest of the camel.

You guys are the geniuses of incrementalism. You did it masterfully with
destroying the criminal justice system here in California.

It started with Newsom unilaterally doing away with the death penalty
despite the fact that the people of California not only passed it into
law through their elected representatives, but then they reaffirmed
their support for it overwhelmingly in two subsequent ballot measures.
But Newsom overrode all 40 million of us and imposed his own political
preference by fiat.

(There's that precious 'muh democracy' that y'all are always so worried
about.)

And he and his fellow Dems in the Assembly said, "Don't worry, even
without the death penalty the really bad guys will still be in prison
for life without parole."

A few years go by, then the same characters start talking about how not
giving people the chance for parole is too cruel, so they started
passing laws giving LWOP convicts the ability to challenge their
sentences and have them converted to life *with* possibility of parole.

Then came Prop 47 and Prop 57. One started the process of releasing all
non-violent criminals from state prisons. The other reclassified a whole
host of objectively violent crimes as 'non-violent' so they would
qualify for release and downgraded dozens of felonies to misdemeanors so
criminals wouldn't even be sent to prison in the first place. This was
sold to the public by Kamala Harris as "The Safe Schools and
Neighborhoods Initiative".

Now they're releasing any murderer, no matter how heinous his crime, if
he was convicted before 1994. So life in prison is now effectively no
more than 30 years and "Only the non-violent offenders will be released"
has morphed into throwing open the doors and letting pre-meditated
murderers run free.

Then the Dems staffed the Public Safety Committee in the Assembly with
the most radical hug-a-thug pols in Sacramento to ensure no new crimes
are ever added to the penal code. They wouldn't even make sex
trafficking of minors a 3-strike eligible felony until they were shamed
into it when their refusal to do so made international news. Selling
kids for sex isn't bad enough to warrant prison time for these lunatics.

All this happened bit-by-bit over the course of 10 years as part of a
well-coordinated plan by 'progressive' Democrats to empty our prisons
and jails and neuter the criminal justice system in the state. They knew
they could never do it in one fell swoop even though they had the votes
for it because the boiling frog (the public) would scream holy hell and
vote them all out. So they did it one little bit at a time,
step-by-step, and now here we are, with crime out of control, businesses
shutting down in the major cities and fleeing the state, and the public
wondering how society seemed to have disintegrated overnight.

What has always puzzled me and continues to do so is why? Why do
'progressive' leftists seem to love the idea of living in a lawless
hellscape instead of a civilized society?

You are exhausting.

Good. Means I'm doing something right if I'm exhausting you people.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Apr 15, 2024 at 12:04:35 AM PDT, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:

Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

So was Charles Manson eligible for this?

He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still >>>alive.

One of his acolytes has already been released.

That's Squeaky right?

Yes, and Leslie Van Houten, also. She was the one who stabbed Rosemary >LaBianca 14 times.

These people followed a cult leader who had targeted a family, then
committed mass murder. I'm confused as to why you don't think prison rehabilitated them so they can be functioning members of society again.

How dangerous can they possibly be?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:24:03 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Apr 15, 2024 at 12:04:35 AM PDT, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:

Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

So was Charles Manson eligible for this?

He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still >>>>alive.

One of his acolytes has already been released.

That's Squeaky right?

Yes, and Leslie Van Houten, also. She was the one who stabbed Rosemary >>LaBianca 14 times.

These people followed a cult leader who had targeted a family, then
committed mass murder. I'm confused as to why you don't think prison >rehabilitated them so they can be functioning members of society again.

How dangerous can they possibly be?

If you don't have any family members living then there's nothing to
worry about. If you do have a family...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 14:07:26 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Apr 15, 2024 at 12:04:35 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 06:30:28 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

So was Charles Manson eligible for this?

He died before it was implemented, but yes, he would be if he was still
alive.

One of his acolytes has already been released.

That's Squeaky right?

Yes, and Leslie Van Houten, also. She was the one who stabbed Rosemary >LaBianca 14 times.

The fact that I remember her nickname some 50-60 years afterwards
should tell you something. It's NOT at all that we have a major street
called Fromme Road within 1/2 mile of my home! (which we do - named
after a WW1 era mayor)

And anybody my age probably cringes when we hear the term "Helter
Skelter" which pre-Manson was what my mother called my room when it
was messy...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)