Oy vey....

[conuly]

"Filthy language," said Conder of the profanity. "I'm not going to repeat the language. Our job is to protect kids from things that aren't good for kids."

Repeat after me: Nobody was ever harmed for hearing or reading profanity. Nobody. And by the 9th grade, there's very little in the way of profanity that your kid hasn't heard yet.

This is very nicely summed up here:

When did we have to start saying these things? "Book burnings aren't right." "Torture is bad." "The accused deserve trials." "You can't spend more than you earn." "Borrowing is not earning." "Wars suck." "It's called Social Security because it's supposed to be *more* secure than the stock market."

*sighs* Well, I can always move to Antarctica, live with the penguins, study their folkways. Bet they don't burn books.

Comments

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

*headwall* Why is it people are so fixated on the ideals of innocence, ignorance, and "family" values. I think it is much more moral to allow people, even minors (God forbid), to read whatever they want.
Fuck damn shit hell, by the time I was 14, profanity barely fazed me. I used it myself.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Although my children have adult bookcards, and I dont censor them from a lot of things, I do believe that parents should have, as a group, input into the education of their minor children.

Having said that, they should do the right thing, and be involved from the beginning at a grassroots level.

Get on the board, talk to teachers, get into local politics. Don't burn books like a bunch of psychos!

Maybe this is why we should have school vouchers, let these people send their kids to schools that are more to their liking. (I'd do that with vouchers, thats for sure.)

[adiva_calandia]

*gapes*

*gapes some more*

They're. . . BURNING them? No. No fucking way. Oh my God. I can just about deal with people banning books -- I don't like that either, but destroying books outright? That sickens me. Ack.

Speaking of burning, I will freely admit that I thought flag-burning was illegal. Nice to know that I'm wrong.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

While organizing a book burning might be going to far, I think the parents have the right to keep their children from reading the book if they so choose.

[conuly]

Why? Most of those parents haven't even read the book, and their "children" are very nearly adults already.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

Because if the children are minors, the parents are still the legal guardians. Forcing the children to read a book the parents don't want the children to read would be taking away the rights of a parent to raise their child in the way they choose. I'm not saying the book would harm the children- personally I think they've probably heard the worst words in there since elementary school. Just that if you try to force the children to read the book, it could create a bigger problem than giving an alternate book to read.

[conuly]

What about the rights of the child to read without censorship? Did you hear the atrocious stats for the number of high schoolers who think the first amendment "goes too far"? How are we going to teach kids to appreciate the first amendment if we don't even trust their judgment, and allow their parents to censor their reading material?

The rights of the parents do not supercede the rights of the children.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

What would happen if parents weren't allowed to censor reading material? The parents don't have to allow the school book to enter their house, and the children might be punished when they get home for what they did at school. In extreme cases, they could be kicked out.
When I moved in with my dad and stepmom a few years ago I was told that as long as I lived under their roof and ate their food I would have to follow their rules. It was much stricter than I was used to-not being able to wear pants, having to constantly watch my language. I don't agree with what they believe but I'd be afraid to break the rules if there was a chance they'd find out, so I keep the books and music they wouldn't like hidden.
The government might say parents are not allowed to censor what their children read- but in reality that wouldn't happen. Parents have the ability to create hell for their children when the doors are closed and no one is watching. It's not right but it happens.
Another question- What if the child didn't want to read the book? Should he be forced to or be given an alternate assignment?

[conuly]

What would happen if parents weren't allowed to censor reading material? The parents don't have to allow the school book to enter their house, and the children might be punished when they get home for what they did at school. In extreme cases, they could be kicked out.
When I moved in with my dad and stepmom a few years ago I was told that as long as I lived under their roof and ate their food I would have to follow their rules. It was much stricter than I was used to-not being able to wear pants, having to constantly watch my language. I don't agree with what they believe but I'd be afraid to break the rules if there was a chance they'd find out, so I keep the books and music they wouldn't like hidden.
The government might say parents are not allowed to censor what their children read- but in reality that wouldn't happen. Parents have the ability to create hell for their children when the doors are closed and no one is watching. It's not right but it happens.

None of this is relevant to the conversation, y'know.

Another question- What if the child didn't want to read the book? Should he be forced to or be given an alternate assignment?

That's a different issue, one you'll note I didn't address. Certainly, if a person doesn't want to read the book for a legitimate reason (not "it's too hard" or "it's too long") then they should be allowed to read something else.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

I was trying to show the possible problems of not allowing parents to censor what their children read. And your post made me realize that I didn't answer all the questions.
Maybe children should have the right to read without censorship, and that does play a part in getting children to trust their own judgement. But how would the government be able to enforce this right? I'm not saying book burning is right. I'm just saying that attempting to stop parents from censoring what what their children read would cause many problems.

[conuly]

But how would the government be able to enforce this right?

They could start by not bowing to the demands of self-righteous parents every time said parents object to a book's existance. I'm not saying "go into every home and make sure the parents don't censor their children's reading", I'm saying "don't let the parents decide the curriculum and stock the libraries".

I'm just saying that attempting to stop parents from censoring what what their children read would cause many problems.

And...? Lots of things cause problems. Do you think we should take the easy way out, always?

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

I don't think parents should be allowed to stock the libraries either... but what should a school do if a parent said a child couldn't read a book?
No I don't think we should take the easy way out. I was getting images of the going into homes scene you described.

[conuly]

I don't think parents should be allowed to stock the libraries either... but what should a school do if a parent said a child couldn't read a book?

Tell them that it's not up to them, and that it's important to protect the first amendment rights of others. We're not talking about 9 year olds here, we're discussing teenagers, at 13, 14, 15 years old. That's more than old enough to choose their own reading material.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

All right. I wish someone could talk sense like that to the people I'm living with now, but I doubt it would work. You're right. By that age they should decide.

[conuly]

*hugs*

Sorry. I get so caught up in this issue, I just talk people into the dust, don't I?

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

That's okay. Thank you.

[ahsirakh.livejournal.com]

*sighs* Well, I can always move to Antarctica, live with the penguins, study their folkways. Bet they don't burn books.

I bet they do.

... it's cold down in those parts. ;)

[azuresunglasses.livejournal.com]

*headwall* Why is it people are so fixated on the ideals of innocence, ignorance, and "family" values. I think it is much more moral to allow people, even minors (God forbid), to read whatever they want.
Fuck damn shit hell, by the time I was 14, profanity barely fazed me. I used it myself.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Although my children have adult bookcards, and I dont censor them from a lot of things, I do believe that parents should have, as a group, input into the education of their minor children.

Having said that, they should do the right thing, and be involved from the beginning at a grassroots level.

Get on the board, talk to teachers, get into local politics. Don't burn books like a bunch of psychos!

Maybe this is why we should have school vouchers, let these people send their kids to schools that are more to their liking. (I'd do that with vouchers, thats for sure.)

[adiva_calandia]

*gapes*

*gapes some more*

They're. . . BURNING them? No. No fucking way. Oh my God. I can just about deal with people banning books -- I don't like that either, but destroying books outright? That sickens me. Ack.

Speaking of burning, I will freely admit that I thought flag-burning was illegal. Nice to know that I'm wrong.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

While organizing a book burning might be going to far, I think the parents have the right to keep their children from reading the book if they so choose.

[conuly]

Why? Most of those parents haven't even read the book, and their "children" are very nearly adults already.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

Because if the children are minors, the parents are still the legal guardians. Forcing the children to read a book the parents don't want the children to read would be taking away the rights of a parent to raise their child in the way they choose. I'm not saying the book would harm the children- personally I think they've probably heard the worst words in there since elementary school. Just that if you try to force the children to read the book, it could create a bigger problem than giving an alternate book to read.

[conuly]

What about the rights of the child to read without censorship? Did you hear the atrocious stats for the number of high schoolers who think the first amendment "goes too far"? How are we going to teach kids to appreciate the first amendment if we don't even trust their judgment, and allow their parents to censor their reading material?

The rights of the parents do not supercede the rights of the children.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

What would happen if parents weren't allowed to censor reading material? The parents don't have to allow the school book to enter their house, and the children might be punished when they get home for what they did at school. In extreme cases, they could be kicked out.
When I moved in with my dad and stepmom a few years ago I was told that as long as I lived under their roof and ate their food I would have to follow their rules. It was much stricter than I was used to-not being able to wear pants, having to constantly watch my language. I don't agree with what they believe but I'd be afraid to break the rules if there was a chance they'd find out, so I keep the books and music they wouldn't like hidden.
The government might say parents are not allowed to censor what their children read- but in reality that wouldn't happen. Parents have the ability to create hell for their children when the doors are closed and no one is watching. It's not right but it happens.
Another question- What if the child didn't want to read the book? Should he be forced to or be given an alternate assignment?

[conuly]

What would happen if parents weren't allowed to censor reading material? The parents don't have to allow the school book to enter their house, and the children might be punished when they get home for what they did at school. In extreme cases, they could be kicked out.
When I moved in with my dad and stepmom a few years ago I was told that as long as I lived under their roof and ate their food I would have to follow their rules. It was much stricter than I was used to-not being able to wear pants, having to constantly watch my language. I don't agree with what they believe but I'd be afraid to break the rules if there was a chance they'd find out, so I keep the books and music they wouldn't like hidden.
The government might say parents are not allowed to censor what their children read- but in reality that wouldn't happen. Parents have the ability to create hell for their children when the doors are closed and no one is watching. It's not right but it happens.

None of this is relevant to the conversation, y'know.

Another question- What if the child didn't want to read the book? Should he be forced to or be given an alternate assignment?

That's a different issue, one you'll note I didn't address. Certainly, if a person doesn't want to read the book for a legitimate reason (not "it's too hard" or "it's too long") then they should be allowed to read something else.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

I was trying to show the possible problems of not allowing parents to censor what their children read. And your post made me realize that I didn't answer all the questions.
Maybe children should have the right to read without censorship, and that does play a part in getting children to trust their own judgement. But how would the government be able to enforce this right? I'm not saying book burning is right. I'm just saying that attempting to stop parents from censoring what what their children read would cause many problems.

[conuly]

But how would the government be able to enforce this right?

They could start by not bowing to the demands of self-righteous parents every time said parents object to a book's existance. I'm not saying "go into every home and make sure the parents don't censor their children's reading", I'm saying "don't let the parents decide the curriculum and stock the libraries".

I'm just saying that attempting to stop parents from censoring what what their children read would cause many problems.

And...? Lots of things cause problems. Do you think we should take the easy way out, always?

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

I don't think parents should be allowed to stock the libraries either... but what should a school do if a parent said a child couldn't read a book?
No I don't think we should take the easy way out. I was getting images of the going into homes scene you described.

[conuly]

I don't think parents should be allowed to stock the libraries either... but what should a school do if a parent said a child couldn't read a book?

Tell them that it's not up to them, and that it's important to protect the first amendment rights of others. We're not talking about 9 year olds here, we're discussing teenagers, at 13, 14, 15 years old. That's more than old enough to choose their own reading material.

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

All right. I wish someone could talk sense like that to the people I'm living with now, but I doubt it would work. You're right. By that age they should decide.

[conuly]

*hugs*

Sorry. I get so caught up in this issue, I just talk people into the dust, don't I?

[meryls-corner.livejournal.com]

That's okay. Thank you.

[ahsirakh.livejournal.com]

*sighs* Well, I can always move to Antarctica, live with the penguins, study their folkways. Bet they don't burn books.

I bet they do.

... it's cold down in those parts. ;)