Judge thwarts Virginia Republicans’ effort to place limits on books sold at Barnes & Noble

[RDKirk]

What kind of inappropriate contentography? I an walk into a barns and noble in Canada, or least the equivalent and walk out with romance novels wich are likely far more graphic then this stuff.

I think you meant "explicit," not "graphic."

 

[RDKirk]

Correct.

If I were a betting man...
It's not the sexual nature of content itself that the people who are up in arms about this object to, it's the LGBT part.

Many novels have mentions of sex, infidelity, "bad words", violence, etc...

The entire anime sections of bookstores have visual depictions that are more risqué than what is depicted in the books that are the target of their banning attempts.

Yet, there haven't been any recent high profile, large scale efforts to go after that stuff that I'm aware of.

My gut feeling -
I think this is a case where the book Gender Queer was the real target, specifically because it delved into LGBT subjects, and they lumped in A Court of Mist and Fury as a "token non-LGBT target" as a way of feigning objectivity and claiming "see, it's not about the LGBT part we're upset about, we're just really upset about the sex part!"

I could be wrong, but that's just what it seems like.

For decades, you could walk by the magazine rack and those little book racks stood up by the checkout lines at any grocery store, and see swimsuit magazines, and oodles of those cheesy romance novels depicting Fabio riding a horse bare-chested, and nobody was calling for bans. As soon as some start popping up with LGBT themes, then all of the sudden it's a problem.

I think the triggering issue with Gender Queer is the illustration of a sex act that would have been triggering in a book intended for youth even if it had been heterosexual.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Simple solution is for the right to not allow Barnes and Noble stores in areas they control.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think the triggering issue with Gender Queer is the illustration of a sex act that would have been triggering in a book intended for youth even if it had been heterosexual.

But as noted, Barnes and Noble's anime section is loaded with books that have sexual depictions...same goes for old Greek art books and things of that nature, why did calls for bans pop up specifically in response to an LGBT-related book, and in the middle of the "culture wars" as they've been called?

At the very least, the timing + target seems a little more than coincidental.

Perhaps the "no visual depictions of sex or nudity of any kind" may have been a standard they've always had, and just didn't have the time, energy, awareness to go after the aforementioned types of books...but this feels more like they shopped around until they found a popular LGBT-themed book, and then tried to get it banned under the semi-dishonest pretense of having a very strict standard with regards to nudity/sex in general using enforcement mechanisms they'd hadn't been calling for previously.

 

[RDKirk]

But as noted, Barnes and Noble's anime section is loaded with books that have sexual depictions...same goes for old Greek art books and things of that nature, why did calls for bans pop up specifically in response to an LGBT-related book, and in the middle of the "culture wars" as they've been called?

At the very least, the timing + target seems a little more than coincidental.

Perhaps the "no visual depictions of sex or nudity of any kind" may have been a standard they've always had, and just didn't have the time, energy, awareness to go after the aforementioned types of books...but this feels more like they shopped around until they found a popular LGBT-themed book, and then tried to get it banned under the semi-dishonest pretense of having a very strict standard with regards to nudity/sex in general using enforcement mechanisms they'd hadn't been calling for previously.

I guess you missed that "book intended for youth" part of my post.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Simple solution is for the right to not allow Barnes and Noble stores in areas they control.

If that was going to be a move they were going to make, it would've had to have been before the business license was approved, and not after they've been up and operational for years.

It would cost the city money to try to remove them now per the takings clause.

In past court cases, the 3 metrics used have been:
(1) the economic impact on the owner of the property;
(2) the regulation’s interference with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations; and
(3) the character of the government action.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I guess you missed that "book intended for youth" part of my post.

I think the "intended for youth" aspect is a somewhat meaningless designation when it comes to literary works as it's not a legal metric.

For instance, a color by numbers book is "intended for youth", an advanced study book on Greek and Roman Art isn't, but there haven't been any large scale efforts to go after a book store for the latter, nor have I heard any proposals suggesting that an age limit for purchase be placed on the latter for purchase.

I strongly suspect that had the book not had an LGBT theme, this never would've occurred as the people calling for the bans never would've gone looking for it in the first place.


As a hypothetical example:
Let's say the bookstore had works that "glorified drug use" for years and years, and nobody had complained to the point of calling for bans before, and people under 18 had been previously allowed to buy the books.

Then a new book shows up on the scene that also does, but the overall theme of the book is rooted in "hot button cultural debate topic XYZ", and then all of the sudden people want the book banned on the grounds that "oh, it's because there's drug use in it" (after saying nothing about all the other books that also did). One would be reasonable in a suspicion that they're actually targeting it because of "topic XYZ" and just using the drug use aspect as a guise for why they really want it banned.

 

[RDKirk]

I think the "intended for youth" aspect is a somewhat meaningless designation when it comes to literary works as it's not a legal metric.

Not discussing "legal metrics," discussing reasons why people would get upset.

I'm pretty sure if the school had started using Joy of Sex as a textbook, people would still get upset.

And, yes, after schools had attempted to introduce Joy of Sex into the school curriculum, parents would have then been on the lookout for it to appear in Barnes and Noble.

 

[rjs330]

I think the "intended for youth" aspect is a somewhat meaningless designation when it comes to literary works as it's not a legal metric.

For instance, a color by numbers book is "intended for youth", an advanced study book on Greek and Roman Art isn't, but there haven't been any large scale efforts to go after a book store for the latter, nor have I heard any proposals suggesting that an age limit for purchase be placed on the latter for purchase.

I strongly suspect that had the book not had an LGBT theme, this never would've occurred as the people calling for the bans never would've gone looking for it in the first place.


As a hypothetical example:
Let's say the bookstore had works that "glorified drug use" for years and years, and nobody had complained to the point of calling for bans before, and people under 18 had been previously allowed to buy the books.

Then a new book shows up on the scene that also does, but the overall theme of the book is rooted in "hot button cultural debate topic XYZ", and then all of the sudden people want the book banned on the grounds that "oh, it's because there's drug use in it" (after saying nothing about all the other books that also did). One would be reasonable in a suspicion that they're actually targeting it because of "topic XYZ" and just using the drug use aspect as a guise for why they really want it banned.

I almost wonder if people are starting to wake up as to what is "intended for youth" these days. We've kind of been asleep for a while just going about our business until we began to find out exactly what has been going on and what's been slipping into our "it's for youth". I think we all probably, I know I did, thought what was I tended for youth would be appropriate for youth. That writers and teachers etc would have some sense of what is appropriate.

We are finding out differently now. We are discovering what exactly the left is introducing to our youth and what they are marketing to our youth and what they are teaching our youth.

We've been asleep for far too long. I wonder if the LGBT stuff is just the top of the iceberg.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We are discovering what exactly the left is introducing to our youth

You are discovering what Barnes & Nobles has on the shelves. This is not about the left.

 

[rjs330]

You are discovering what Barnes & Nobles has on the shelves. This is not about the left.

Sure it is. It's not those on the right authoring this stuff.

 

[Pommer]

Sure it is. It's not those on the right authoring this stuff.

But it is those on the right attempting to engage in “restraint-of-trade” to further their own political leanings.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I almost wonder if people are starting to wake up as to what is "intended for youth" these days. We've kind of been asleep for a while just going about our business until we began to find out exactly what has been going on and what's been slipping into our "it's for youth". I think we all probably, I know I did, thought what was I tended for youth would be appropriate for youth. That writers and teachers etc would have some sense of what is appropriate.

We are finding out differently now. We are discovering what exactly the left is introducing to our youth and what they are marketing to our youth and what they are teaching our youth.

We've been asleep for far too long. I wonder if the LGBT stuff is just the top of the iceberg.

But I think any objection to it would've needed to come from a place of more consistency in order to be credible, and that opportunity has already passed in many ways.

And, as noted before, it's rather conspicuous when the attributes they're complaining about have been all over the place for decades, and they all of the sudden start taking it really seriously only when it also involved "hot button topic XYZ"

It'd be kind of like if there were a new beer commercial for a new beer that had a critical race theory theme or gay pride theme, and then, out of the blue, people (who already had a well-established bias against those things) suddenly want the commercial pulled and claimed it's about the fact that "well, kids can see these commercials and we don't think it's right for kids to see the glorification of alcohol consumption". Their stated rationale would be a little suspect if those folks spent the last 20 years not saying a peep about the Bud Light commercials.



Complaints of "indoctrination" have become the right-wing's version of the left-wing complaints about various "-isms". Where, after 3 years of seeing the labels attached to anything and everything, it becomes a boy who cried wolf scenario in the eyes of many...especially when all of the most drastic efforts seem to be laser focused at entities/factions that are their political rivals.

What makes it even trickier when it comes to the somewhat ambiguous concept of "age appropriate" is that if you were to ask 100 different people, you'd likely get at least 20 different answers, so which one of those 20 answers gets the privilege of being codified?


Gun to my head, if you asked me if the visual illustrations in the Gender Queer book would be appropriate for kids, I'd say no. However, that doesn't mean I'm willing to turn creative control of "what's appropriate for age group XYZ" to the same group that would likely go after things much more tame if left to their own devices.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But it is those on the right attempting to engage in “restraint-of-trade” to further their own political leanings.

True, although I may roll my eyes so violently at rightwing propaganda for children that it may appear threatening to sensitive rightwingers.

(I had to check to make sure that last one isn't a parody.)