New State Efforts to Restrict School Library Databases

[essentialsaltes]

The next book ban: States aim to limit titles students can search for

Republican lawmakers across the country are proposing legislation that would target online library databases and library management technology — tools built by a half-dozen large companies that catalogue millions of books, journals and articles that students peruse for assignments.

These bills — already enacted in Utah and Tennessee, on the verge of becoming law in Oklahoma, and proposed in at least six other states — are broadly similar. They require databases to remove and block student access to material that is obscene, inappropriate contentographic, sexually exploitative of children or “harmful to minors” — designations that opponents say could encompass a wide range of texts.

But educators and librarians say the new laws are unnecessary, as federal child protection and Internet privacy laws passed decades ago already require database companies to ensure that their materials are age-appropriate

So far, database companies — such as ProQuest, Gale, EBSCO Information Services and Follett School Solutions — say they are tracking the spate of legislation but have no plans to make major changes to their services.

Educators worry that the real purpose of the laws — especially those forbidding content “harmful to minors” — is to justify blocking articles and books that parents dislike.

Maybe these states can contract with Baidu to provide these services.

<meanwhile>

Upset by book bans, teen starts forbidden book club in small Pa. town

As book banning in schools reached unprecedented heights in the United States, 14-year-old Joslyn Diffenbaugh was having none of it.

“It’s really problematic, because books are the only way that you can be in another person’s shoes,” said Joslyn, a self-proclaimed “book nerd,” who lives in the small town of Kutztown, Pa., near Allentown.

Like several other teens across the country, she started a banned book club — where members read books that have been outlawed in schools and then meet regularly to discuss them.

So far, they have read six novels, including George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984,” as well as “Melissa” by Alex Gino and “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You” by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi.

“They were really eye-opening,” said Joslyn, an eighth-grader at Kutztown Middle School. “They are books that make you think.”

 

[hislegacy]

They require databases to remove and block student access to material that is obscene, inappropriate contentographic, sexually exploitative of children or “harmful to minors” — designations that opponents say could encompass a wide range of texts.

But educators and librarians say the new laws are unnecessary, as federal child protection and Internet privacy laws passed decades ago already require database companies to ensure that their materials are age-appropriate

First, thank God I live in Oklahoma where we still believe in protecting children!

Second, if they are already doing it, why complain about something that is already being done.

Why would you NOT want multiple layers of protection?

Answer: because it interferes with your agenda.


I find it incredulous that the very same people have no problem banning Tom Sawyer, and Dr. Suess for racist content now have an issue with children reading sexually explicit material.

 

[HTacianas]

The next book ban: States aim to limit titles students can search for

Republican lawmakers across the country are proposing legislation that would target online library databases and library management technology — tools built by a half-dozen large companies that catalogue millions of books, journals and articles that students peruse for assignments.

These bills — already enacted in Utah and Tennessee, on the verge of becoming law in Oklahoma, and proposed in at least six other states — are broadly similar. They require databases to remove and block student access to material that is obscene, inappropriate contentographic, sexually exploitative of children or “harmful to minors” — designations that opponents say could encompass a wide range of texts.

But educators and librarians say the new laws are unnecessary, as federal child protection and Internet privacy laws passed decades ago already require database companies to ensure that their materials are age-appropriate

So far, database companies — such as ProQuest, Gale, EBSCO Information Services and Follett School Solutions — say they are tracking the spate of legislation but have no plans to make major changes to their services.

Educators worry that the real purpose of the laws — especially those forbidding content “harmful to minors” — is to justify blocking articles and books that parents dislike.

Maybe these states can contract with Baidu to provide these services.

<meanwhile>

Upset by book bans, teen starts forbidden book club in small Pa. town

As book banning in schools reached unprecedented heights in the United States, 14-year-old Joslyn Diffenbaugh was having none of it.

“It’s really problematic, because books are the only way that you can be in another person’s shoes,” said Joslyn, a self-proclaimed “book nerd,” who lives in the small town of Kutztown, Pa., near Allentown.

Like several other teens across the country, she started a banned book club — where members read books that have been outlawed in schools and then meet regularly to discuss them.

So far, they have read six novels, including George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and “1984,” as well as “Melissa” by Alex Gino and “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You” by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi.

“They were really eye-opening,” said Joslyn, an eighth-grader at Kutztown Middle School. “They are books that make you think.”

" is to justify blocking articles and books that parents dislike"

That's certainly a good enough reason for it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

First, thank God I live in Oklahoma where we still believe in protecting children!

Second, if they are already doing it, why complain about something that is already being done.

Because the new laws are not the same. It is not about what is age-appropriate or not (which is already handled through existing law), but what parents dislike. HTacianas just made it clear that's exactly what it should be used for. That is government censorship; viewpoint discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional.

Answer: because it interferes with your agenda.

My free speech, free press agenda, yes. My First Amendment agenda.

 

[hislegacy]

Because the new laws are not the same. It is not about what is age-appropriate or not (which is already handled through existing law), but what parents dislike. HTacianas just made it clear that's exactly what it should be used for. That is government censorship; viewpoint discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional.

Query: Who should have final say over what materials their children are exposed to? Parents or the Government?

My free speech, free press agenda, yes. My First Amendment agenda.

How do you feel about Dr. Suess and Tom Sawyer being banned also?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Query: Who should have final say over what materials their children are exposed to? Parents or the Government?

The government is forbidden from censoring based on viewpoint/content. Obviously, in the context of children, age-appropriateness is a factor.

Parents can certainly tear comic books out of their children's hands and set them (the comic books, not the children) on fire if they feel the need to. To that extent they do have final say. They can also remove their children from certain lesson plans in the schools. They do have that final say.

But parents should not be able to switch off search access to all children in the state for an otherwise age-appropriate book. And the state should not unconstitutionally provide this 'service'.

How do you feel about Dr. Suess and Tom Sawyer being banned also?

Dr. Seuss has not been banned. The copyright owner has chosen, for its own reasons, to cease printing more copies of certain titles. It is free to do so.

I do not approve of Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn being banned by any government entities.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Query: Who should have final say over what materials their children are exposed to? Parents or the Government?

Should we restrict children's access to the Bible because some parents think it's harmful?

 

[hislegacy]

Should we restrict children's access to the Bible because some parents think it's harmful?

Does not answer my question

 

[essentialsaltes]

Does not answer my question

Not directly, but if parents have "final say", this law would open the floodgate to every squeaky wheel to get its grease.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Does not answer my question

Ultimately parents have the final say, but they don't get to use the government to enforce it. Every set of parents will have different opinions on what is and is not appropriate, so that's simply not feasible. If they don't like the standards that the government holds, then they are free to home-school or send their children to a private school that will cater to their preferences.

 

[hislegacy]

Ultimately parents have the final say, but they don't get to use the government to enforce it. Every set of parents will have different opinions on what is and is not appropriate, so that's simply not feasible. If they don't like the standards that the government holds, then they are free to home-school or send their children to a private school that will cater to their preferences.

I agree, that however leaves the middle class and poor out of the ability to provide for their children academically and in effect restricts their parental rights

That is why I support a voucher system.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I agree, that however leaves the middle class and poor out of the ability to provide for their children academically and in effect restricts their parental rights

That is why I support a voucher system.

It seems to me that the solution to this problem is to advocate for a workable voucher program (my understanding is that Oklahoma hasn't implemented one largely out of concerns over the expected budget cuts to rural schools that would result) rather than attempting to use the government to force your opinions on what is and isn't appropriate on the entire state.