This is just some moron trying to get votes from the neanderthals in his community. This law will never pass, even in Alabama, and if does, will never pass constitutional muster, even with a Republican-dominated government.

The scary thing here is that these neanderthals you speak of currently run the country.

I don't think things are as peachy as you say.

There are certainly books that are banned out of public libraries in different communities; this won't be a precedent.

Yes, but to what extent? I'm sure there are things that the "community" does that you don't agree with. Does someone saying to you, "but the majority decided it that way" actually add anything to the discussion? If it's a genuine principle, then it must apply across the board, right? For example, if your community decided to pass a 50% tax on everyone making over $100,000/year, would you use your principle of "self-determination" to justify it in any way?

Tipper Gore comes to mind.

Check out this chart: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksw ... 002003.pdf[/quote]

I didn't see any challenges specifically initiated by Democrats. While an interesting fact, it doesn't really support your point.

Yes, I would. Now, if I were in that community, I would fight it, and if I were outside of it, I would make my feelings about it known; but I certainly would respect that decision.

Same case here: I don't like the fact that the government of that community is using public money to build libraries; and I also do not like the fact that they're trying to ban certain books from those libraries; but it is their choice to make, not mine.

Well, opposition to things like "racism", "sexism", and "offensive language" fit the stereotype of a Democrat, just as much as opposition to "homosexuality" and "sexually explicit" would fit the stereotype of a Republican.

And, like I said, Tipper Gore is one of the screaming examples.

Actually, "offensive language" is more of a Republican thing. And I asked for factual examples of Democratic censorship. If you check those stats again, you'll find that the VAST majority of those complaints come from parents, not lawmakers. So you haven't connected any particular case to a Democrat in the way I've connected an actual case to an actual Republican.

And Tipper Gore advocated warning labels. Is that really the same thing as book banning? While some would certainly have a problem with labeling these books with warning stickers, it's less egregious than an outright ban.

But you're arguing the virtue of majority rule. Why would you fight it if you respect the decision?



I'm making my feelings known, and I'm making others aware of it. I don't understand how that's different from what you just said you'd do.

Look, you specifically ascribed the "anti gay sentiment" to the whole Party, then you point out that the vast majority of the complaints come from parents. So which is it?

And please, the "offensive language" thing has go to be a joke. Which political party argues for hate-crime laws?

The guy in Alabama advocats banning of using public money on the books; he is not proposing anything that would force private parties to adhere to "moral standards; Tipper Gore did, on the other hand. I find that to be much more offensive.

How about Andrea Dworkin and other anti-porn feminists making a law that banned pornography?

What about black groups trying to ban Huck Finn?

Majority rule within the bounds of the Constitution. I would fight it to the extent that I would voice my protest to it, and try to persuade the people who voted for it to reconsider their position.

However, I will not deny the public the right to determine how to spend their money.

Where did I say that you're doing something wrong. I'm just not alarmed about the "book burning", considering that it's the public money that are in question in the law.

Speaking of banned books, I was reminded of the fact that Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho was banned in Germany for about 10 years.

Germans make up for it with scheisse videos

Which you download on daily basis

I'm not using that report to back up my claim. I'm using the Republican party platform.

You, however, are relying on that report to make a claim that is not in anyway substantiated by it.



The "offensive language" is profanity, and that's a conservative Republican hang up. Or do I need to remind you of who is running the FCC and ratcheting up the fines on profanity in broadcast television?

Racism and other "hate crime" related complaints are covered separately.

The black groups trying to ban Huck Finn is a good example, although that pales in comparison to banning ANY and ALL books featuring ANY positive references to homosexuals. And it still doesn't involved an actual Democratic lawmaker.

So using public money to promote anti-gay bigotry is fine based on WHAT principle of yours exactly?

So if a Democratic lawmaker proposed banning any and all race-related books in the public library, you'd be as non-plussed about that as you are about this?

My claim was that some Democrats are also trying to use legislature to ban public fnding for books and other materials.

The report I used shows some reasons why books are banned.

Using your logic, that some political parties can be defined by an opposition to one issue, I pointed some reasons, to which Democrats might be opposed.

Now, you bring up the fact that the vast majority of these challenges are brought about by private parties. That may very well be true, but those private parties might also have party affilitions; besides obviously there is a minority of these challenges that's not brought by private parties, but by public fgiures, such as Tipper Gore and her group.

You're obviously ignoring the fact that the power to for FCC to rule over what's indecent and what's not, was given to it by a Democratic president, Franclin Roosevelt.

The FCC also has 2 Democratic commissioners, both of whom support the recent "crackdown on indecency".


Racism is not a hate crime. They're related however, and they're also related to "offensive language". It is all a way to try and define what kind of speech is appropriate and what kind isn't, that's undertaken by both Democrats and Republicans.

For the black groups to pass such a challenge, there has to be a lawmaker involved.

Having a library built with public money is not a right; it's a privilige. Consequently, it is up to the public to define how to use that money.

Suppose you and your neighbors got together and decided to build a library on the street corner. The library is built and operates and everyone is happy.

5 years from now there is a book about gays coming out. 5 of your neighbours don't want to buy it for the library, but you're the only one that does. You're voted down. You can say that your neighbors are promoting anti-gay bigotry all you want, but you do not have the right to force them to spend their money the way you want to.

I'd have the same feelings about it: I don't agree with that decision, but I wouldn't view it as book-burning or banning.

They very well might, but you haven't shown that, and there's no way to tell it from that data.



Racism complaints in terms of library material are covered in that report in its own category. To say that the separate category of "offensive language" includes racism would make the "racism" category redundant. So offensive language in the case of the report means profanity.



Maybe, if that challenge passes into law.

Of course, it would be foolish to suggest that Democrats aren't guilty of ANY kind of censorship. But obviously there are degrees and types. The issue here is the type. That's why I find your defense of it so odd. We could all defend everything if it was simply about our right to do it or not. But not even you do that (and whether or not you do seems dependent on the issue). So I'm wondering why you can't just address the issue and say if you think it's right or wrong based on the issue.

So you have no problem then when public money is used for programs like affirmative action in public universities. Right?

Public funding of education is a priviledge. And it's up to the public to decide how to use that money.

So obviously you respect that decision and defend it when confronted by those who complain otherwise.

I disagree with the fact that public universities exist in the first place.

As far as private universities go, it is up to them to define whatever policy they wish for applicants.

Yup.

However, I also point out that I consider the Affirmative Action program to exaggerate the problem of low qualifications of minority applicants, rather than address it. For public institutions, the "Equal Opportunity" program ought to be enough.

Just like you have not shown that the Republicans tend to try and restrict funding for books about homosexuals.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof.

Absolutely, Huck Finn is one of the most banned books in the U.S.

Look up my FIRST post in the thread.

That's not what I asked. Otherwise, you could just say that you disagree with the fact that public libraries exist in the first place and leave it at that.

You said you supported the decision to remove references in gays in public libraries if that was what passed.

Do you respect affirmative action programs for the same reason?



Funny, because when you and I discussed affirmative action before, not once did you say any such thing. In fact, I remember you taking a rather contrarian view of the program.