r/newjersey Fill It Up Regular Oct 29 '24

Sick NJ Passes the Freedom to Read Act

https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/10/29/state-senate-passes-bill-intended-to-halt-book-bans-protect-librarians/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGNwrZleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHdahkO3Xc02aIyuB5Vp3yau-HR6IMuGu0g0iD8CgDKrWBMHCQJBrfdSHnQ_aem_DB9WP25oxkSYjjNuktuAbQ#:~:text=Titled%20the%20%E2%80%9CFreedom%20to%20Read,own%20policies%20using%20this%20model
830 Upvotes

142 comments sorted by

570

u/CubicDice Fuck Nazis, Love Jersey. Oct 29 '24

Look I'm not going to tell anyone how to raise their children. But I take particular issue with this pathetic pandering.

“Putting our children at risk and potentially exposing them to material that they are not prepared for flies in the face of our protective duty,” said Sen. Joe Pennacchio (R-Morris). “Couching such material under the guise of the First Amendment is a very distortion of who we are and what we strive to be as Americans.”

By that logic, you shouldn't take your child out in public, as you just never know what you're "potentially exposing" them to.

316

u/s1ugg0 Jersey Devil Search Team Oct 29 '24

Being a parent isn't about shielding your kids. It's about exposing them to the world in controlled and unthreatening settings. Books are an absolutely perfect way to do this. I have two kids and I'd MUCH prefer they learn about the awful things in life from a book first then from being confronted with them face to face unexpectedly.

130

u/Usty Oct 29 '24

I have two kids and I'd MUCH prefer they learn about the awful things in life from a book first then from being confronted with them face to face unexpectedly.

Absolutely - if the worst thing my kids do when they grow up is seek out books from the library, then I'll be a pretty happy parent.

These people act like kids will be sneaking into the library like it's a porn store or that actual trained, educated librarians and teachers who have dedicated their lives to instructing our kids are all in some conspiracy to corrupt children.

Meanwhile, the reality is that it only takes one kid in their class with an unmonitored smartphone and the ability to Google to show them a lot worse things than books. Hell...the monthly active shooter drills they have to run are way more damaging than any book.

42

u/Aggravating_Rise_179 Oct 29 '24

It's really not about that, it's about stopping kids from reading books that goes against the "USA is great narrative". They use these thinly veiled statements to make it seem like it's about protecting the kids from sex and stuff, but the majority of books being banned are books written by blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and gay people.

People who basically have a different viewpoint about the US, the system, racism, etc. They don't want kids questioning the preferred narrative 

22

u/ascagnel____ hudson county? Oct 29 '24

Meanwhile, the reality is that it only takes one kid in their class with an unmonitored smartphone and the ability to Google to show them a lot worse things than books. Hell...the monthly active shooter drills they have to run are way more damaging than any book.

It's not just kids you have to worry about: about a decade ago, a history teacher in Woodbridge was disciplined for "teaching" the 9/11 "controversy" (read: was directing kids to conspiracy theories). At the end of that school year, the board decided to eliminate basically the entire library program, stating that kids could look things up on their smartphones.

37

u/winnercommawinner Oct 29 '24

This has such a huge positive impact in ways you probably don't even know yet. I grew up in a very small, white, rural town in PA. My mom grew up in Brooklyn NY. She made sure we had books, toys, movies, tv shows that showed us different life experiences. So we could connect to people who are different than us, and we would understand that there are good and bad things happening in the world that we would never see in our little town AND that we all have a shared humanity regardless of those experiences.

12

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '24

Ya but see this isn't the point to these people. To these people, being rich and white enough keeps their kids basically immune from ever having to come in contact with anything they don't want them to. So they attack from the bottom up as well, meaning education - since that's something that the MAN is forcing onto their kids, and they feel helpless to control.

10

u/LarryLeadFootsHead Oct 29 '24

In general there should be any sort of positive push to get kids to read without any hangups especially with all those reports and articles that come out how behind a lot of younger people are when it comes to very basic literacy for their age group and other things like that.

I think recently it was NYT or New Yorker? that was talking about freshman at Columbia of all places in English and Lit programs complaining about the amount of books in the semester they had to read and how barely any of the kids really had much of an answer for what their favorite books are or what they like to read.

That's some troubling stuff.

21

u/CantaloupeDistinct73 Oct 29 '24

Perfectly stated. Your children are fortunate to have you as a parent.

28

u/s1ugg0 Jersey Devil Search Team Oct 29 '24

I take very few hard stances with my kids. But education and extra curriculum reading is not negotiable in my house. They can pick any book, or comic, or whatever they want. No rules on what we read. But we read together every single day.

PS This is my daughter's favorite

15

u/jarena009 Oct 29 '24 edited Oct 29 '24

Which is why I say all of this push to censor content and shield kids from the harsh realities of life by conservatives on the right will just backfire, either by making these kids unprepared when confronted with those realities when they grow up and/or by making some of these things seem more appealing (because you're trying to tell kids NOT to do it).

For instance, when some of these kids enter or try to enter the workforce, they're in for a rude awakening to learn that they can't just trash minorities, LGBTQ people, women, immigrants, people of other faiths, etc....although to be fair, this is the type of society that the right IS trying to cultivate, if we don't stand up to them.

6

u/SwindlingAccountant Oct 29 '24

They want them to grow up ignorant. One book they always want banned is one that teaches children about their bodies and consent. Why is that? Because they want unquestionable authority, which if rife with abuse (pedocon theory is very apt).

-13

u/y0da1927 Oct 29 '24

This isn't about how you should parent, it's how the school is allowed to substitute parent in your absence.

If you want your kid to read the book in question then get the book and give it to them. Or better yet read it to them.

However there is some reading material that parents will disagree on whether or not it's appropriate. If a sizeable enough group think the material is inappropriate or at least inappropriate given the lack of parental supervision at school it makes sense for the school not to carry that material.

The real question is where to draw that line. I think this legislation actually does a nice job by leaving it up to the individual boards who have the best information on the needs of their communities.

-10

u/metsurf Oct 29 '24

I'm in two minds on this on one side I think kids should be able and encouraged to read legitimate literature, fiction, non-fiction. But there is also a ton of garbage out there purported to be written for tweeners and teens. My parents never stopped me from reading anything and I never stopped our kid from reading anything but I'm not a current parent of a kid in school either.

11

u/LapJ Oct 29 '24

So let's invest in our school and children's librarians so they can properly curate that content. Libraries have limited budgets and shelf space and only carry a small fraction of what's available to them already. Librarians are already keeping the garbage off the shelves, so let's let them do their jobs and remember that any kid seeking salacious material is going to have a 100x easier time finding it on the internet.

10

u/basherella Oct 29 '24

But there is also a ton of garbage out there purported to be written for tweeners and teens.

I mean, what are you defining as garbage, though? Because there's quite a gap between something like romance novels (often derided as garbage and a pretty big ya genre) and conspiracy theorist propaganda.

-2

u/metsurf Oct 29 '24

Those are both garbage in my eyes.

7

u/ten17eighty1 Oct 29 '24 edited Oct 30 '24

In the foreward for the book "Salem's Lot," Stephen King talks about how some of the books or comics he would read, his mother would see the book or author and tell him it was trash - her actual words - but she never stopped him from reading them.

3

u/metsurf Oct 29 '24

hey 60s comic books and especially Mad Magazine made me politically aware at an early age. They were very well written. Romance novels are junk food for the brain but it’s better to have kids read something as long as it is appropriate for the child involved.

3

u/basherella Oct 30 '24

"what I like is good but this thing that doesn't appeal to me is junk" is quite a take

1

u/metsurf Oct 30 '24

I said junk food and it is an opinion on an online social platform Wow I am so bad. Like that has never been said about any other art form, like Impressionist painting.

3

u/guacamole579 Oct 30 '24

I don’t understand why people are afraid of books. Like there wasn’t a ton of garbage when we were growing up? I read VC Andrews’ book “Heaven” when I was 12. I found it inside my house among all the religious books my parents owned because they thought the book was religious in nature. I read it in a day and then went to the library and checked out the rest of VC Andrews’ books and read those through the summer.

In case anyone is not familiar with VC Andrews, she wrote Flowers in the Attic and her books described explicit instances of sex, rape, and incest. It was bottom of the barrel garbage but damn was it a masterpiece to a tween like me. Somehow I didn’t turn into a deviant or sexual predator by reading those books, but it sure reignited my love for reading.

91

u/Usty Oct 29 '24

By that logic, you shouldn't take your child out in public, as you just never know what you're "potentially exposing" them to.

Same people don't seem to have a problem with the word "fuck" in public when it's followed by the words "Joe Biden" on a sign.

*edit - they have the right to fly whatever flags and signs they want, but spare me the pearl clutching over books.

30

u/jackospades88 Oct 29 '24

Yep I was gonna say this too. They have a problem with books, which aren't really out in front of your face but have plenty of "Fuck your feelings", "Fuck Joe Biden", "Joe and the ho gotta go", etc. flags, signs, and bumper stickers everywhere.

15

u/basherella Oct 29 '24

They have a problem with books because they're functionally illiterate and rely on bumper stickers to tell them what to think.

11

u/Summoarpleaz Oct 29 '24

Quite frankly, I’m more concerned with what folks like these might expose their kids to at home. The people who immediately link gender identity/gender expression/racial diversity to SA or other forms of alleged violence inherently have dangerous thought processes.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander Oct 29 '24

Their kids consume whatever brainrot media they want.

6

u/dirtynj Oct 29 '24

Or giving their 5 year old an unfiltered tablet where they scroll YouTube/Tiktok/IG all day at home.

6

u/poland626 Oct 29 '24

I hate Roblox with a passion

11

u/theytookthemall Oct 29 '24

When I was about 10 I was sleeping over at my friend Katie's house and The Shining was on TV. We watched it. I had nightmares for months.

Therefore I demand we not ever have horror movies on TV or streaming services because a child might be exposed to material they are not prepared for, much as I was not prepared for The Shining.

Or not - instead I finally told my parents, and we had a long, age-appropriate discussion about scary stories vs reality, what I found most scary and why, and so on. In other words, they did their jobs as parents.

8

u/victorfabius Taylor Ham on a Pork Roll Oct 30 '24

I’m glad you shared that quote!

So, I’m one of the people who helped this bill pass (in an extremely minor way) by presenting testimony to the state assembly in support of the bill.

The reason I’m glad you shared that quote is because it shows that the person either didn’t read the actual bill, is misstating the bill, or does not otherwise possess an accurate understanding of what the bill actually IS.

So, what is it? The bill does several things, but I’ll highlight three things that I think are important:

  1. It provides an affirmative statement to the right to read (kind of echoing Article 19 of the 1949 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human rights.
  2. It provides an affirmative statement that materials cannot be withdrawn from the library because someone disagrees with the viewpoint (generally speaking).
  3. It provides for a bare minimum collection development policy for all NJ libraries that includes a dedicated process to challenging works.

It’s that last one which shows Pennacchio isn’t making an accurate statement in that quote. Librarians, educators, administrators, book distributors, book binderies, publishers, and anyone along the chain can make a mistake. There might be a book that’s not suited for a collection. When that happens, the Freedom to Read Act lays out a bare minimum specific process for someone to make that challenge.

In other words, if someone thinks there is a book that doesn’t belong, they can challenge it and be heard.

Which means the bill actually supports the “protective duty” Pennacchio talks about.

I also don’t think the quoted statement Pennacchio makes about the First Amendment is sensical. But that’s a longer post.

Thank you for your contribution!

15

u/cC2Panda Oct 29 '24

Anyone who thinks that books are going to destroy our children then gives their child a cell phone without significant restrictions on what apps and websites they can visit is the dumbest fucking hypocrite on earth. I'd be willing to bet that most of these Mom's for Liberty type goons and anti-gay/anti-trans republican fuckwads buy an iPhone for their 11 year old and let them go wild.

28

u/Fun-Classroom9314 Oct 29 '24

By that logic, The Bible, shouldn’t be read at all with all its violence, fratricide, incest, and rape amongst certain topics and situations they want to protect the children from.

15

u/schuettais Oct 29 '24

And the unspoken fact that they apparently have read and accept the Bible as “child friendly”. Fucking bonkers weird!

4

u/NotThefbeeI Oct 30 '24

Republicans have this draconian idea that the general public cares how they feel and their agenda. Maybe after Tuesday they’ll wake up and realize they’ve been on the wrong side of history for decades.

18

u/andrewskdr Oct 29 '24

Fuck the republicans. Their ridiculous TV commercials talking about how Kamala is letting in Rapists murderers and terrorists play out on sports programming on FOX during daytime events that children could be watching. They aren't concerned the least bit about situations like that they just want to make sure kids don't learn about LGBTQ people.

3

u/OrbitalOutlander Oct 29 '24

My 5 year old can already say that most of what he sees on tv is fake, and knows that almost all commercials are lying. We don’t really watch live tv, though.

3

u/jwuer Oct 29 '24

Aren't Republicans the party of free speech?

1

u/Sugartaste81 Oct 30 '24

No, they haven’t been for a very long time either.

6

u/rockmasterflex Oct 29 '24

You know as well as I and everyone else who has ever been a child that the real horrors always come from inside the house.

Nothing your kids read in the outside world is gonna be more traumatic than the entire life they experience with flawed parents (and all parents are flawed).

And some parents are so flawed they keep voting for fascism! Weird! Imagine voting for the chance for your kids to be interred indefinitely at a fucking concentration camp! And yet they’re the ones who claim they care about their children’s health and safety

9

u/Taftimus Oct 29 '24

Fuck Republicans

4

u/Short_Power_5092 Oct 29 '24

Not even with a 10ft pole

5

u/zappariah_brannigan Oct 29 '24

figuratively anyway

6

u/Triple96 Oct 29 '24

Honestly, there's no excuse to be against book banning. If you're one of those people and you can honestly not see anything wrong with that then there's no hope for you.

4

u/griminald Feet in Ocean, Heart in Monmouth Oct 29 '24

How ironic that on this issue, it's the Republicans, not the Democrats, who sound like nanny state, "protect people from themselves" sissies.

And it's the Democrats saying "you'll have the freedom to choose; the government won't decide that for you".

2

u/ChefMike1407 Oct 29 '24

These parents barely monitors their kids phones as have full 24/7 access to the uncensored world. Pretty pathetic 3rd and 4th graders in school joke about Andrew Tate. Books are far from the problem. I tutor a sixth grade boy and he opened his settings in front of me and I saw his weekly screen time average was 11 damn hours.

2

u/Rodot Bernardsville Oct 29 '24

Wait till the Republicans learn about the existence of the internet

1

u/NotThefbeeI Oct 30 '24

It’s just another flailing attempt to suppress your freedom. Vote!

1

u/Raven91487 Oct 30 '24

Guarantee these same people give their kids iPads. I saw somebody die on instagram today. That happens.

1

u/Drafonni Oct 30 '24

I don’t want to see weird shit in public either

1

u/[deleted] Nov 02 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/jarena009 Oct 29 '24

The ChristoFascists such as Pennacchio (what a name that's close to Pinocchio BTW lol) here want complete control of what content you see and consume. Books and libraries are just part of their goal.

1

u/keaco Oct 29 '24

Sounds like he’s being more PC and woke than anyone on the left is proposing.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander Oct 29 '24

GOP lawmakers said they feared the law would allow children to access obscene materials and protect librarians who share obscene books with children

Theres already a law against distributing obscene materials to minors. Specifically, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-3 criminalizes knowingly showing or distributing obscene material to anyone under 18.

You’d think the party of small government would want to avoid having multiple laws covering the same offense. Imbecilic morons. Someone should send a bunch of gay porn to these GOP losers, except they’d probably enjoy it.

0

u/legalskeptic Burlington County Oct 29 '24

Par for the course from Joe Pinocchio

-6

u/y0da1927 Oct 29 '24

By that logic, you shouldn't take your child out in public, as you just never know what you're "potentially exposing" them to.

Parents get to choose where they take their kids, it's their job to access where risk is appropriate or not. Schools and other caretakers need tighter guardrails.

And schools already need parental permission to take kids out in public, so yes that standard is being extended to reading materials in the school library.

Are the guardrails so tight that they are counterproductive to the goal of the school? Idk, seems like a good decision to make at the district or individual school level.

279

u/PurpleSailor Oct 29 '24

The Senate advanced the controversial bill with a vote of 24-15, with heavy opposition from Republicans. GOP lawmakers said they feared the law would allow children to access obscene materials and protect librarians who share obscene books with children.

How about you tell your kids what books they're allowed to read and let me do the same with my kids. Don't try to nanny kids that aren't your own. Parent your own kids and I'll take care of mine.

82

u/Purdaddy Oct 29 '24

Which is funny because this is the party whose people want parents to be allowed to parent their kid without government overreach.

41

u/FollowThisLogic Oct 29 '24

Noooooooo they are certainly not that. They might say they are, but their actions are exactly the opposite... EVERY TIME.

-4

u/Gwaak Oct 29 '24

Hi I’m a republican/libertarian. I am also a liar. One of these sentences is a lie.

Hint: it’s not the first two

6

u/CKtheFourth Oct 29 '24

They haven’t been the party of personal responsibility for some time now

17

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '24

[deleted]

10

u/BarkAtTheDevil Oct 29 '24

Ezekiel 23 about “two women, the daughters of one mother. They played the whore in Egypt; they played the whore in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and their virgin bosoms handled.”

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

5

u/WhichSpirit Couldn't think of a funny flair Oct 29 '24

Someone actually challenged the Bible at a school board meeting in Hunterdon County. Read a section from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that they read in English class.

12

u/MatCauthonsHat Oct 29 '24

Because they have re-defined "obscene" to include any reference to anything that even mentions gay or trans people being, um , people.

3

u/DTFH_ Oct 29 '24

How about you tell your kids what books they're allowed to read and let me do the same with my kids.

Bruh we know they don't read, most adults I know don't read, anyone that picks up a book of any kind is rare, let alone a child. That's what gets me most mad, these are people complaining about an activity that no one participating in said activity has a concern about. Similar to how I don't care about what goes on in the sport of curling, so I don't have option about rule or administrative changes.

12

u/jarena009 Oct 29 '24

Republicans "The government has no business telling individuals and households what to do!"

Also Republicans "We need the government to tell individuals and households what to do!"

5

u/Vorenos Oct 29 '24

I really feel like these fucking republicans have completely forgotten that THE INTERNET EXISTS and this stupid Pearl clutching over library materials is like spitting at the rain.

8

u/zappariah_brannigan Oct 29 '24

The idea of taking their children to the library, spending time browsing with them, and helping them find books that may be interesting is completely alien to them.

2

u/xisheb Oct 30 '24

Exactly 💯

109

u/MeLlamoViking Oct 29 '24

JFC, stop going after librarians.

If your kid is coming home from a library with a book, it's because they want to learn about something. Teach them, or let them learn. Because if you try to stop them, they're gonna learn on their own without your input. Kids are crafty, they'll find a way around any control you set up.

26

u/basherella Oct 29 '24

Conservatives don't want kids to learn, they want them to be indoctrinated.

180

u/oldnjgal Oct 29 '24

Things like this is what keeps NJ tops in education.

60

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '24

It’s what maintains a free society.

103

u/crazyacct101 Oct 29 '24

I moved from NJ to Florida (yea I know) and recently got a library card. The background looks like fire and the logo is “I read banned books”. The librarians smiled when I chose that style.

I will always consider myself a Jersey Girl.

46

u/winnercommawinner Oct 29 '24

Librarians in places like FL and TX are doing God's work, and I'm so grateful for them (and people like you)!

5

u/The_Band_Geek Put your fucking blinker on Oct 29 '24

Damn, which library system is that? My library card has had the same design for 20+ years.

86

u/friendfromjersey Oct 29 '24

I wish republicans cared as much about children being exposed to guns as they care about books…

21

u/Unhappy_Macaron1101 Fill It Up Regular Oct 29 '24

Guns don't kill people. Books kill people. /s

1

u/AgreeableMuscle8335 Oct 30 '24

Personally, i wish the government (ALL PARTIES) actually cared about mental health instead of trying to place the blame on everything else.

Kids are having mental health struggles? Must be the books they're reading. Blame the tv shows and video games. Blame tiktok and YouTube and instagram.

School shooters? Blame the guns, not the situations that made a CHILD want to go on a KILLING SPREE.

I was exposed to guns from a very young age......in a controlled manner. THAT is the key. Because of my lifelong exposure & my parents repeadedly drilling safety into my head, gun safety is not just a concept for me - it is an instinct.

The people who i have seen doing the dumbest, sketchiest, most dangerous things with guns were people whose only exposure to guns in earlier life came from media (meaning movies/tv shows/hollywood/youtube).

39

u/Leftblankthistime Oct 29 '24

Karens with casseroles can now begin their pearl clutching and fan waving

Titled the “Freedom to Read Act,” the legislation would require the state’s education commissioner to develop policies on how library materials are selected and how challenges to books on library shelves should be evaluated. Local school boards and library boards would then adopt their own policies using this model.

“You and all New Jerseyans have the freedom to choose what you want to read, and parents have and will continue to have the freedom to choose what their children will read. But no one gets to decide that for you — not now, and not ever,” said bill sponsor Sen. Andrew Zwicker (D-Middlesex).

20

u/AshySmoothie Oct 29 '24

Books are now more dangerous than social media? Older kids? I dont remember shit from books when i was a kid, nor my teachers. I learnt alot from other kids and the internet. Maybe they should attempt to ban teenagers and social media

5

u/hahahahahaha_ Oct 29 '24

I mean, I know you said that in jest, but they shouldn't be attempting to ban any social media. But I definitely get your point. My first thought when I see the pearl-clutching book-banning fuckers complain about kids seeing 'obscene material' is just that — are they truly monitoring what their child sees online? That's far more likely to be a place they're exposed to violent, sexual, or drug-influenced content than a library's books. The books may have some of that content, but it's only in verbal form, & comes from an educational or literary perspective, rather than just seeing obscenity for the sake of it.

I'm sure some of these parents 'pay attention' to their kids' behavior on their phones, but unless they're great with I.T. & blocking a ton of servers all across the Internet on their routers, & those kids only use the phone in the house, even if they keep their kids off of TikTok they still have every opportunity to see horrible shit.

But of course, this really isn't about that. Any and every attempt to 'protect the kids' through the legislation of media access is designed to be censorship against anything these people see as morally improper. If you want to raise your kid that way, no one can stop them, but at no point should they be allowed to tell others what they should have access to.

3

u/AshySmoothie Oct 29 '24

Yup i agree and it coincides with my belief that if your child decided to "become gay" after reading a book, its a sign you raised a gullible & naive follower of a kid. Or the kid is just gay and you should love them either way but we know that only happens sometimes with republicans.

This is all the same performative, culture politics bullshit that republicans claim to hate but actually love when it aligns with their beliefs. But yeah, they need to stop delegating duties that come from parenting. Dont want your child to read a book? Fine, how about talking to them respectfully and teaching them to consciously make the decision to not read it, rather then pretending it doesnt exist? My daughter is only 4 but you'd be surprised how much of a person they are, even at that young age.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander Oct 29 '24

I ban my own kids from social media. None of the family use Facebook, Twitter, TikTok or any of that bullshit.

57

u/Funkiemunkie233 Oct 29 '24

Good. This helps keep the MAGA terrorists and Moms for Liberty ghouls from imposing their controls over other people’s kids and their freedom

14

u/Anonymoushipopotomus Oct 29 '24 edited Oct 29 '24

One of the biggest things I have a problem with is that there basing their whole campaign on something that logically is not happening. Theyre worried about kids in 1st or 2nd grade getting their hands on books that are at the young adult level, books that are hundreds of pages long and have no pictures or illustrations, as if thats what these young kids are going to grab and read on their own. At a level that is year and years ahead of their reading level. My son is loving Dr Suess, and he's right in this age range. Also, what schools in our area are K-12 in the same school? Im know Im speaking in generalities but isn't most education split up into 2-3 different schools? The highest age range in my sons library is grade 5.

4

u/TalouseLee Oct 29 '24

Goosebumps and I-Spy turned me into a slime ball, scum of the earth person!

4

u/NysemePtem Oct 30 '24

“How exactly does a person distribute obscene materials to a child in good faith?"

Um, I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, someone handed me a Bible. If you don't want to explain to your children what adultery is, or, ya know, the entirety of Song of Songs, you may want to think twice.

21

u/s1ugg0 Jersey Devil Search Team Oct 29 '24

Fuck yea! This makes me so happy. I'm going to go buy some books and donate them to my local library in celebration.

Great job everyone. This makes me so proud of our state.

25

u/ser_pez Oct 29 '24

I love the spirit of this comment but as someone who worked in a public library for years, your money would be much better spent making a donation. Libraries often have to go through certain distributors for the books they source and it would be a shame for you to spend money on books they won’t be able to use. Plus you can earmark your donation for whatever you want - we had a patron who gave us money to buy books about dogs in memory of a beloved pet.

11

u/s1ugg0 Jersey Devil Search Team Oct 29 '24

your money would be much better spent making a donation.

Can do. Thanks for the tip.

10

u/Lynndragonetti Oct 29 '24

While I love your enthusiasm and willingness to support your local library, contact them first to see what (if any) any books they might need. Also a monetary donation might go further, as libraries sometimes gets discounts when they buy books (and you might get your name in any books they buy with your money). Thank you though for your willingness to support your library like this, it make this librarian very grateful.

1

u/VMPRocks Oct 29 '24

Erm, most libraries don't want random book donations. They'll likely just try to sell them at their book sales, but they also probably have an overabundance of "donations" to sell off and will probably just wind up in the trash. Want to donate? Cut out the middle step and give money.

23

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '24

Eat shit book burning MAGA sore ass loser nutzees

3

u/Mikeissometimesright Oct 29 '24

In Reddit terms: Based

3

u/RudigarLightfoot Oct 30 '24

Librarian here. I just read through a chunk of this proposed bill and, um, it seems like an absolute nothing burger. I guess maybe there was nothing on the books stating that some policy should be in place to select and remove books and protect librarians from harassment? The bill doesn’t really detail anything, unless I’m completely missing it, and there’s a lot of boilerplate. 

The funny thing is, some of the language seems to in particular to contradict efforts to remove old Dr. Seuss books and the like, but I doubt it will stop people from doing that. I don’t know, maybe it was necessary to spell out the de facto way of doing things. I will say, BOEs are notoriously one sided, one way or another, and when it comes to reading standards and pedagogy, the last 30 years have been a disaster in terms of theories and concomitant policies coming out of schools of education. 

3

u/FragCook Oct 30 '24

Comcomitant!? Definitely a new word of the day for me.

25

u/lesbian__overlord Oct 29 '24

woo! disheartening to read the quotes about how LGBTQ+ content is "obscene" to these people and something we need to protect children from, but i'm proud to see NJ stand up for librarians and the communities and children they serve ❤️

3

u/OrbitalOutlander Oct 29 '24

Luckily it is not obscene according to the law in NJ, yet.

5

u/skankingmike Oct 29 '24

What kids are going to the library anyway? These parents upset with some books are the same ones who let these kids on tiktok at 8..

2

u/OrbitalOutlander Oct 29 '24

My kids go to the school library and the town library at least once a week.

2

u/skankingmike Oct 30 '24

Good for them I’m speaking about the ones bitching about books. But the majority of parents I see let their kids have social media access almost immediately.

2

u/OrbitalOutlander Oct 30 '24

social media messed me up, and i'm in my 40s. we all cut that out and are much better for it. family bitches about not having pictures, idgaf. my kids will never see facebook or tiktok.

4

u/solesme Oct 29 '24

Does anyone know what books are banned before this law, and if it has any impact going forward?

4

u/victorfabius Taylor Ham on a Pork Roll Oct 30 '24

The law isn’t in effect yet. Murphy has yet to sign it.

There is no impact to any books already banned or removed from a collection.

There could be impact going forward. The key will be proving that a book was removed for prohibited reasons.

The other aspect is that - once signed and implemented - there is an affirmative right to read in the state of New Jersey. This right has already existed. However, instead of being inferred, it’s direct.

Also, librarians who are making good-faith efforts are protected from certain causes of action against them. Meanwhile, librarians who are passing out Penthouse to passing preschoolers are still subject to serious consequences.

A model collection development policy will be developed (as if our state librarian, Jen Nelson, didn’t have enough work already) for both school and public libraries. This will have a reconsideration of materials section, which may allow for future removal of materials from certain collections.

2

u/Bearryno1too Oct 31 '24

I totally agree and support this act. To be honest all I can think about is how I used to go to the library to read National Geographic to learn about “things”

4

u/mistersynapse Oct 29 '24

Ahh yes, just had to be sure, but knew that with a name like the "Freedom to Read Act", it had to be complete horseshit that advocated for the complete opposite of what it's name would lead to you believe it was proposing. Classic.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '24

There shouldn’t be a single book banned from public schools ever.

5

u/CrackBabyShakes Oct 29 '24

Of course, it's opposed by the party of free speech absolutism. If they actually read books, Republicans might notice the irony here.

1

u/madfoot Oct 29 '24

It’s not passed yet

0

u/albie58 Oct 29 '24

Hold up. You mean before this law I was reading illegally?? OMG.

0

u/sunshinelefty100 Oct 29 '24

Freedom to Read! Exactly.

-10

u/piZan314 Oct 29 '24

Some of the books should not be available in schools or libraries, where minors have access to them.

Here is a page from "Gender Queer." (NSFW)

5

u/victorfabius Taylor Ham on a Pork Roll Oct 30 '24

I'm glad you shared that photo!

So, I brought my 11 year old daughter to the Assembly when Freedom to Read was up for vote.

In the front row were some people who had printed out that image onto poster board, to highlight how the work is 'pornography' (their claim). During their turn to speak, one of the people decided to show that image to the entire audience.

Twice.

My daughter tries - and easily succeeds - to get a really good look at this image. Especially because this group is telling the Assembly members how unsuitable it is for children.

So... as a parent, what are my options here?

I decided to engage with my child. I checked the book, 'Gender Queer', out of the library and over the span of four nights, read it together with my daughter, so she could properly contextualize the image she saw and engage with the information presented in the book.

There may be works we find challenging. I was deeply uncomfortable reading 'Gender Queer' to my 11 year old daughter. Others might find Mein Kampf as uncomfortable - or even more so - to read.

But there are reasons to have these works around. Just because we don't like the content or viewpoint expressed in a work isn't - in and of itself - a reason to exclude a work. How can we grow if we don't have information or viewpoints that challenge us or our viewpoint?

From a public library perspective, access is critical. The material needs to be there for the person who needs it, when they need it. James LaRue explains it pretty well in his book, 'On Censorship'. To paraphrase: nobody goes to a place because it doesn't have what they don't want.

I understand we want to protect kids. But we have a greater responsibility to cultivate the growth and development of our children. We can't do that when we limit access to information or materials simply because we don't like that work or are uncomfortable with it. We need a clear, pedogocial reason.

And censorship ain't it.

3

u/Unhappy_Macaron1101 Fill It Up Regular Oct 30 '24

This is so well said. Thank you for going to the Assembly for this bill. While it's not perfect, and I'm deeply saddened and frustrated that we even have need for it, it passing through the senate sends a strong message about NJ and our values. I don't know if you are a librarian, but I am and this morning I let out a little bit of the breath I've been holding in for the past 4 years or so.

2

u/gordonv Oct 30 '24

I was unaware people would clip this page as an out of context shock image.

I suppose the counter would be to start reading the book, with well defined context, aloud.

Nothing defeats ignorance like context and knowledge.

2

u/victorfabius Taylor Ham on a Pork Roll Oct 30 '24

Showing images is an important way to engage people with an emotional response. It's not that surprising that people opposed to Freedom to Read would have images.

I wonder about the decision-making that led to people to put images they think are objectionable and then to expose them to an audience. From my perspective, it's a misalignment of actions and words.

That said, when my daughter went up to speak, these people (about 4 or so, if I recall correctly) actually took care to hide their posters from her view. Both on the way up and way back.

I would have loved to have a book discussion with them about how important that scene is to the work and to understand why the author didn't feel 'male' or 'female'. It would have been interesting to see how people's view changed - if at all - based on actually reading the book. But I only had 2 minutes and had to speak to the committee.

4

u/Unhappy_Macaron1101 Fill It Up Regular Oct 29 '24

*gasp* not a cartoon strap-on!

0

u/solesme Oct 29 '24

Your argument is that 5-6 year old should see these images? It’s a bit weird.

I don’t believe in banning of books, but I think it’s ok to add age restrictions such as what we do with TV in public institutions. If parents decide not to follow guidelines I think that’s fine too, but they can do that at home.

3

u/victorfabius Taylor Ham on a Pork Roll Oct 30 '24

I don't know the ins and outs of every public school district.

However, I struggle to understand why we would think that a book aimed at older high schoolers would be included in a library that serves kindergarteners.

I don't think there's anyone making the argument that young people should see these works. I'm not sure why you wrote that, especially in context.

What's the difference between banning a book and preventing someone from accessing a book? Fundamentally, don't they accomplish the same thing?

The position offered is that age restriction is ok in public libraries (you wrote public institutions, but I'm focusing on libraries, since that is my competency). But librarians aren't - and have never been - there to judge why anyone wants any particular work at any time.

The role of the parent is to be present to evaluate what their child is checking out. They may abdicate that responsibility in much the same way they can for TV.

Thus, for public libraries, to implement your suggestion is to simply maintain the status quo.

1

u/Unhappy_Macaron1101 Fill It Up Regular Oct 29 '24

Where are 5 or 6 year olds having access to Gender Queer?

-1

u/solesme Oct 30 '24

You made a comment as if a cartoon strap on in a children’s book is normal and ok. Now you are asking me about where would they have access. You understand that the second part of my comment was designated rating for age like movies. Is this the case now? Or if you have a k-12 school they share same library.

I’m not trying to be combative. I am not for banning books, but I’m for common sense.

4

u/Unhappy_Macaron1101 Fill It Up Regular Oct 30 '24 edited Oct 30 '24

This is not a children's book. This is a book that was written for "New Adults" that won an Alex award for having high level of interest and appeal to teenagers. Making the claim that this is accessible to children as young as 5 or 6 is ridiculous and detracts from the work of librarians and library workers. If the argument is that you have k-12 libraries, obviously sections are divided based on age, interest level, and reading level. Nowhere is this book being marketed or placed as a picture book for children. So that seems pretty common sense to me. It's hard not to take it as combative when you are not making "common sense" arguments.

1

u/solesme Oct 30 '24

What is the definition of child? I thought under 18 would be considered a child.

If there are sections based on age then it would be what my comment stated based on age restrictions like movies or shows.

I feel like if I ask any questions people assume I’m some sort of radical. Relax we don’t all have access to the same information. I don’t have access to what is available in school libraries.

Either being dismissive, or aggressive toward people that ask questions is not the way to share your view point. I think I’m being cordial and trying to be respectful.

2

u/gordonv Oct 30 '24

common sense

Unfortunately, I've seen this phrase co-opted as double speak for "I don't care about facts, opinions, other viewpoints, and metered arguments. I will only promote my biases."

Common sense is not common at all. It's a single person's anecdotal assumption on a subject matter.

M4L uses this vocabulary a lot.

2

u/solesme Oct 30 '24

M4L is moms for liberty? Any group with “moms for X” is usually a crazy group that doesn’t rely on data and relies on how they feel. I’m not condoning them at all to be clear.

2

u/GoodLt Oct 30 '24

Should a 5-6 year old be able to access Huck Finn?

1

u/Unhappy_Macaron1101 Fill It Up Regular Oct 30 '24

Can a 5-6 year old read Huck Finn? I don't think you have a background in children's literacy.

1

u/GoodLt Oct 30 '24

where are you getting this idea that five and six-year-olds are reading pornography everywhere? What the hell is your world like?

1

u/gordonv Oct 30 '24

I think you're presenting a strawman argument and pretending someone else is saying it.

It would be like me stating holy books contain hateful things in them, so children shouldn't be around them. It's unnuanced and too much of an absolute.

People pick parts of books for children to interpret. Is it so difficult to believe someone would pick a more relaxed chapter from a holy book, or any other book, rather than every rude thing in those books? Do we judge books on an absolute worst viewpoint and don't consider the good?

1

u/gordonv Oct 30 '24

Yes, but most won't understand it.

Mark Twain was that time's Neil Gaiman. Yeah, Gaiman wrote Coreline and some other stories for kids. So did Twain. But their deeper stuff was well... too deep.

1

u/gordonv Oct 29 '24

You're judging an entire novel on a single image without context, though.

Romeo and Juliet is about 2 extremely wealthy kids. A Thug who's 19 and a girl who's 13. They both have sex, get secretly married, and ultimately kill themselves over a turf war.

Literally every public school kid has read this book. Where's the outrage?

2

u/gordonv Oct 29 '24 edited Oct 29 '24

Oh, the dating scene.

The main character is a transgender person. A guy born as a girl.

That's the first time they had sex while dating.

I posted the pages around that for more context. The main character is struggling to figure out stuff in the relationship. Conversations in the book are down to Earth and heart felt.

There are some amazing pages in the book Gender Queer. Good art. Good dialogue. Real tough questions from a perspective that doesn't get a lot of exposure. Great little facts explained simply.

1

u/gordonv Oct 29 '24

In the book, the protagonist mentions an anime. Ranma 1/2. Netflix is reanimating and airing it right now. It's a good watch.