When I was young, passionate, dedicated, possessed with the arrogance of youth, and focused on becoming a priest, I decided I needed to do some missionary work. Among the possibilities were Indian reservations in North and South Dakota. Each of those mission fields came with a warning. That warning was to beware of the temperatures. It would seem that many of those who had gone forth in the name of Christ had swiftly retreated after experiencing some of the nighttime lows, and in some cases the daytime highs. In other words, it could be tough sledding if you were a brass monkey. I figured you had to be strong to live in the Dakotas. And we will see if legislators in North Dakota are strong enough not to back down from what could be a difficult and ugly fight.
On Tuesday, North Dakota’s House Judiciary Committee took up the idea of banning books with sexually explicit illustrations and levying a potential 30-day stint in the local gray bar hotel for librarians who refuse to remove them. According to TV station KAAL, discussions and arguments on the measure started on Tuesday, but there has not been a vote. The issue, of course, has been broiling in school districts across the nation and is usually focused on LGBTQ material. KAAL notes that the debate is usually confined to school libraries and the effort in North Dakota would include public libraries.
The bill was introduced by House Majority Leader Mike Lefor of Dickinson. Lefor called the content of some library books “disturbing and disgusting.” He asserted that exposing children to the content in these kinds of books could lead to addiction, low self-esteem, higher rates of divorce, devalued intimacy, and unprotected sex among young people. KAAL said that Lefor offered no proof of his claims.
Autumn Richard of Stark County said she supports the bill, citing the content in the graphic novel Let’s Talk About It: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human and the comic book Sex Is a Funny Word, which is aimed at kids. She said that the books may have important information about abusive relationships, contraception, and body image, but that the content could be harmful to children.
The bill has its detractors. From KAAL:
Library Director Christine Kujawa at Bismarck Veterans Memorial Public Library said the library has a book with two little hamsters on the cover. At the end of the book, the hamsters get married, and they are both male.
“It’s a cute book,” Kujawa said — but it would be considered pornography under the bill because the book includes gender identity.
Facing criminal charges for keeping books on shelves is “something I never thought I would have to consider during my career as a librarian,” Kujawa added.
KVRR quoted Director of the Fargo Public Library Timothy Dirks:
Instead of pre-supposing and creating clumsy laws to remove information, I would encourage parents to have those conversations with their children and express what they believe in their worldview with their family. These are very difficult and sensitive discussions and they need to happen. I think the library is there to provide information in that regard but it’s really parents that have to express their beliefs [sic] systems.
Dirks also said that such a law would make it harder for the library to meet its First Amendment obligations and present problems for living in a free and open society.
Okay, just so we’re clear: If someone says men are not women or vice-versa or that little kids should not go to drag shows, that’s hate speech. If someone is critical of BLM or CRT — that’s hate speech. In fact, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) wants to criminalize whatever the Left considers hate speech. But showing kids sexually explicit pictures is the equivalent of supporting the First Amendment?
I get that kids are dealing with puberty and the hormones that accompany it and that they are curious and confused. So I understand that there is value in a discussion. But can someone please explain the value of showing them pornographic drawings? Instead of conservatives having to explain why kids do not need to see explicit pictures, it is about time the Left explain why it is so important to make sure that children must see them.
Someone please explain to me why the depictions of sex acts and genitalia matter so much. Particularly if the conversation could be had without exposing children to the pictures. Can anyone explain the importance of showing what amounts to pornography to children? We know you on the Left are opposed to removing books with those images from libraries. Will someone tell me why kids must read them?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?
I didn’t think so.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member