A lawsuit, filed by patrons of a county library in Arkansas, has been allowed to move forward by a federal court. The First Amendment lawsuit plausibly alleges the library’s decision to move anything determined to be “LGBTQ” from the children’s section to the adult’s section violates the First Amendment right to equitable access to information. (via Courthouse News Service)

Here’s how this started, according to the decision [PDF] that moves this lawsuit forward:

[I]n late 2022 or early 2023 the Crawford County Library System implemented a policy under which its library branches must remove from their children’s sections all books containing LGBTQ themes, affix a prominent color label to those books, and place them in a newly-created section called the “social section.” Plaintiffs allege this policy was imposed on the Library System by the Crawford County Quorum Court in response to political pressure from constituents who objected, at least partly on religious grounds, to the presence of these books in the children’s section.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The major benefit that lemmy has over reddit is that the moderators here don’t broker bigots’ shit.

    • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      These are children’s books, not “advanced sexual theory”, whatever the fuck that is. Learning about LGBTQ+ people is not inherently sexual. If it is, then any book showing any relationship, LGBTQ+ or cishet, is “advanced sexual theory”. LGBTQ+ people exist that way from birth just like cishet people do. The sooner children realize that what they are is not unusual and not “wrong”, the less emotional and psychological trauma they will face.

            • RoquetteQueen
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The majority of people don’t want to subject their children to this stuff and that’s just the facts.

              Lol. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today.

            • AnonTwo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’d argue you’re treating your children like pets and not the human beings who have to grow up into this world without any actual knowledge, because you’re pushing them away not from advanced knowledge but in this case what should be basics knowledge.

              They have to learn about this stuff eventually, and teenagers are still not assumed adults legally. This would push them from that knowledge far, far, far too late.

        • Concetta@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Maybe to a rock with a negative IQ, if you aren’t a bigot piece of shit you wouldn’t say things like that.

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How does Heather Has Two Mommies relate to advanced sexual theory? Does any reference to families now become advanced sexual theory because families are the result of sexual reproduction, or is it only heteronormative families that are not sexual?

    • Throwaway@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t bother. They think they need access to children or they will die. Like they actually think that, and I honestly don’t think they realize how that sounds.

    • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the US has a great history of moving certain demographics to a separate section in order to appease bigots.

      The government has never done anything bad by censuring certain people due to their identity. It’s the government, and they’re making dozens of small decisions in small, right leaning rural areas which has no effect on the people there.

      • Throwaway@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Moving a few books 20 feet is a little different than forcibly moving minorities into shanty towns.

        • sharpiemarker@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You made it pretty clear in your original comment that you don’t see the issue.

          And then you provided evidence to support that.

      • Throwaway@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its an odd choice, but I wouldnt get bothered by it.

        Id be more concerned a public library has a porn section.

        Also, if you read the article, youd see they were moved to the social section.

        • letsalllovelain@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, then how about the fact that the books were removed on religious grounds. Please enlighten me as to your justification for how using religion as a pretext is totally fine, but educating children as to the reality of human social interactions, is heinous?

          Again, you do not care. It’s just whatever fits your narrative.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              They were just hidden. On religious grounds, by bigots. Which is the only reason you’re defending them.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I wouldnt consider proudly displaying on a shelf “hiding”

                  I wouldn’t consider intentionally misfiling books anything else. Of course, you’re only saying that because they’re hiding books about the minorities you hate. You know it’s hiding and support it because it’s hiding.

                  And you keep ignoring anything about government doing this on religious grounds. Since your repeated lies in support of bigots have made it clear that you don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt, I won’t waste any more time with said benefit. You want a fascist theocracy run by bigots like yourself.

                  Why’d you change your username?

    • mindbleach
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Super minor decisions like saying children’s books aren’t for children because of bigotry.

      Get out.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I get why bigots would want to hide children’s books from children. After all, they don’t want their children taught that the minorities they want to murder in camps are people.

      But why should anyone else want to hide books from the library patrons they’re written for?