Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker

[Pah]

Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer

MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.

A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."

The rest of the article here

Bob

 

[Sunstone]

Whenever someone wants to ban something, they almost always use the excuse that doing so "is to protect kids". Well, is anyone protecting kids from the likes of Gerald Allen? He's a bigger threat to civilization than is the gay literature he wants to ban.

 

[cardero]

My first ugly encounter with censorship and prejudice was with the head librarian of one of our local libraries. I was placing my book with her and she refused to carry my book on the premise of GOD's views in the chapter of Homosexuals. Imagine speaking for all those people who come into her library to take out books.

 

[troutk13]

Woo Hoo, Gerald Allen for president!

 

[Jaymes]

Sickening. What next--trying to revoke the right of free speech to anyone who doesn't agree with someone?

 

[lousyskater]

does anyone else see book burnings inn the future?

 

[troutk13]

Sickening. What next--trying to revoke the right of free speech to anyone who doesn't agree with someone?

That's already happening, like in Canada where certain types of anti-homosexual speech have been declared hate crimes.

 

[Jaymes]

Gee, it couldn't be because... it is?! Oh my GOD, what will they think of next?!

"All Christians are going to hell!" is hate speech. Replace "Christian" with "homosexual," and you have hate speech aimed at homosexuals.

 

[troutk13]

Gee, it couldn't be because... it is?! Oh my GOD, what will they think of next?!

Why have you decided that it's OK to silence that type of speech. . .I hope it isn't because you disagree with it? Pot Kettle?

"All Christians are going to hell!" is hate speech. Replace "Christian" with "homosexual," and you have hate speech aimed at homosexuals.

Why would you classify that statement as hate speech?

 

[Jaymes]

Why have you decided that it's OK to silence that type of speech. . .I hope it isn't because you disagree with it? Pot Kettle?

Silencing speech? That's not silencing speech, it's stopping harrassment. People following around someone that works at an abortion clinic and holding signs next to said worker that says "baby killer"? That's harrassment, not freedom of speech.

Show me the part of the Constitution that says "your right to free speech extends to following people and harrassing them" and we'll talk.

Banning books, on the other hand, is... GASP, a way to silence free speech!

Guess you'll have to let the homos in the library. Tough turkey.

Why would you classify that statement as hate speech?

Because it shows senseless hate to a group of people.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Everyone is going to hell at least one time in their life.

The problem with deleting freedoms for those you dilike is that you have deleted your own freedom as well. If we ban all "obscene" books from the library, we may not like when some one deems our book obscene.

If you don't agree with a book, let it sit on the shelf. That way ALL of our rights are protected, and we don't have to worry about who makes the rules this year.

 

[troutk13]

Silencing speech? That's not silencing speech, it's stopping harrassment. People following around someone that works at an abortion clinic and holding signs next to said worker that says "baby killer"? That's harrassment, not freedom of speech.

LOL. . .you are a hoot Jensa. You choose to repackage "free speech" in the wrapper of harrassment. And using an example that certainly isn't pertinent to our current dialogue.

Let me ask you this:

Should books be banned from the public library that give explicit instructions for the creation and deployment of nuclear weaponry?

Jensa:
Show me the part of the Constitution that says "your right to free speech extends to following people and harrassing them" and we'll talk.

Show me the part in the constitution where carrying a sign outside an abortion clinic is harrassment.

Jensa:
Banning books, on the other hand, is... GASP, a way to silence free speech!

Guess you'll have to let the homos in the library. Tough turkey.

What a nice adjective, in Canada you might get prosecuted for it. Better be careful, it's a new world out there.

Jensa:
Because it shows senseless hate to a group of people.

I don't agree, telling someone that they are going to hell doesn't seem to be hateful. . .on the other hand, telling someone to go to hell might be.

 

[Jaymes]

LOL. . .you are a hoot Jensa. You choose to repackage "free speech" in the wrapper of harrassment. And using an example that certainly isn't pertinent to our current dialogue.

I was using the first example of "free speech" that popped into my mind. If you want, I can dig up the article for you. These people were following people who worked in abortion clinics around while the workers were trying to get on with their daily activities and calling them baby killers. That. Is. Not. Free. Speech.

Let me ask you this:

Should books be banned from the public library that give explicit instructions for the creation and deployment of nuclear weaponry?

I'm pretty sure those aren't in there anyway, since the government doesn't want us to like, you know, blow ourselves to bits.

And I can see the analogy of banning books with homosexuality coming. You lose.

Show me the part in the constitution where carrying a sign outside an abortion clinic is harrassment.

Gee, what do you know? It's not. But that's not what they were doing. They were FOLLOWING PEOPLE AROUND while they WEREN'T WORKING and calling them baby killers.

What a nice adjective, in Canada you might get prosecuted for it. Better be careful, it's a new world out there.

I think I can talk about gays since I, you know, am one. :biglaugh:

I don't agree, telling someone that they are going to hell doesn't seem to be hateful. . .on the other hand, telling someone to go to hell might be.

Telling someone they're going to be tormented for all eternity simply because they're being true to themselves isn't hateful?

 

[troutk13]

I was using the first example of "free speech" that popped into my mind. If you want, I can dig up the article for you. These people were following people who worked in abortion clinics around while the workers were trying to get on with their daily activities and calling them baby killers. That. Is. Not. Free. Speech.

And I'm sure I could come up with a great many instances where there have been peacful, lawful abortion clinic demonstrations. Let me say that I certainly don't think freedom of speech is the freedom to say anything anytime, that's pretty ridiculous. But there is also a point at which you think book banning is a good idea, see below.

Jensa:
I'm pretty sure those aren't in there anyway, since the government doesn't want us to like, you know, blow ourselves to bits.

There is plenty of information in the library on ways to kill yourself, why do you want to see this particular book banned? (The Nuclear Instruction Manual)

Jensa:
And I can see the analogy of banning books with homosexuality coming. You lose.

Aw shucks. . .I don't mind losing, especially to someone with such a devastating arsenal of responses.

Jensa:
I think I can talk about gays since I, you know, am one. :biglaugh:

I guess that means I can use any adjective I want when excersizing my freedom of speech among my heterosexual contemporaries. . .Now that's laughable.

Jensa:
Telling someone they're going to be tormented for all eternity simply because they're being true to themselves isn't hateful?

Nope

 

[Jaymes]

You know, nevermind. I'm stressed as hell about the SAT. I'm dropping this (for now) until I have my brains about me and can take a little homo-hating without feeling like killing something.

 

[troutk13]

You know, nevermind. I'm stressed as hell about the SAT. I'm dropping this (for now) until I have my brains about me and can take a little homo-hating without feeling like killing something.

If you have read any homo-hating into my responses, you really are delusional and need some rest.

 

[Jaymes]

I really wouldn't doubt that I'm delusional at this point. SATs are evil, man. :areyoucra I swear I heard muttering in my head before falling asleep the other night... Maybe I do need rest.

 

[troutk13]

I really wouldn't doubt that I'm delusional at this point. SATs are evil, man. :areyoucra I swear I heard muttering in my head before falling asleep the other night... Maybe I do need rest.

BTW. . .Lotsa luck.

 

[Lightkeeper]

There was a time when books like Peyton Place were banned. That book is very mild by today's standards. It's all about growth. We take a step backward and several steps forward. I would say this is a sign that we will be moving forward. It's all relative.

 

[troutk13]

There was a time when books like Peyton Place were banned. That book is very mild by today's standards. It's all about growth. We take a step backward and several steps forward. I would say this is a sign that we will be moving forward. It's all relative.

You're right, I'm sure many are just waiting for that Nuclear Instruction Manual to hit library shelves. Now thats progress.