Why do these people hate America?
Yahoo! News – Some Miss. Libraries Ban Jon Stewart Book
GULFPORT, Miss. – Library officials in two southern Mississippi counties have banned Jon Stewart’s best-selling “America (The Book)” over the satirical textbook’s nude depictions of the nine U.S. Supreme Court (news – web sites) justices.
“I’ve been a librarian for 40 years and this is the only book I’ve objected to so strongly that I wouldn’t allow it to circulate,” said Robert Willits, director of the Jackson-George Regional Library System of eight libraries in Jackson and George counties.
“We’re not an adult bookstore. Our entire collection is open to the entire public,” Willits said. “If they had published the book without that one picture, that one page, we’d have the book.”
Wal-Mart has declined to stock the book because of the page, which features the faces of the nine Supreme Court justices superimposed over naked bodies. The facing page has cutouts of the justices’ robes, complete with a caption asking readers to “restore their dignity by matching each justice with his or her respective robe.”
• 
Last night, Jon had Mississipian John Grisham on and they talked about that getting banned in Missisippi (which has happened to Grisham) is a boon to your writing career.
If I read the piece on cnn.com correctly this morning, Willits was the only board member to oppose overturning the ban, stating that the libraries were not in the business of circulating pornography.
I have seen the offending pictures, and the only person who has a legitimate complaint about it (I hope, if only for his sake) is Clarence Thomas. Rhenquist, otoh, is probably wondering how he can get it posted in full view of every Federal court in the country.
I preferred Stewart’s comment last night: the nude judges are probably among the least offensive sections of the book. Mississippi librarians, read it and weep.
What I didn’t get is, if the whole book is perfectly good save that one page, why not remove that one page from the book? Or black it out? I mean, if you’re only offended by the nudity, why not find some way to remove it, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater by refusing to carry the entire book?
I have to wonder how large a library the one in question is… I assume they’re of an average size. Most average-sized libraries I’ve been in carry art books, medical texts, and the occassional textbook of human sexuality. I can see making the argument that while the nudity in those three types of texts serves an educational purpose, the nudity in “America: The Book” does not, therefore ‘requiring’ a ban… but again, if the nudity in “America: The Book” is the only fly in the ointment, why didn’t Mr. Willits remove or black out that page? I’m assuming they have one, maybe two copies of it, and a sharpie doesn’t cost THAT much… scissors even less…
Great book, hilarious!
Screw Wal Mart (I’ve managed to avoid shopping there since one opened near us several years ago), and screw the Mississippi libraries.
Backwards-thinking biblebelt jackoffs…
With the internet, between Amazon, Barnes & Nobles.com and Waldenbooks.com (Insert your favorite book site), who needs them?
WalMart deserves to die and so does Willits, along with the rest of the dinosaurs…
Wow. I wasn’t all that interested in the book before, but now, I’M BUYING IT!
First.. this is the most hilarious book that I have ever read. I brought it to lunch with me to read in the restaurant and there were times where I could not stop laughing. BUY IT!
However.. there is quite a bit of obscene language and the mentioned nudity. So I can understand some places not wanting it available to where minors might have access to it.
Well worth getting! I look forward to more books from them.
*Sigh* This is the same system that tortured me as a kid while I was forced to wait for my mother to pick up her bi-weekly fix of trashy romance novels…… now that is obscene. 🙂
Y’all are a little late to the story, as the library board voted 5-2 Monday to overturn the ban.
The library board apparently overturned the ban after a wave of protesting emails and phonecalls about it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=402729
Sorry for the unintended double post 🙂
What I didn’t get is, if the whole book is perfectly good save that one page, why not remove that one page from the book?
It is possible that there is some law against doing so since it would be altering the book. Otherwise, that is a reasonable suggestion.
I think a total library ban is overboard. Surely they can have some way of having adults only check it out if it is that bad. At the same time, I think WalMart not carrying it is both their perogative and quite appropriate.
Let me be clear on something: I have no desire to “ban” the book. However, books like this do little to change the perception that Republicans/conservatives believe in family values and Democrats/liberals do not. If a conservative such as James Dobson or Jerry Fallwell were to publish such a book, people would point out that they are hypocrites because the contents go against what they believe. So forgive me if I am left with the logical conclusion that some democrats/liberals do not believe in family values.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
>Let me be clear on something: I have no desire to “ban” the book. However, books like this do little to change the perception that Republicans/conservatives believe in family values and Democrats/liberals do not. If a conservative such as James Dobson or Jerry Fallwell were to publish such a book, people would point out that they are hypocrites because the contents go against what they believe. So forgive me if I am left with the logical conclusion that some democrats/liberals do not believe in family values.
… or that the left have a different idea of what family values mean than Conservatives. Although, I’m not sure that I agree with you that a conclusion about family values can be drawn by the fact that tolerance for the publication and distribution of this book is connected in any way to that.
Fred
Jim in Iowa wrote…
So forgive me if I am left with the logical conclusion that some democrats/liberals do not believe in family values.
That’s a tough statement to argue with, since “family values” in this context appears to be a rather arbitrary label, the definition of which you do not establish. If you truly believe that “family values” are a clearly defined set of rules to which there are no plausible alternatives, please state them.
Before we start slamming Walmart (and since there are much better reasons to slam it), Walmart said they wouldn’t carry it in their stores because patrons would protest. It is, however, available from Walmart online and, believe it or not, Sam’s Club.
However, at Sam’s, you have to buy a case of twenty.
I have two questions:
One, doesn’t the Supreme COurt’s own definition of pornography include a clause that the material has to arouse sexual thought?
And two, who on the library board was turned on by that picture?
My question is, who could object to those pictures other than the Justices themselves? I mean, is any one really afraid that children will seek out pictures of overweight, old and wrinkly people? They’d probably be more likely to look at nude pictures in art books, since they tend to be more “aesthetically pleasing”.
I’d also have to question Jim’s correlation of this issue to family values. If it’s a fact that Willits is a conservative/Republican, then that still doesn’t mean much unless there is a prominent Democratic/liberal figure or group fighting for the other view point. I don’t think I’m being clear. Basically, because Dems and Reps are usually opposites, doesn’t mean when one side believes one thing that the other side automically believes the opposite.
By the way Jim, I tried to email you the other day about an article in Discover magazine. Did you get it?
Monkeys.
The following is my favorite bit from the book (mainly because I live in Eugene):
“Fortunately, candidates don’t do it alone. Whether seeking city, state or federal office, they are undoubtedly running under the auspices of one of America’s two politcal parties–the Republicans and the Deomocrats. (Yes, there’s probably some state senator in Oregon who belongs to the Green Party, but face it: Hippie Q. Freakington ain’t going anywhere outside the greater Eugene area.)”
Family Values: Here is my simple definition. Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc. I am making it broad to acknowledge that there is some room for disagreement, while suggesting that there is even still some agreement on this issue. Obscenity would still be considered inappropriate for a child, and at least some portrayals of nudity. I would also argue that we have lost an appropriate sense of respect for authority.
I realize I am arguing a lost cause with most of you since you have redefined family values to be something very different today. That doesn’t make you wrong and me right (or vice versa), but it is frustrating when that very large change is not even acknowledged.
Jim in Iowa
By the way Jim, I tried to email you the other day about an article in Discover magazine. Did you get it?
I did today.
Jim
Jim in Iowa wrote…
Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc.
Well there we have it. So it would have been more accurate to say, “So forgive me if I am left with the logical conclusion that some democrats/liberals do not believe in my values.”
Which of course could very well be true. Please understand that I’m not trying to pick a fight, it just really irks me to be told that I do not believe in “family values,” simply because my values are not 100% in-line with the speaker.
Hëll, I didn’t even know they HAD libraries in Mississippi.
Mississippi, let me introduce you to a word you may not have ever heard before: satire. Look it up in the dictionary if you haven’t banned that yet either since that book has some bad words in it.
Anybody else get the feeling, after reading about things like this, that maybe the USA would be a bettter place if we had just let the Confederacy go when they wanted to?
Jim in Iowa: Family Values: Here is my simple definition. Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc.
Well, that’s one way of looking at it… but I honestly despise the “child-proofing” of America. I can understand that there are things that children shouldn’t see, but the whole idea of “it should be banned all together!” is taking it a step too far, and very lazy parenting, in my opinion.
Just because something is “Not for kids” does not mean that it’s “not for everyone else too!” The way I see it, so long as the book is not placed in the childrens/Young adult section of the library, what’s the problem? That’s like saying that there shouldn’t be “R”-rated movies at Blockbuster because -gasp- what if a child gets a hold of one?
And to answer that “what if” question, if a child does get a hold of it Stewarts book, or an R-rated dvd, I’m perfectly ok with the parent of that child telling their own kid “you shouldn’t be looking at that” and putting the book/dvd back on the shelf, or even for a librarian/blockbuster clerk to say to a kid “you’re too young to borrow that”… but to just remove it from public space for the fear that a child could possibly get a hold of it someday maybe I think (and do what with it, exactly?) is pure overkill, not to mention somewhat irrational.
That’s not “Family Values”, unless by “value” you mean that the government does more of the job of parenting, and you do less work parenting, all for the same amount of tax dollars.
Rex Hondo wrote:
“Anybody else get the feeling, after reading about things like this, that maybe the USA would be a bettter place if we had just let the Confederacy go when they wanted to?”
Oh please… you’re making it sound like this book has been pulled from every shelf in America and burned.
Slick pointed out:
That’s not “Family Values”, unless by “value” you mean that the government does more of the job of parenting, and you do less work parenting, all for the same amount of tax dollars.
Agreed, and wonderfully put.
In fact, I’d be willing to pay an extra couple of tax dollars each year, to institute mandatory testing in order to qualify for a parenting competency license before one is permitted to procreate. Too bad biology won’t back us up on this idea. Wouldn’t it be great if potential parents had to understand that parenthood is a commitment requiring hard work for eighteen years without any breaks?
Not long ago I knew someone who became a parent of two children, and within months complained that she doesn’t get weekends and vacations away from mommyhood. Well, yeah, but that’s part of the deal! Certainly the US government, the library system, the neighbors, and her social circle never signed up to be responsible for raising her children; that’s her job, and her husband’s. Any help the parenting couple get is a happy bonus, not a right to which she’s entitled.
(This is, by the way, why I don’t have children: I’d fail the test. I would not be happy giving up my leisure time, my ability to own breakables, and any concept of a “fun fund” in my budget all in favor of parenting … and my Dearly Beloved is even less likely to give up such things. I have nothing but respect for people who do live as responsible parents — hardier souls than I could be!)
Michael Pullman asked: Doesn’t the Supreme Court
definition of pornography include a clause that
the material has to arouse sexual thought?
And two, who on the library board was turned on
by that picture?
—————-
Are you kidding? That super foxy Ruth Bader Ginsberg nude
with seven guys and a shiksa? Who wouldn’t be?
Was nudity the stated reason? The cited page was part of a paper doll feature, after all. An open invitation to vandalism. Not unlike the Marvel Value Stamps of yore. If the library didn’t want to vandalize the book be removing the page in question, doesn’t it stand to reason they don’t want their customers or clients or whatever a ibrary has, patrons, vandalizing the books either? Would a library stock a paper doll book or coloring book and not expect the book to be used as intended? (When have you ever seen a back issue of Mad Magazine with no creases on the fold-in page?)
Didn’t some libraries have a similar problem stocking Abbie Hoffman’s “Steal this Book” out of concern that the books title and logo might encourage theft? And most importantly, has anyone submitted this picture to the web site “the Fake Detective” to verify its inauthenticity?
Jim in Iowa:
>Family Values: Here is my simple definition. Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc. I am making it broad to acknowledge that there is some room for disagreement, while suggesting that there is even still some agreement on this issue. Obscenity would still be considered inappropriate for a child, and at least some portrayals of nudity.
I don’t disagree entirely with this. I do have to wonder why anyone would think that this book would need necessarily be within a child’s reach. The same library that I spoke of regarding my mother’s romance novel supply had librarians who were aware of the kids in the library and monitoring those kids.
>I realize I am arguing a lost cause with most of you since you have redefined family values to be something very different today. That doesn’t make you wrong and me right (or vice versa), but it is frustrating when that very large change is not even acknowledged.
I acknowledge it, but don’t see it as negative thing. Beating your kid for an arbitrarily defined “inappropriate” behavior, having them work 17 hours a day in a coal mine and taking them out of early education in order that they can help in the home used to be commonplace and a part of family values. I suspect that you and I may actually be in agreement on many values considered to be family values, but change in our societal definition of it is’nt automatically a “bad thing”.
Fred
Jim, to a point I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but isn’t it a bit sweeping of you to claim this as a sounding point to support the idea that democrats don’t support family values? I haven’t really seen one person say that the library would be wrong for keeping the book in a reserved or adults only section, which you yourself suggest. The only outcry I have really seen is against a move seen as censorship by a public entity.
In order for this book to be proof that democrats lack your concept of family values, wouldn’t they have to be demanding that not only do the Mississippi libraries carry this book, but put it in the children’s section? Or make it required reading for every third grader?
“Anybody else get the feeling, after reading about things like this, that maybe the USA would be a bettter place if we had just let the Confederacy go when they wanted to?”
Just came back from a visit to Pennsylvania, where the big news was a local school board mandating the teaching of creationism in the schools. I also recal from living there that PA has counties where it would be well nigh impossible to find a Playboy at any of the local QuickyMarts. So while, like any tranplanted Northerner, I find it amusing to joke about Southern stereotypes, the truth is that the North has plenty of the same, if not more.
Jim, to a point I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but isn’t it a bit sweeping of you to claim this as a sounding point to support the idea that democrats don’t support family values?
In short, I think your point is valid in two regards. First, I would not support a ban on this particular book. I have not read it, but if after a review of it I find it clearly inappropriate for kids, then perhaps it should be dealt with accordingly. I suspect that such extreme measures are not necessary in this particular case.
Second, I should probably use the term “liberal elitists” rather than talking about the average democrat. I have relatives who vote democrat every time, but who share my moral values. And I know some republicans who don’t.
HOWEVER, I do feel my basic point is true. When you look at what LEADERS in the respective party promote and defend, there is no question that there is a huge difference in values. I would argue that what liberal democratic leaders are actually doing, in spite of their denials, is to rip apart the very foundation of society by tearing apart some core family values. Defending that would take a huge post I don’t have time to write right now, so I will leave it at that.
Jim in Iowa
I acknowledge it, but don’t see it as negative thing. Beating your kid for an arbitrarily defined “inappropriate” behavior, having them work 17 hours a day in a coal mine and taking them out of early education in order that they can help in the home used to be commonplace and a part of family values. I suspect that you and I may actually be in agreement on many values considered to be family values, but change in our societal definition of it is’nt automatically a “bad thing”.
You are mixing issues in your examples. “Beating a kid” is very different from living in hard economic times where it was necessary to have a kid help in the family business (whether a farm, store, etc.) so that there was food to eat. It is an anachronistic argument to apply todays standards to what they had to do 50 or 100 years ago. We would agree that child labor in a coal mine was always a bad thing, but we also better know now the huge health implications for a child’s lungs when they work in a coal mine.
Jim in Iowa
>B>Why do these people hate America?
I forgot to ask this question sooner, but how exactly does banning Stewart’s book equate with hating America?
Many of you argue that just because you are against the war in Iraq doesn’t mean you hate America. Wouldn’t the same standard apply here?
Jim in Iowa
I believe Peter was making a pun on the book’s title, “America”.
Jim in Iowa wrote: “Family Values: Here is my simple definition. Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc.”
So what happens when your child is 12? Or 15? Or 17-18? Does the definition of family values change? Would you prohobit your child from entering a library/store/whatever that offered America: The Book today, but allow them to go in next year?
I, too, have young children (ages 7 and 5) and there are many, many things in the world that I don’t want them to be exposed to yet. Sexually explicit material is indeed one of those things. Of course at the same time I recognize the fact that the target audience for America: The Book is not children ages 5-7. I also realize that by exercising a certain amount of parental oversight I can filter what my child is exposed to.
I feel perfectly comfortable taking my children into a Waldenbooks knowing that issues of Playboy, Penthouse, and other (far more explicit) magazines are for sale on the top rack in the magazine section. I also recognize the fact that the novels in the Romance section contain graphically explicit descriptions of sexual activity. However, when I go into such a store I am with my children at all times. We look at children’s books together.
The same holds true for the public library in my home town. I do not want them to restrict the books that they carry to those appropriate for the least common denominator, and I certainly am not going to say that if they carry books and materials appropriate for adults that they are violating some characteristic of family values. I certainly do not expect people to use the ages of my children as a yard stick with which to measure whether or not something is appropriate.
My duty as a parent is to guide my children through life, and part of that is taking an active role in their experiences. I certainly do not rely on a librarian, a book store clerk, or the purchasing agent for Wal*Mart to protect my children from the world.
One might consider that the daily images of a war torn country in which men, women, and children are being killed in various horrible ways is much more offensive than a book containing nudity used for comedic affect. Then again, I’ve always thought it interesting that ‘family values’ seems to mean that sex is far worse than violence, but worst of all is harsh language.
Phinn
Let’s put a better twist on this story by looking at it from the other side.
Jon Stewart’s America is one of the bestselling books of 2004 and so far, 2005. It has been a #1 New York Times bestseller, an Amazon.com #1 bestseller, and I’m guessing many other newspaper and regional lists and bookstore lists as well, though I don’t have the data.
His TV show The Daily Show is one of Comedy Central’s top-rated programs and one of the most popular shows overall on cable, even though, as Stewart puts in, his “lead-in show is puppets making crank calls.”
Stewart has been interviewed and featured on major newsmagazines, radio and TV shows and other media extensively over the past several months.
A penny-squat library objecting to the content or a store–even a mega-mart chain–not carrying this, is not censoring Stewart’s book or keeping its “message” (even though I’m not certain its message isn’t just a good hearty laugh at the current affairs of the country) from the American people. Stewart and his book are getting more exposure, more press, more attention than virtually any book until a mega-block named Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince plops in the bookstores in June.
That’s a dámņ good thing, people. Stewart’s getting heard, now more than ever. That’s America: not just the book title, but what the country is interested in and wants to hear.
A Mississippi library ain’t gonna change that.
Forgot to add this before, but from conversations with my mother, being responsible for your children does indeed extend beyond 18 years.
Jim, to a degree we agree with each other, although I don’t know if democratic leaders are so much attacking traditional family values as they are trying to represent a section of society that is embracing evolving family values. If you’re a supporter of tradition, you see it as an attack. If you’re a proponent of change, you see it as championing. It all matters on where you view it from.
To borrow the child-labor of the past example, I’m sure the early 1900s father of 12 kids viewed them as cheap farm labor, and would have strongly resisted attempts to force those kids into public schooling and reduced work hours. But as you point out, society’s needs at the time dictated what was accepted. I think the problem now is that we’re not only dealing with needs, but desires as well. There’s a need/desire to protect children from negative influences, and an adult desire to view a wide range of satirical and risque material, some of which conflicts with the first interest.
I should follow-up my previous comments with what I believe are the differences between ‘conservative’ family values and ‘liberal’ family values.
For conservatives, ‘family values’ means that the government should take an active role in legislating morality. This includes punishing those people who violate a code of decency that is not necessarily directly related to community standards (evidence of this is suggested when the current head of the FCC reveals that the fact that people are complaining about content is more important than the number of complaints or proportion of the population that is complaining).
This philosophy is, to me, entirely hypocritical as one of the pillars of conservative philosophy is ‘small government’; allowing people the freedom to operate as they wish in business but not on a more personal level (such as religion or expression) is highly counter-intuitive and blatantly contradictory unless the only thing that you worry about is money.
Furthermore, we have seen time and time again (most recently in the case of the Majority Leader) that many of these leaders do not practice as the preach; they overtly use values as a tool to get voter turnout so that, once safely in office, they can steer policy that is unrelated to values.
Liberals, on the other hand, are more concerned with personal freedoms, and how maintaining standards of decency can be achieved without hurting the development of America and its culture. Typically liberals do not champion government sponsored censorship, or increasing governmental oversight of forms of expression (even though the stereotypical liberal wants nothing more than to create additional government programs and spend your tax dollars).
And using the term ‘liberal elitist’ doesn’t help your case at all; touting yet another fictitious label bandied about by all the other ditto-head talking point parrots doesn’t do anything to help your case; it just shows that you’re not capable of formulating your opinions and ideas beyond what has been spoon fed to you. The fact that I disagree with your ideas of ‘family values’ doesn’t make me liberal, and it certainly doesn’t make me an elitist.
If anything a community of people who thinks that anyone who doesn’t share their unique view of the world is a twisted and corrupt abomination of humanity that wants to force feed satanism and pornagraphy to our children seems to think pretty highly of themselves, their peers, and others who think like them (the definition of elite, if you will).
Phinn
It should be noted that Stewart announced on his show last night that the libraries in question reneged on the bans, with the end result being that the book was only banned for a short period of time, during which the libraries were closed. It seems that one library official cited a large amount of “outside scrutiny” as a reason for not going ahead with the ban.
Family values refers to things I am willing to expose by elementary aged child to see, hear, read, etc.
I assume that “by” there is supposed to be “my”
And that’s well and good. As a parent, you should safeguard your child from things or ideas you feel is dangerous to them. But that’s not what “Family Values” people want. They refer to things that they are will to expose any child to see. It’s not enough that they police their children..they go for every child and adult. And they want the government to do it for them.
Phinn….
Liberal elitist means someone who reads books.
Thanks for your post..I wanted to say similar stuff, but just get to annoyed at the thought that in the 21st Century, we’re still dealing with such backwards thinkers.
Just came back from a visit to Pennsylvania, where the big news was a local school board mandating the teaching of creationism in the schools.
Not exactly. What the Dover school district is mandating is “intelligent design,” a belief that evolution has occured, but it was guided by some intelligent creator. Granted, many fundies see it as a way to “teach the controversy” and backdoor creationism into the schools, but it’s not the same thing.
I also recal from living there that PA has counties where it would be well nigh impossible to find a Playboy at any of the local QuickyMarts. So while, like any tranplanted Northerner, I find it amusing to joke about Southern stereotypes, the truth is that the North has plenty of the same, if not more.
As a lifelong PA resident, I disagree with that. I’ve been in a lot of convenience stores and gas stations in PA and never found a shortage of Playboys anywhere in the state. In fact, it’s my experience that the more rural a county in PA, the more “dirty book stores” the county has.
Now, as to our idiotic state owned liquor stores . . .
Second, I should probably use the term “liberal elitists” rather than talking about the average democrat.
Trying to dig your own grave there, Jim?
As somebody else already stated, it’s YOUR values, not the values of conservatives, liberals, or any particular worthless party.
“Liberal elitists”? What if you don’t share the values of “compassionate conservatives”, an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one.
Get over yourself already.
Jim In Iowa:
>>I acknowledge it, but don’t see it as negative thing. Beating your kid for an arbitrarily defined “inappropriate” behavior, having them work 17 hours a day in a coal mine and taking them out of early education in order that they can help in the home used to be commonplace and a part of family values. I suspect that you and I may actually be in agreement on many values considered to be family values, but change in our societal definition of it is’nt automatically a “bad thing”.
>You are mixing issues in your examples. “Beating a kid” is very different from living in hard economic times where it was necessary to have a kid help in the family business (whether a farm, store, etc.) so that there was food to eat. It is an anachronistic argument to apply todays standards to what they had to do 50 or 100 years ago.
Times change. Necessity dictates change. Enlightnement and growth of a society can’t be argued for in one moment and dispelled the next.
Many of the situations weren’t purely for economic reasons. Often, children were utilized in the home because honoring your mother and father and chores were more important than education. Thise didn’t become a minority viewpoint until fairly recently. Also, Aren’t most of your “family values” passed down from longer ago than 50 or 100 years?
Fred
I believe Peter was making a pun on the book’s title, “America”.
Ok. Didn’t catch that one. It swam right by me (like the shark did in the Hulk). 🙂
Jim in Iowa
If anything a community of people who thinks that anyone who doesn’t share their unique view of the world is a twisted and corrupt abomination of humanity that wants to force feed satanism and pornagraphy to our children seems to think pretty highly of themselves, their peers, and others who think like them (the definition of elite, if you will).
Phinn, you just made my point. There ARE liberals who because I don’t share their view on certain issues call me a bigot, homophobe, idiot, etc. Those are the ones I refer to as liberal elitists. Both sides can go to an extreme that is not right, healthy, etc.
Family values does NOT refer to just legislating morality. In fact, you seemed to have missed the fact that I do NOT want this book removed from the library. (Walmart is a private company, so I support their right to make their own decision.)
My point goes to the bottom line of what we value/believe as right and wrong. I believe using obscene language is crude and inappropriate. I don’t want to “ban” or censor it, but I would love to see its use curtailed. I believe sexually suggestive and explicit pictures are unhealthy and hurt the formation of a healthy sexual relationships. Again, I am not calling for Playboy to be made illegal, but for most people to understand that looking at pørņ does have a negative impact on healthy relationships. You want to disagree? Fine, that is why we are a democracy. But be honest and admit that what is shown on TV, in magazines, etc., are images that would have been considered inappropriate for “public” (all ages) viewing 50 or 100 or even 1000 years ago.
Quit trying to put words in my mouth and deal with what I am saying. Our values have changed radically. In some cases, I think that is good (such as in racial equality), and we may even have room still to grow. In others, we have gone downhill and are now paying the price. It IS possible to argue for a value without believing you have to legislate it.
Jim in Iowa
And that’s well and good. As a parent, you should safeguard your child from things or ideas you feel is dangerous to them. But that’s not what “Family Values” people want. They refer to things that they are will to expose any child to see. It’s not enough that they police their children..they go for every child and adult. And they want the government to do it for them.
Let’s take an example: child pornography. Yes, it is extreme, but I use it for a reason. The ACLU has actually defended that once it is created, it is protected and should not be destroyed. Yet I suspect most on this site would say it is wrong, unhealthy, and inappropriate for anyone, and ESPECIALLY a child, to view.
There ARE appropriate times and issues when we do make rules that cover all children. We do want to protect them from things because we cannot be with our kids 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In a democracy, it is important that we do not have one small segment (whether on the right or the left) dictating the policy. That is when there is a problem. I would hope society in general (which in a democracy is what the government should represent) would act to protect all children (as much as is reasonably possible and to be expected).
Jim in Iowa
Actually, Jim, child pornagraphy isn’t illegal (even possessing child pornagraphy is illegal) in order to protect children from viewing it. It’s illegal because to allow it at all presents a threat to children, because in order to *make* it, you have to use actual children. So in order to deter anyone from abusing children to make pørņ, even the possession of pornagraphic material containing children is banned.
Actually, Jim, child pornagraphy isn’t illegal (even possessing child pornagraphy is illegal) in order to protect children from viewing it. It’s illegal because to allow it at all presents a threat to children, because in order to *make* it, you have to use actual children. So in order to deter anyone from abusing children to make pørņ, even the possession of pornagraphic material containing children is banned.
Kingbobb, I know that. That is why I specifically mentioned that the ACLU argued that ONCE IT HAD BEEN MADE, it was protected under free speech. For the very reasons you stated, as well as because of the ongoing harm it does to the child who was photographed, I believe it should be destroyed.
Assuming, for the moment, the ACLU had their way, would you still feel the same? I suspect you would still oppose child pørņ for the reasons you mention.
Back to the main point: Your argument makes my point. There ARE things we “legislate” to protect children. While violating a child by using them for child pørņ is obviously far more damaging, exposure to some other things can still harm a child. We may disagree on what fits on that list, but my point remains the same.
Jim in Iowa