‘Grinch Act’ introduced by GOP Congressman John Joyce to protect children's books from cancel culture: ‘No one is safe’

[basquebromance]

this should apply to all books, not just children

‘GRINCH Act’ introduced to protect children's books from cancel culture: ‘No one is safe’

The Pennsylvania lawmaker is introducing the Guarding Readers’ Independence and Choice (GRINCH) Act to safeguard children’s literature from being “canceled.” The GRINCH Act will cut off government funding for agencies that censor books.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Moonglow]

So now we can have explicit books for kids?

 

[pknopp]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what the government decides they have to print?

 

[harmonica]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what they government decides they have to print?

publisher was FORCED to cancel ...no, we don't want nazi crap, like you want

 

[pknopp]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what they government decides they have to print?

publisher was FORCED to cancel ...no, we don't want nazi crap, like you want

No one was forced to do anything. It is this law that is designed to force someone to do something.

 

[Crepitus]

this should apply to all books, not just children

‘GRINCH Act’ introduced to protect children's books from cancel culture: ‘No one is safe’

The Pennsylvania lawmaker is introducing the Guarding Readers’ Independence and Choice (GRINCH) Act to safeguard children’s literature from being “canceled.” The GRINCH Act will cut off government funding for agencies that censor books.

www.foxnews.com

Cancel culture is a RWNJ fantasy. Don't repeat it, it makes you look foolish.

 

[Crepitus]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what they government decides they have to print?

publisher was FORCED to cancel ...no, we don't want nazi crap, like you want

Well that's a lie.

 

[Camp]

This law would make it illegal for elected local school boards and libraries to ban even pornography from libraries. The whole silly political stunt has been caused not by anyone censoring, but rather because the publisher of Dr. Seuse's books decided they deemed some of their books were inappropriate for children and stopped selling them.

 

[OldLady]

this should apply to all books, not just children

‘GRINCH Act’ introduced to protect children's books from cancel culture: ‘No one is safe’

The Pennsylvania lawmaker is introducing the Guarding Readers’ Independence and Choice (GRINCH) Act to safeguard children’s literature from being “canceled.” The GRINCH Act will cut off government funding for agencies that censor books.

www.foxnews.com

Well, that would have nothing to do with the Dr. Seuss books, but it would cut off funding to schools that ban Huckleberry Finn, so cool.

 

[OldLady]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what they government decides they have to print?

Since when does the government fund book publishers?
I agree it's a zany thing to write a law over, but isn't this a bill that doesn't do much but sound good? It doesn't force a library to buy a book in the first place, or keep it on the shelf.

 

[pknopp]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what they government decides they have to print?

Since when does the government fund book publishers?
I agree it's a zany thing to write a law over, but isn't this a bill that doesn't do much but sound good? It doesn't force a library to buy a book in the first place, or keep it on the shelf.

If you want to argue it's all for show, fine argue that. That doesn't make it any better.

 

[OldLady]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what they government decides they have to print?

Since when does the government fund book publishers?
I agree it's a zany thing to write a law over, but isn't this a bill that doesn't do much but sound good? It doesn't force a library to buy a book in the first place, or keep it on the shelf.

If you want to argue it's all for show, fine argue that. That doesn't make it any better.

Don't worry, it won't go anywhere. It's noise.

 

[pknopp]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what they government decides they have to print?

Since when does the government fund book publishers?
I agree it's a zany thing to write a law over, but isn't this a bill that doesn't do much but sound good? It doesn't force a library to buy a book in the first place, or keep it on the shelf.

If you want to argue it's all for show, fine argue that. That doesn't make it any better.

Don't worry, it won't go anywhere. It's noise.

I'm sure it was going nowhere but I don't understand politicians doing this. And yes, he is not the only one.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm sure it was going nowhere but I don't understand politicians doing this. And yes, he is not the only one.

To control conservative media cycles. It’s just for attention.

 

[Mac-7]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what the government decides they have to print?

The bill wont become law since dems control government now

but if passed it would have applied to public libaries and public schools

 

[whitehall]

Remember when Bill Clinton shut down the government and democrats blamed it on then House Speaker Newt Gingrich? It was around Christmas time and democrats were having a great time claiming "the (Ging)grinch that stole Christmas". Today the same freaking hypocrites want to ban the books.

 

[struth]

Making this bill a law is pointless...the leftist that are willing to burn books, won't respect the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

this should apply to all books, not just children

‘GRINCH Act’ introduced to protect children's books from cancel culture: ‘No one is safe’

The Pennsylvania lawmaker is introducing the Guarding Readers’ Independence and Choice (GRINCH) Act to safeguard children’s literature from being “canceled.” The GRINCH Act will cut off government funding for agencies that censor books.

www.foxnews.com

True rightwing idiocy.

Clearly conservatives are going to continue to push the ‘cancel culture’ lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A publisher decided to no longer print certain books. What are we arguing here? That the government should be able to force a publisher to print what they government decides they have to print?

publisher was FORCED to cancel ...no, we don't want nazi crap, like you want

This is a lie.

Such is the dishonest authoritarian right: use the state to compel conformity and punish dissent – more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[busybee01]

this should apply to all books, not just children

‘GRINCH Act’ introduced to protect children's books from cancel culture: ‘No one is safe’

The Pennsylvania lawmaker is introducing the Guarding Readers’ Independence and Choice (GRINCH) Act to safeguard children’s literature from being “canceled.” The GRINCH Act will cut off government funding for agencies that censor books.

www.foxnews.com

This is a solution in serach of a problem. No federal or state agencies have banned Dr Seuss. The publishers ceased publication. This is garbage legislation that shows how out of touch the GOP is with reality.