Judge orders books removed from Texas public libraries due to LGBTQ and racial content must be returned

[JGalt]

‘Seven residents sued county officials in April 2022, claiming their First and 14th Amendment rights were violated when books deemed inappropriate by some people in the community and Republican lawmakers were removed from public libraries or access was restricted.

The lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio claimed county officials removed books from the shelves of the three-branch public library system “because they disagree with the ideas within them” and terminated access to thousands of digital books because they could not ban two specific titles.

[…]

The library system also is required to reflect these books as available in their catalog and cannot remove any books for any reason while the case is ongoing, US District Judge Robert Pitman said in his order.

“Although libraries are afforded great discretion for their selection and acquisition decisions, the First Amendment prohibits the removal of books from libraries based on either viewpoint or content discrimination,” Pitman said.’

Judge orders books removed from Texas public libraries due to LGBTQ and racial content must be returned within 24 hours | CNN

A federal judge in Texas ruled that at least 12 books removed from public libraries by Llano County officials, many because of their LGBTQ and racial content, must be placed back onto shelves within 24 hours, according to an order filed Thursday.

www.cnn.com

Very good.

This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to freedom of expression; it is a defeat for neo-fascist authoritarianism.

The First Amendment shouldn't give someone the right to groom children for pedophilia and stir up racial resentment. What kind of sane, normal parents would want their children reading this garbage?

 

[saveliberty]

‘Seven residents sued county officials in April 2022, claiming their First and 14th Amendment rights were violated when books deemed inappropriate by some people in the community and Republican lawmakers were removed from public libraries or access was restricted.

The lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio claimed county officials removed books from the shelves of the three-branch public library system “because they disagree with the ideas within them” and terminated access to thousands of digital books because they could not ban two specific titles.

[…]

The library system also is required to reflect these books as available in their catalog and cannot remove any books for any reason while the case is ongoing, US District Judge Robert Pitman said in his order.

“Although libraries are afforded great discretion for their selection and acquisition decisions, the First Amendment prohibits the removal of books from libraries based on either viewpoint or content discrimination,” Pitman said.’

Judge orders books removed from Texas public libraries due to LGBTQ and racial content must be returned within 24 hours | CNN

A federal judge in Texas ruled that at least 12 books removed from public libraries by Llano County officials, many because of their LGBTQ and racial content, must be placed back onto shelves within 24 hours, according to an order filed Thursday.

www.cnn.com

Very good.

This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to freedom of expression; it is a defeat for neo-fascist authoritarianism.

Free speech huh? Okay, put them back out and publish the names of anyone checking them out in the local paper.

 

[JGalt]

Free speech huh? Okay, put them back out and publish the names of anyone checking them out in the local paper.

...as well as the names of those public officials who selected and purchased the books for the libraries.

Yay First Amendment!!!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Groomers gonna groom.

And pedophiles gonna pedophile.

While they and their allies celebrate this victory in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Let us do away with the first amendment, then.

It is the only way that only "moral and Religious" people will prevail in this country, by force, and by autocratic means.

Until then, the First Amendment is still the FIRST AMENDMENT for the most obvious reason, and will continue to be the first, for the most obvious reason.

The FIRST AMENDMENT was written for a people with an internal sense of morality and a religious responsibility. To suggest that the First Amendment protects those who give pornography to children or write picture books about how good it feels to get ass fucked by an adult man and its fun for a 7 year old to give oral sex insults those who wrote the First Amendment. They expected a people who would just naturally be horrified at the very idea.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Free speech huh? Okay, put them back out and publish the names of anyone checking them out in the local paper.

That's what you call free speech eh?
Explains a lot, actually~

 

[johngaltshrugged]

For the upcoming book burnings, are you guys going in full white robe attire or just casuals?

You mean like these snappy outfits immortalized by the Democrat party?

 

[saveliberty]

That's what you call free speech eh?
Explains a lot, actually~

Go ahead, explain how it isn't free speech.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why are children being so maleducated that they cannot read, do simple arithmetic, write their own names? They have no knowledge of history and know nothing at all of geography.

Instead, education has taken a completely different direction. Teachers have a sense of pride in sexualizing children, particularly getting them comfortable with having sex with adults. They use picture books so graphic that they cannot be shown in public.

Now who would do something like that? This kind of education is what is given to those who have a future in providing sex. A sex slave raised for the purpose. A whole nation of them. That's the future of children in this country.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The FIRST AMENDMENT was written for a people with an internal sense of morality and a religious responsibility. To suggest that the First Amendment protects those who give pornography to children or write picture books about how good it feels to get ass fucked by an adult man and its fun for a 7 year old to give oral sex insults those who wrote the First Amendment. They expected a people who would just naturally be horrified at the very idea.

No buddy. Not even close. Nothing to do with religious extremism like yours.
---------------------
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Freedom of Speech / Freedom of the Press​

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be exercised in a direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way. Freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for interference with the right of free speech when it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. Generally, a person cannot be held liable, either criminally or civilly for anything written or spoken about a person or topic, so long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion and such statements.

A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech, and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite the popular misunderstanding, the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

• “Book bans violate the First Amendment because they deprive children or students of the right to receive information and ideas,” explained David L. Hudson Jr., a professor at Belmont University College of Law and a First Amendment law expert.

njsbf.org/2023/02/15/does-banning-books-violate-the-first-amendment/

 

[Magnus]

You mean like these snappy outfits immortalized by the Democrat party?

View attachment 772109

So, that is a YES? You guys are going for the entire white robes look, eh?

Have fun dancing around the ol' bonfire!

 

[johngaltshrugged]

So, that is a YES? You guys are going for the entire white robes look, eh?

Have fun dancing around the ol' bonfire!

Was this you or one of your other buddies? Did your Klan put you out with tiny hoses?

 

[lantern2814]

‘Seven residents sued county officials in April 2022, claiming their First and 14th Amendment rights were violated when books deemed inappropriate by some people in the community and Republican lawmakers were removed from public libraries or access was restricted.

The lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio claimed county officials removed books from the shelves of the three-branch public library system “because they disagree with the ideas within them” and terminated access to thousands of digital books because they could not ban two specific titles.

[…]

The library system also is required to reflect these books as available in their catalog and cannot remove any books for any reason while the case is ongoing, US District Judge Robert Pitman said in his order.

“Although libraries are afforded great discretion for their selection and acquisition decisions, the First Amendment prohibits the removal of books from libraries based on either viewpoint or content discrimination,” Pitman said.’

Judge orders books removed from Texas public libraries due to LGBTQ and racial content must be returned within 24 hours | CNN

A federal judge in Texas ruled that at least 12 books removed from public libraries by Llano County officials, many because of their LGBTQ and racial content, must be placed back onto shelves within 24 hours, according to an order filed Thursday.

www.cnn.com

Very good.

This is a victory for the First Amendment and the right to freedom of expression; it is a defeat for neo-fascist authoritarianism.

Bullshit. As usual from you and the degenerates who thumbs upped your post. You want porn in school libraries. So here’s the only appropriate response.

 

[lantern2814]

That's what you call free speech eh?
Explains a lot, actually~

Seeing what you approve of in school libraries and what you call free speech, that explains a lot more about you. Now cry like you usually do asshole.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I suppose they'll be putting this book back, too...

Poor kids. They're literally being thrown to the wolves.

There's some truly sick people in this world.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bullshit. As usual from you and the degenerates who thumbs upped your post. You want porn in school libraries. So here’s the only appropriate response.

Banning books is fundamentally neo-fascist and authoritarian – the desire to compel conformity and silence dissent.

The First Amendment prohibits government from prohibiting free speech and expression because of its content.

There is no justification to ban books or remove them from a public venue because of their content, as conservatives seek to do.

 

[SavannahMann]

Sounds like more grooming, porno & ped materials the lefties love to give to kids.

Is that what you're celebrating here, the deviant sexualization of our children?

I bought the Rush Limbaugh book The way things ought to be. I thought it was an interesting read on society if a little more conservative than I personally believed.

Liberals were chided, mocked, and even vilified for trying to restrict access to this book. Let me rephrase that. Liberals were properly chided, mocked and vilified.

I bought the book because I wondered what was so bad about it. If the Liberals had shut up I probably never would have bought or read it. I listened to Limbaugh on occasion.

I read a lot of books for that reason. Fahrenheit 451 as one more example. I didn’t think it was all that good. But I’ve read good and bad books. I’ve read these books not because someone said I should. I read a lot of books for that reason. But because they said nobody should.

The Right and Left argue with equal passion, and they’re both wrong. They don’t know what is best. They don’t know what we should, or shouldn’t read.

The Taliban leaders. The Mullahs who decide what is happening for and to others. They are lauded for never reading anything but the Koran.

I’m a truth whore. I’ll take truth from any source. If I read a book that I think is terrible, but it has a single grain of truth in it, I walk away a better person.

I read Marx in school. It was bullshit. I can explain why if you want. I read the Little Red Book from Mao. They should have left Marx alone. Marx alone was bad enough, it didn’t need the help.

I told the wife not long ago. I think everyone should read Mein Kampf. One time only. So you can see the pattern of lies and flawed thinking from pseudo intellectuals.

Books are not dangerous. Books are not subversive. They aren’t going to turn your grand kids gay just by touching the cover. Reading it isn’t going to make you or anyone homosexual or transsexual. At most, it might help someone understand a single small truth about themselves or the world.

Ideals are not dangerous. It is the fear of ideals that presents a greater danger. It is that fear of ideals that presents the greatest danger to society.

 

[BackAgain]

And that will not get you to support the Constitution, our freedoms, and our liberties....

Says Goon, who as a libturd, doesn’t even like our Constitution.

 

[lantern2814]

Banning books is fundamentally neo-fascist and authoritarian – the desire to compel conformity and silence dissent.

The First Amendment prohibits government from prohibiting free speech and expression because of its content.

There is no justification to ban books or remove them from a public venue because of their content, as conservatives seek to do.

Oh really idiot? Go up to kids with their parents and start reading those books to them and showing them those graphic images. Then don’t cry when they beat you within an inch of your worthless life. There are laws against showing that kind of stuff to children. Now explain why YOU morons have been trying to get Huckleberry Finn, Catcher In the Rye, and even Shakespeare banned.

 

[Curried Goats]

The Constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governance of any other.
John Adams

There is nothing in the Constitution that confers a right to debauch children. The people that the Constitution was written for would not need to be prevented from using the children as sexual deviants. Those people would be morally and religiously prohibited from such child abuse. The Constitution is simply inadequate to govern today.

44 year old Thomas Jefferson impregnated Sally Hemings when she was 14 years old....