Summary

Rightwing groups across the US are driving a wave of legislation to restrict books in school and public libraries, targeting content deemed “sexually explicit” or “obscene,” often affecting LGBTQ+ and race-related titles.

Texas leads with 31 bills and 538 book bans in the 2023–24 school year.

Proposed laws, like Texas Senate Bill 13, shift book selection power from librarians to parent-led advisory boards.

Critics, including librarians and legal scholars, warn these efforts amount to censorship, risk violating First Amendment rights, and reduce access in underserved communities.

  • TronBronson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 minutes ago

    Why do they care so much about libraries. it’s not like they or their kids read. How do you get illiterate people excited to ban books. It’s a god damn conspiracy!

  • drascus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    29 minutes ago

    only one thing for it. Put as much indecent material in the library as possible. Also I used to work at a library and every now and then this like 80 year old dude would come in and say “show me where your dirty books are!” that guy was awesome.

  • Puzzlehead@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Right wings lie bout wanting freedom of speech. They just want to sprout racist stuff and other phobic stuff. They treat LGBT like it’s a fetish.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 hours ago

    “Bu-but the right wingers promised me that I could say the hard-R N-word yet again, and if people were to call me ‘racist’ for it they’d be jailed for defamation, and they’d also jail feminist video game critics for censoring games!”

  • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Surely the free speech absolutists will be staunchly opposed. Why, if they weren’t, one could think it was never about free speech and always just about hate…

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      The “free speech absolutists” just wanted to call black people the N-word, they don’t actually care about the rest.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        The “free speech absolutists” just wanted to call black people the N-word,

        They are able to say it already (and they still do amongst themselves).

        What they wanted is to be able to say it in public without consequences.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      This isn’t posturing, it’s having a direct impact on the education of children in this country. This is them creating more problems.

    • frog_brawler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’d call it “wasting tax money perpetuating culture wars as a distraction from the class war; while also making the population dumber, and less inclined to resist feudalism.”

  • pzzzt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Please support your local library. Even if you just get a card and keep it active, it helps with stats that they use to get more funding.

    • Allonzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      I’ve yet to discover a conservative “Christian” that possesses even a passing familiarity with their own self proclaimed testaments.

      Like seriously, you claim to take your belief seriously, it’s 1 fucking book! It’s not a page turner I grant them, but it’s ONE book.

    • pzzzt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Unfortunately there’s a website that tells them specific books and passages to challenge.

    • PointyReality@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      No no, they love free speech when it allows them to use hate speech against others. They only hate free speech when others opinions disagrees with their own. That is the difference between left and right, left understand that free speech means we have to protect against hate speech, the right rails against censorship regarding hate speech as a vehicle against “oppression” so they can be the ones that can attack those that disagree with them with hate speech.

      • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        “Free speech” is I get to call you the F-slur. “Obscenity” is you discussing any aspect of your life that differs from mine.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      The Constitution according to Republicans:

      We The People…words words GET TO HAVE AS MANY GUNS AS WE WANT words words…The End.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I heard there’s one book in there that talks about a pair of sisters who get their father drunk so they can take turns raping him. Are they banning that one?

      • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        1 day ago

        The Bible doesn’t portray it as a good thing, and considers their descendants cursed.

        A large portion of the Bible is: “here’s all the ways people can be nasty, don’t be like them”.

          • abbadon420@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I mean, it’s a 1000 year old book. Slavery was accepted and normal in those days.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              18 hours ago

              Slavery has never been acceptable, and I would expect a “holy book” meant to be a model for morality, regardless of when it is written, to at the very least be ambivalent on the topic of owning other humans as property.

              Actually, that’s too generous. If I were to follow the teachings of a book, it would need to be explicitly anti-slavery. Something that would be particularly important in a time where slavery is “accepted and normal.” And really, a super fucking low bar.

              We’ve got 10 commandments. At least 2 of them are about Yahweh being jealous of other gods, and yet none of them are about slavery.

              Jesus could have easily said, “don’t own people as property,” and yet he didn’t.

              No, he actually specifically outlined rules for owning and punishing your slaves. He (more than, imo) tacitly approves of slavery.

              If you want to have this argument, you’re gonna lose.

              • abbadon420@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                17 hours ago

                Slavery was very much and accepted socio economical practice in those days. The mentioning the bible does are often not reminiscent of the 18th century slavery we’re all familiar with. Slavery I’m those days was often a kind of servitude, for a couple years, tto pay off debt. The bible recognises that for what it is and tries to humanise slavery by saying things like to treat your slaves as your brother

                • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  You should probably take a step back and realize you’re defending slavery. That’s gross. You should be ashamed.

                  You can try to justify it all you want, but the fact is that it was just as unacceptable then as it is now, and an all-knowing, all-caring god should understand that no problem.

                  Regardless of the socio- economic conditions.

                  And yeah, it’s not like Jesus was well known for upsetting the socio-economic status quo or anything… It’s not like he fashioned his own whip to drive money changers from the temple.

                  B b b but money changing in the temple was the accepted practice in those days!

              • AtariDump@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                17 hours ago

                Slavery has never been acceptable, and I would expect a “holy book” the Constitution of the United States meant to be a model for morality government, regardless of when it is written, to at the very least be ambivalent on the topic of owning other humans as property.

          • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            1 day ago

            Also no. It allowed servitude to pay off debts, but all debts were supposed to be forgiven after 7 years, and so it was strictly limited.

            Where do you think the ideas that all humans are equal and deserve equal rights that reduced slavery in modern times come from?

            • Soup@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 hours ago

              Where do we think those ideas come from? The way you say that makes it sound like you don’t believe anyone could come to that idea without that specific religion’s religious text. That projection is, by far, probably the most frightening thing in this thread.

              People are fully capable of being good without being forced to. Yea, most are stupid and plenty are nasty but to act like the ideas of baseline human freedoms must have come from the bible is so weird.

              • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                I’m not saying it’s not possible, but that’s how it happened in the Western world.

                Would it later on happen “naturally” without it? Maybe; hard to say, we can only speculate since it’s not how it went.

                But even from a “Christian” perspective, I would agree, yes it would; these values align with God’s will and He would have put these ideas in peoples’ heads even if the Bible didn’t exist.

                • Soup@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  Geez, so much for getting free will, eh?

                  There were scores of Christians who thought slavery was great. If the bible was really the ticket into being against it then it wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Instead we get The Americas™, a collection of stolen lands turned into a mire of plantations and now into prisons built on making said the prisoners work for pennies to prop up the rest of the country while many more “free” people are below the poverty line despite putting in their 40+ hours of hard, often physical, labour. Even people that are “paid decently” aren’t getting their fair share. Slavery coexists with the bible just fine, and in fact thrives more in more religious regions.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Where do you think the ideas that all humans are equal and deserve equal rights that reduced slavery in modern times come from?

              Definitely not the Bible, which tells women to be subservient to their husbands and enslaved people to obey their masters. I am utterly uninterested in the moral lessons of a book written by people who endorse debt slavery. Which, I guess still needs to be pointed out, is bad! Even if it’s “only” 7 years!

              • abbadon420@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                17 hours ago

                The equality of women is indeed a point where the bible failed, but you can’t do everything right at once. I’m not a fan of the bible, but in it’s days, it was a good book that taught good values. Values that were better than society was at the time and it really improved society.

              • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                I understand your position, but I respectfully urge you to study more history, all modern western ideas of universal human rights are based on or heavily influenced by the Bible. Dominion by Tom Holland, despite the terrible name, is a good source on the subject.

                Also, sure, we are partially past it, but considering that until 300 years ago almost everybody considered slavery a natural right, a 3000 years old law limiting servitude to 7 years is VERY progressive.

                • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  You are not convincing my queer trans ass there is anything worth studying in there to guide people morally. I had that inflicted on me for the first two decades of my life and literally have PTSD from it.

                  The history can be interesting, and it’s something people accomplished in spite of what is in that book, not because of it.

            • circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 day ago

              Abraham had sex with his (wife’s) slave Hagar to produce Ishmael – and both Hagar and Ishmael were then exiled after Abraham was able to conceive with his wife and produce Isaac.

              Certainly not the kind of values I’d want for my family.

            • FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Not that I think anything in the Bible can be taken at face value, but especially numbers and doubly so, the number 7.

              World created in 7 days. Forgive others 7 times or 70*7. Etc etc. There’s no reason to believe the law of the land was literally a 7 year limit on slavery.

              • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Still bad, but servitude =/= slavery.

                7 in the Bible is usually a symbol for completeness. The 70*7 specifically is meant to be “unending”.

                It is very likely to really be a 7 years limit to debts.

                And I would love if the Bible-thumping politicians proposed this debt limit for modern times, but they are all just hypocrites.

                • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  Still bad, but servitude =/= slavery.

                  My friend, biblical scholars disagree with you. Your holy book is very clear on this subject, and I would implore you to do a little research before saying shit like this.

                • FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  7 in the Bible is usually a symbol

                  It is very likely to really be a 7 years limit

                  Is it just me, or these don’t seem to jive with each other.

              • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                21 hours ago

                Technically servitude is not the same as slavery, but still bad.

                Considering that until 300 years ago most people considered slavery to be a natural right, a 3000 years old law limiting it to at most 7 years was VERY progressive.

                • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 hours ago

                  The bible explicitly condones slavery. Stop saying it’s “servitude”. Buying and selling humans as property. Using them as free labor. Beating them into submission.

                  This is slavery. This is all explicitly condoned in the bible.

          • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            It’s also somehow worse than old school apologetics from like 2007, at least those ones put some thought into it and generally acknowledged that society changed.

        • blakenong@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Have you read that steamy story about how Lot’s two daughters drugged him and rode their father’s cock?

          So appropriate for kids.

        • DarkFuture@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Whoa, so you’re saying we shouldn’t ban books that have questionable themes if those themes teach a lesson?

          • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yes, I don’t support banning books. One of the books in the Bible can even be considered pornographic (Song of Songs), but it has been considered a model for a healthy relationship.

  • Freshparsnip@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 hours ago

    By “obscene” they mean a guy flirts with a guy. Meanwhile a full on sex scene isn’t “obscene” so long as it’s heterosexual