Is banning books a good thing to do? If not, WHY do some groups think it is?

just_sayin

I think blanket answers for this question don't address the nuances of the issue.  When left-wingers tried to ban the police dog on Paw Patrol, Aunt Jemima, Mrs Butterworth, Uncle Ben, Land-o-Lakes butter, Dr Suess books, Thomas Jefferson statues, etc, I thought, and I still think, that these were inappropriate to remove.  I support restricting access on  sexually explicit materials though, like not allowing access to Pornhub at a public grade school.  I know that those who wrote about the evils of Chase the police dog in Paw Patrol would disagree with me, and claim elementary kids should be exposed to a variety of sexual fetishes.  But I disagree.

I would post images from the most banned book in 2022, Gender Queer here, but they are NSFW and a violation of the website's decency policy.  Personally, when you start talking about specific dialogue and images, all the crap stops and people can't hide behind generalities.  You see what people really support and what they don't.  You can view them online though if you do a Google search.- don't do it at work though, they are NSFW as I said before.  The images are anime style cartoons of a minor who is in the process of transitioning to a male.  The objectionable images show a minor performing oral sex on another minor and an ancient Greek/Roman man who is naked, holding the manhood of a naked boy who is not yet a man with dialogue that suggests these types of relationships are OK. There are about a dozen other questionable images.   I question the educational value of these in a grade school.  I don't care if they are in a public library or store though.  However, I don't think the images are appropriate for grade schoolers.

So in closing - don't let the left ban Paw Patrol or Dr Suess books, but don't bring porn into a public grade school library. 

jack

just_sayin said:

I think blanket answers for this question don't address the nuances of the issue. 

Hello just:

Nuances, huh?  That sounds like something somebody would say when they're taking my rights AWAY..  In my view there are NO nuances in the 1st Amendment.  I've read it..  It makes no exceptions for nasty speech.  Freedom is scary. 

excon

jack

just_sayin said:

So in closing - don't let the left ban Paw Patrol or Dr Suess books, but don't bring porn into a public grade school library. 

Hello again, just:

You're not suggesting, are you, that the left are the only ones banning stuff??  Du*de! I'm the left..  I dunno how you missed it..  Clearly, I'm a BASTION of free speech.

Amanda Gorman, the nation's first National Youth Poet Laureate, spoke out Tuesday against what she described as a book ban after access to the poem she recited at President Joe Biden’s inauguration was limited at a Florida school. Miami-Dade County Public Schools moved “The Hill We Climb” to the middle school section of the library after a parent filed a formal objection to the work, according to documents obtained by the Florida Freedom to Read Project.  

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-school-limits-access-amanda-gormans-inaugural-poem-books-paren-rcna85935

excon

just_sayin

@jack
So, do you believe kids should have access to porn in public grade school libraries?  The first amendment permits porn.  Does that mean it should be available in a public school library?  Do you think kids should be able to watch R rated movies in elementary school?  If not, then why should they have access to R and X rated book materials?  I'll wait for your answer.

just_sayin

@jack
Huh, you get that no one individual parent can ban a book don't you?  If a book is "banned" or moved to another section then some review committee and/or librarian staff make that decision.  What you are really wanting is to take away parent's first amendment rights to speak up.  Typical left wing fascist wants to silence parents voicing their concern. Why if a pornographic book is removed from the library, it must be the fault of the parent who didn't let the groomers sneak it in, isn't that what you really meant?  That was a rhetorical question, we all know it was what you meant. 

Rather than actually discuss the content of the books, the same left-wing fascists that tried to ban Trump from Twitter, Chase the police dog from the Paw Patrol, and banned Mrs Butterworths, Uncle Ben, and Aunt Jemima, and are working on removing Lucky from his charms, want to claim that parents shouldn't be allowed to speak up and raise concerns that the content of some books is inappropriate.  The parent doesn't have the power to ban, the school board or librarian may, but a parent doesn't, and yet anti-first amendment/ pro-pedophile left-wingers want to have kids read porn without their parents consent.

anarchist100

just_sayin said:

@jack
Huh, you get that no one individual parent can ban a book don't you?  If a book is "banned" or moved to another section then some review committee and/or librarian staff make that decision.  What you are really wanting is to take away parent's first amendment rights to speak up.  Typical left wing fascist wants to silence parents voicing their concern. Why if a pornographic book is removed from the library, it must be the fault of the parent who didn't let the groomers sneak it in, isn't that what you really meant?  That was a rhetorical question, we all know it was what you meant. 

Rather than actually discuss the content of the books, the same left-wing fascists that tried to ban Trump from Twitter, Chase the police dog from the Paw Patrol, and banned Mrs Butterworths, Uncle Ben, and Aunt Jemima, and are working on removing Lucky from his charms, want to claim that parents shouldn't be allowed to speak up and raise concerns that the content of some books is inappropriate.  The parent doesn't have the poor to ban, the school board or librarian may, but a parent doesn't, and yet anti-first amendment/ pro-pedophile left-wingers want to have kids read porn without their parents consent.

Stop using the word fascist to describe anything you don't like, it's annoying.

just_sayin

@anarchist100
I'm mocking Jack's bastion of pompousness.

John_C_87

@jack

Nuances, huh?  That sounds like something somebody would say when they're taking my rights AWAY..  In my view there are NO nuances in the 1st Amendment.  I've read it..  It makes no exceptions for nasty speech.  Freedom is scary. 

Taken away does not coniside with the human act of abandoment, vandalizeation, or the act of sacrifice in political parlay what is to be otherwise preserved, protected and defended as a whole and truthful right of Constitution as United States in condition of Preamble.

: sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

: a series of two or more bets so set up in advance that the original stake plus its winnings are risked on the successive wagers

Parlay Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Nuance Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack

So, do you believe kids should have access to porn in public grade school libraries?   

I'll wait for your answer.

Hello again, j:

Look..  What you or I want is irrelevant..  As long as kids watch porn on their computers, or the TV at home when mom and dad are out, making it illegal to watch in school is mental masturbation.  It MAKES you feel better, but does nothing to PROTECT children.    It PRETENDS something that isn't so..  It HIDES a truth.  It's NOT the way the real world is. 

Let's make laws that actually PROTECT children like background checks before you buy an AR 15.  I'll wait for your answer.

excon

John_C_87

@jack
I'll say it.........kids shouldn't watch poor in school...

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Who Benefits

Certain groups or individuals may benefit from book bannings, including:

1. Censors: Individuals or organizations who advocate for banning books may benefit from controlling the information made available to the public based on their personal or cultural beliefs.

2. Politicians: Some politicians may use book banning to cater to a specific audience or promote their agenda. It can help them create a positive image and gain support from individuals who share their views on certain issues.

3. Oppressive regimes: Regimes that rely on propaganda and control of information would benefit from the banning of books that may question their authority or promote dissent.

4. Particular groups: Certain groups might advocate for the banning of materials that they deem offensive based on cultural, religious, or moral beliefs.

While some individuals or groups may believe that they benefit from book bannings, it is essential to recognize the harms this practice can cause. The restriction of information and intellectual freedom could lead to ignorance, disrespect for freedom of speech, and a stifling of knowledge. Free access to diverse ideas and perspectives is fundamental to a healthy society, and openness to differing ideas is key for a society's progress and development.

maxx

three reasons why some want certain books banned. one, to keep immoral books from children, which makes little sense considering they can see porn on the web. Two; racism; which makes no sense considering  it is in everyday life. Third, political. This reason occurred more in history than today and still makes no sense because everyone still has their own political views. So I think it is a bad idea to ban books. People will still access what they want through everyday life. @jack

John_C_87

I don't understand what books are claimed to have been banned as there is a difference between an organization, institution, or business not offering their service as an open-door policy to sell, display, or promote some literature in opposition to ban a book where it becomes a crime to publish the literature at all.

John_C_87

@maxx

Three reasons why some want certain books banned. one, to keep immoral books from children, which makes little sense considering they can see porn on the web. Two; racism; which makes no sense considering  it is in everyday life. Third, political. This reason occurred more in history than today and still makes no sense because everyone still has their own political views. So I think it is a bad idea to ban books. People will still access what they want through everyday life. 

As I often overcomplicate many things, I will struggle to keep it short. There is only one reason to ban a book and the principle is to stop the publication and existence of a writing as document of evidence. Again, as united state in the United States of America a big hint to understand associations made on public matters such as these. We are speaking of liberty assumed as a united state and not the banning or censorship of books. We are in truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth addressing the assuming of liberty by creators of some forms of writing and how they are promoted and advertised. The writings them becoming known to the public as a united state of "Press" meaning precisely where writings and paintings are reduced to replication not creation.

anarchist100

JulesKorngold said:

Certain groups or individuals may benefit from book bannings, including:

1. Censors: Individuals or organizations who advocate for banning books may benefit from controlling the information made available to the public based on their personal or cultural beliefs.

2. Politicians: Some politicians may use book banning to cater to a specific audience or promote their agenda. It can help them create a positive image and gain support from individuals who share their views on certain issues.

3. Oppressive regimes: Regimes that rely on propaganda and control of information would benefit from the banning of books that may question their authority or promote dissent.

4. Particular groups: Certain groups might advocate for the banning of materials that they deem offensive based on cultural, religious, or moral beliefs.

While some individuals or groups may believe that they benefit from book bannings, it is essential to recognize the harms this practice can cause. The restriction of information and intellectual freedom could lead to ignorance, disrespect for freedom of speech, and a stifling of knowledge. Free access to diverse ideas and perspectives is fundamental to a healthy society, and openness to differing ideas is key for a society's progress and development.

You've changed I see.

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

While some individuals or groups may believe that they benefit from book bannings, it is essential to recognize the harms this practice can cause. The restriction of information and intellectual freedom could lead to ignorance, disrespect for freedom of speech, and a stifling of knowledge. Free access to diverse ideas and perspectives is fundamental to a healthy society, and openness to differing ideas is key for a society's progress and development.

disrespect for freedom of speech
I have no repsect for a person or goup of people who break a united state otherwise held as united state inside American United States Consitution, You are failing to make a legal cause known as to why the First Amendment is neccesary over the Preamble of the American Consitution itself to establish connections to facts and truth describe in the preamble?

 It is a requirment of the truth, we speek of cost and it is a lawyer at some time in court procidings that has broken the American Constitution as a stragity to sell a pratice of law. And, it is to be know in that case before the counsil of law the meaning or meanings had been addressed of cause for breaking the state of the union. This does not mean the breaking of rank in Constitutional right was the correct thing to do in making a more perfect union, it does not mean this liberty is simply free to the people. It only means the council may have commited a malprtice of law in or during the pratice of law towhich people eggerly file suit. We the people, already know law is falable and can be criminal initself, if not wake up as the subject to courts abolishment as Unconstitutional in it connection to facts of preamble when making unions with established justice and so on.

To be clear and to the points made on a massive, united state a cost is added to National Debt every time we as the people are expected to believe this debt cannot be settled as crime in court by abolishment. The rein of civil actions / Civil Right that falsely accumulate costs onto the people for the advantage of public spending is a stupidity magnet to compromise in truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth. This by laws written, ratified, and falsely described as Constitutional right, moving on to law that are illegal as they too direct perjury, and the evidence thereof. Abolishing an act, such legislation has complications of its own as it may take a series of years or may never occur at all. The Preamble reason is connected to the commission of crime must occur. Then correct can be common defense to the general welfare, then grievance for conviction is possible, ending with the documented evidence of criminal negligence can then be eradicated for legislation and moved to public record.  In these matters the Article of Constitution is not attempted to preempt amended hoping to hide or correctly as preamble required connections had made such matter truth in the first place.

Some people understand things better with just a picture or two. I am sorry I have none to show you JulesKorngold. I do have an example of a 1st Amendment right held in a state of the Union as Constitutional right above that which would simply be only a grievance in list of "Bill of Rights." So much for short and sweet we are left with lengthy, sour, and bitter. So, we have waitted and waitted for the crime to occur, it was always a mater of time and cost. The evidence left to pile high and can be collected, then altered to accurately describe the extent of the negligence which has created the magnitude of imperfection, its factual cost on National debt. The people are at liberty to compare all truths held between Article II’s. See it now? “The difference between power of a state in the union of United States Constitutional right, and a state of then union to established justice not of American Constitutional union.”

Article II

Primary tabs

Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a Presadera / President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Presadera, Vice President / Vice Presadera chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the Presadera / President of the Senate. The Presadera / President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the Presadera / President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for Presadera / President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the Presadera / President. But in choosing the Presadera / President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the Presadera / President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Presadera, or Vice Presadera / Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Presadera, or Vice Presadera / Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of Presadera / President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the Presadera / President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Presadera, or Vice Presadera /  Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the Presadera / President and, Vice Presadera / Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as Presadera / President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a  Presadera / President shall be elected.

The Presadera / President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of  Presadera / President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2.

The Presadera / President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the Presadera / President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The Presadera / President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4.

The Presadera / President, Vice Presadera / Vice President, or Presadera and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

maxx

Too many genres of books to generalize them all as stopping evidence. They are and have banned books for the basic reason of stopping certain ideas, rather than evidence.  @John_C_87

jack

@jack

Hello:

Seems to me it would be a hell of a lot easier if we just made freedom the default..  Oh, that's right.  They already did.

excon

John_C_87

@maxx

Too many genres of books to generalize them all as stopping evidence. No it is not to many books to set them into a united state. What is an example of ban?

They are and have banned books for the basic reason of stopping certain ideas, rather than evidence. No, there are only witnesses who do not see writings put to press as evidence to crime and those who do see writings put to press as evidence of crime. Speed of trial is to be ensured by American Constitutional preamble and was / is common defense, that is the summery.

What precisely is the process of ban as a constitutional grievance? Meaning.....

What is the state of the union of curse, officale probition, or legal probition?

Freedom covers only such things as those which are proven without cost. Has this requirment been met? if so, why is there a request for increase in National Debt? 

Do we now all see the degree of imperfection created by the state of the Union of constitutional preamble? An imperfected state of the Union not only admited and proven as fact throught the world, also admited and proven in Phase I.preserve : abolish legal prejudice. All Americans who vote are republican. This is a fact. This is a truth, this is whole truth, and this is nothing but truth.

maxx

Oh come on. Get down to earth.  Evidence of what in all banned books? Take for example,  the lord of the flies. It was banned for excessive violence and profanity,  therfore inappropriate for young readers. @John_C_87

John_C_87

@jack

Seems to me it would be a hell of a lot easier if we just made freedom the default..  Oh, that's right.  They already did.
Slang: They already did and it sucked it was so imperfect. ( Unconstitutional comment)


They / we did not set freedom as default. "A " amendment has been written law like and has been ratified into not Article of Constitution but of Amendment thereof American United States Constitution. Cause, for loss of power, is created by creator by disregard to qualities of A.U.S.C.R. (American United States Constitutional Right) that is in the procedural process of protocol. As Congress in the 14th Amendment has admitted to a lowering of their own powers by vote to in only hope increase power seen as the time to success of a desires held b a majority.  This apart from preamble standards of truth and fact, Constitutional right. We as people are debating the fundamentals of quality to change Vs a speed of change. We know this is an imperfect union for a winner of a race can be disqualified after passing over the finish line as whole truth. Correct? Right or Wrong.

This is where I told you so comes into play, we have a United States Constitutional right to remain silent that is of higher powers than Miranda Right but is of yet not expressed in such a way in AUSCR to most effectively increase introduction by speed into the process of court proceedings.  

just_sayin

@jack
The founding fathers did not put porn in grade school libraries.  Even porn sites require that the person be 18 to enter.  I wonder just who would want to watch porn with grade school children?


or pedos?  Both sound like the correct answer to the question.

If saying that we should ban born in grade schools makes me a "prude" then so be it.  

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack

The founding fathers did not put porn in grade school libraries.

If saying that we should ban born in grade schools makes me a "prude" then so be it.  

Hello j:

Look..  It doesn't make you a prude..  It makes you ignorant of your surroundings..  In MY world, an 11 year old knows were to get porn.  Keeping him from it in school, makes you FEEL good, but it doesn't protect kids from anything..  I think MORE freedom is the answer - not less.

Here's the 1st Amendment.. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To me, an originalist, making NO LAWS abridging the freedom of speech, means making NO LAWS.  Like the closet lib you are, you want government regulating free speech..  HOW free is it if the government regulates it?

Waiting for your answer.

excon

John_C_87

@maxx

Oh come on. Get down to earth.  Evidence of what in all banned books? Take for example,  the lord of the flies. It was banned for excessive violence and profanity,  therfore inappropriate for young readers.

This does not describe a ban it is that simple. It does describe censorship and a lie is told for an ungiven reason.  We the people as Constitutional right are left to guess as to why. What is the next principle that is to be taken as a grievance of book banning.” “Lord of the flies has been banned from schools the book in fact has not been band as whole truth, the location of the book’s access has been limited as a monopoly sale. Which is a completely different grievance before a form of established justice. This is a statement of nothing but truth. It is an example of freedom of speech by the change made on the definition of the word ban that is to replace a truth of censored at locations described to be sensitive to witness protection. Which is to say the school holds people who are not 18 years of age together as a united state.

I would like to piont out that any male be it Maxx, john_C_87, or Jack have a Constitutional Right to act as a person under oath of office of President of the United States of America and fiathfully exiscute. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  Next. What is the next book in the long list you feel has been band? if you please.

jack

John_C_87 said:

 What is the next book in the long list you feel has been band? if you please.

Hello John:

Here's three baseball books.  Thank You, Jackie Robinson, by Barbara Cohen and Richard Cuffari. Henry Aaron's Dream, by Matt Tavares. Roberto Clemente: Pride of the Pittsburgh Pirates, by Jonah Goldberg.

Look carefully..  See if you can find the common thread..   Oh....  They're black..

All BANNED. 

excon

just_sayin

@jack

To me, an originalist, making NO LAWS abridging the freedom of speech, means making NO LAWS.

Spoken like a true patriotic libertarian, or pedophile.  The Supreme Court held in Miller v. California (1973).that kiddie porn and other kinds of obscenity are not covered by the 1st amendment.  Incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats have all been ruled by SCOTUS as not covered by the 1st Amendment.  So to summarize, the Supreme Court has said that free speech is a nuanced subject, while pedophiles say kiddie porn is their right.  

just_sayin

@jack

Here's three baseball books.  Thank You, Jackie Robinson, by Barbara Cohen and Richard Cuffari. Henry Aaron's Dream, by Matt Tavares. Roberto Clemente: Pride of the Pittsburgh Pirates, by Jonah Goldberg.
Look carefully..  See if you can find the common thread..   Oh....  They're black..
All BANNED. 

Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Mrs Butterworth, and Chase the police dog on Paw Patrol are all brown skinned.  All canceled by the left.  I think you are on to something about the racism thing and left-wingers.  But left-wingers have sought to ban and cancel Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Dr Suess too.  So their hate is not just limited to 1 color.

Why were the books banned?  is the race card being played, or are their other rational reasons for the decisions?  Again, no one person can ban a book.  Someone can file a complaint.  It may surprise many but one woman files 60 percent of all sexual harassment allegations for the entire federal government (not making it up - go Google it).  Is everyone she accuses found guilty and removed - nope far from it.  And many book petitions are found to not have merit.  What is fascist is not those who file a complaint, but those who seek to silence those who would speak out.  They are the true fascists here.

John_C_87

@jack
Thanks Jack, when, how and where had they been band if I can ask?
"prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom." 

What this is saying Jack is that congress cannot stop the display of something at no cost, free. This is fact as no one can, nor can congress rewrite the dictionaries very definitions of free. The comparison of the state of the union is set on what is possible as truth and what is impossible as truth as a clever state of the union.

Remember we as lawyer or man are even still held equal by the word Presdient for it is by American Constitution He, Unamended and uinratifice as evidence of imperfect preservation of job description in oath of office, we are in contest to present the more perfect union as Constitutional Right from Constitution preamble directly. The 1st Amendment has a battle with the courts over if the definition of the Amendment itself is strong enough to overturn the Constitutional right of perfection itself so others can ignore such standard. The state of the union of preamble is made though very subtle in its allegiance. 

John_C_87

@just_sayin
The Supreme Court held in Miller v. California (1973).that kiddie porn and other kinds of obscenity are not covered by the 1st amendment.  Incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats have all been ruled by SCOTUS as not covered by the 1st Amendment.  So to summarize, the Supreme Court has said that free speech is a nuanced subject, while pedophiles say kiddie porn is their right. 

As whole truth we can say the supreme court had meant to say as a constitutiional right the freedom of speech does not obstuct the liberties any courts of the land have on rulings over self-incriminaiton.

jack

John_C_87 said:

@jack
Thanks Jack, when, how and where had they been band if I can ask?

Hello again, John:

https://throughthefencebaseball.com/aaron-clemente-and-robinson-banned-in-duval-county-florida/

excon

jack

just_sayin said:

@jack

Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, Mrs Butterworth, were banned.

Hello again, just:

None of those people are real.  Banning advertising gimmicks that made fun of black people ought NEVER be compared to books celebrating real life black hero's.  Du*de!

excon

just_sayin

@jack

None of those people are real.  Banning advertising gimmicks that made fun of black people ought NEVER be compared to books celebrating real life black hero's.  Du*de!

The family of Aunt Jemima were upset that her image was removed.  You don't have the mascot of your product be something that you despise.  That's where some miss it.  The fans of the Redskins did not consider the term "Redskin' derogatory.  Only the racist woke did. You don't name your team something you think worthy of ridicule.  You might call your opponent that, but not your own name. No one considered Chase the police dog on Paw Patrol an evil thing until the left deemed him a threat to Black people because he is a POLICE dog.  

I hope the hypocrisy of the left is not lost on you.  After trying to ban football team names, cartoon characters, statutes of founding fathers, Dr Suess books,, and black characters on food items, it seeks to allow sexually explicit books like Gender Queer, and Drag burlesque shows in grade school libraries.  

So to summarize - the left tried to ban a football team name, a cartoon dog, statues, and popular brands of syrup and pancakes, but is upset that people want to remove sexually explicit books and drag burlesque shows from grade school libraries.  The left embraced their irrational anti-parent/pro-pedophile positions.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: It's Not Up To The Fans

 @just_sayin said:  The fans of the Redskins do not consider the term "Redskin' derogatory. 

It is not up to non-Native people to decide what is offensive or not to a group they don't belong to and have historically systemically oppressed. This term has contributed to Native American stereotypes and has promoted negative imagery and attitudes toward Indigenous people. Native American activists and organizations have repeatedly called for the Washington Redskins to change their name, and the decision to keep it is a reflection of their resistance to provoking meaningful change. @just_sayin

maxx

first get off the law talk and talk about why books are banned. They are not all banned for political reasons. You said evidence. Explain in layman terms as to what evidence. books are banned for political, or too sexual explicit for young readers, or for racist attitudes. They are banned or censored for the "ideas" that they do not want the readers to access.. I fail to see what you mean by evidence. @John_C_87

John_C_87

@maxx
first get off the law talk and talk about why books are banned.
: to prohibit especially by legal means

Banned Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

"First get off law talk" First that is impossible as your question should ask if censorship of books is good thing to do. A ban describes an especial use of law.

A problem here in America is by truth a book which is to be banned would need happen by order of United States Constitutional Right, not as order given especially by law. American has United States Constitutional right and no other nation as of yet has adopted such a strong stance of liberty. The dictionary’s definition of ban as a lower authority as it incapsulates the world idea of law. The United State Constitutional right of ban is named as abolishment and believe me when I say it is a strong reaction to take on any subject matter than ban.

Sorry for my personal connection to this exsample.

You have read my grievance as to why abortion should be banned by legislation. It is a malpractice of law and an abolishment from all legal legislation is warranted as the state of the union is not even necessary to say abortion to describe truth, whole, truth and nothing but truth. This was explained clearly as a common defense repalced by female-specific amputation. This is example of Constitutional abolishment which is by fact a ban as : to prohibit especially by legal means.

We often use the word ban as an act of grammar in English as the clever way to attract attention.

"They these actions are called banned for the payment of vote"...to we the people who wish not to be force as witness....The state of the union is on the difference between liberty and freedom described as a change with amendment to United State Constitutional right. Sometimes the detail of change of United State Constitutional Right is something as simple as breaking the united state held in Constitutional Right. I may be frustrating you I will take a break............

maxx

The law only enforces bans, it has nothing to do with the reasons. @John_C_87

John_C_87

The law only enforces bans, it has nothing to do with the reasons. 
For the record laws do not enforce anything, a lawyer enforces law, police serve and protect law, law is the test of perfect states of the union to consitutional preamble. Even without a United State Consitution this is still a fact, a truth between nations which legilsate law. Again a debate on its own. 

Are you sure you would like to continue are debate I get the feeling the side I have picked is frustrating you? I do not share the points of view on what makes a book banned and what makes a book censored. The argument of what we say does or does not matter and we are clearly talking about books which are censored. I understand what you are claiming as true, I understand what you are saying as true is in fact true. What I do not agree with is when you closely detail what is true it does not continue to be the whole truth to support the principles of a ban on books. I do not believe censorship is wrong I censor many of my own writings therefore I understand it as a Untied States Constitutional Right. What I am allowed to do is contest the extent of censorship as a point of degree and that is what I do, if I do.

John_C_87

@jack

Thank you, Jack, for the link I see this as a censorship issue not ban even though the claim is made by those of censorship are in fact describe what they do as a ban. Books had a standard set by a board, and I have been over this in another forum we are debate witness tampering in a very general way. We know that racial discrimination is a fact, so there is cause and reason the fact was not suppressed publicly like the information of African’s sharing a united state POW’s.

In whole truth what is said by explaining nothing, but truth is that many people of a racial profile share a United State of just plain inability to server, protect, and defend the American Constitution. It doesn't matter the color of the skin or the gender of the persons, they have little or no ability they seek only unjustified commission.

None of those people are real.  Banning advertising gimmicks that made fun of black people ought NEVER be compared to books celebrating real life black hero's.  Du*de!

I can say with confidence they had all been real the people in the advertisements. I will not deny the truth as it must be allowed to move on to whole truth and nothing but truth. Again, an argument of civil liberty is that the companies had been targeting a black people. The argument can also be made on a Military level that the companies simple had been describing types of POW's which had established themselves culturally as "they" people had been sold into public hands. The state of the union in question is set in the administration of Executive officer #16 and ratification of the 13th Amendment bring a twist in depth of topic to debate here... does Constitutional Right require a lawyer male or female forfeit a license to practice law while in political office.

maxx

banning your own writing is far different than having someone else do so. let s take a step back and have you explain as to what youy think are the reasons books are banned. @John_C_87