Speak up for Missouri’s public libraries

Submitted by dammit-jerry t3_zf45qv in springfieldMO

The MO Secretary of State is proposing a rule that will allow book bans and censorship in our public library system, with the threat of funding removal if libraries do not abide by the extremely subjective rules proposed. Public comments are open until mid-December, and can be submitted via email or mail. Please check out the link on the library’s website — it gives more info on the subject, as well as specific details required for public comments.

Library Studying Proposed New State Rule — Perhaps You Should, Too

177

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

whatistheformat t1_iz9y2m9 wrote

If we don't all stick up for intellectual freedom, one day the censors will be gunning for the materials YOU think are important, but by then it will be too late.

The whole Ashcroft family is composed of ideologues who are members of a Christian sect that believe speaking in tongues is real. These are the same people who think talking about LGTBQ+ issues AT ALL is to be interested too much in SEX.

Whose sexual interests are we talking about, Jay? Hmm??

This is an offense to a wide swath of Missourians who the right-wingers are more than happy to leave behind/insult/trample on in the their relentless pursuit for the most fundamentalist of states title.

41

fphillips93 t1_iza0a03 wrote

We went to the library in Ozark to get our 2 year old some more books. I found a Cailou book for her, flipped through it like we do, just to check first. Didn’t see anything that immediately stood out as inappropriate for that age level, so we checked the book out and took it home. My wife got to reading the book to our toddler and realized Cailou tells his new baby sister that he hates her; she didn’t skip over this part or try to hide it from our toddler. She continued reading. And then… at the end of the book, she went back to that page. She explained to our toddler what hate means, how it’s an ugly word and shouldn’t really be used out of anger and all that.

It’s the job of the parents to teach our kids what they see on TV and read in books ISNT always real, the outcomes aren’t the same in real life, consequences. Banning that Cailou book in the library wouldn’t have helped anything. If anything, banning that book because that little boy says he hates a person would take away a teaching moment for parents and their kids. Parents HAVE to start parenting their own kids. Government involvement and restrictions are not heathy. Our kids deserve to have every angle of every story, even the worst ones. That’s true, unadulterated education.

100

Lionfountain t1_iza1r0s wrote

From the article: A 30-day window for public input opens November 15. You can submit comments in the following ways:

  • By email to comments@sos.mo.gov. Type the proposed rule number, 15 CSR 30-200.015, in the subject field.
  • By mail to Missouri Secretary of State, P.O. Box 1767, Jefferson City, MO 65102.
14

Tiny_Fly_7397 t1_iza4834 wrote

Thanks for sharing this. It’s almost embarrassing how transparent the whole thing is. It’s not, nor has it ever, been about protecting kids. It’s a political gambit capitalizing on gullible idiots and bigots

11

ProgressMom68 t1_iza7faf wrote

The important part here is the funding removal. ALEC and the GOP have been gunning to cut library funding for years. They don’t actually care about protecting anyone.

Also can we talk about the way the GOP constantly tries to supervise and regulate female-dominated professions? Librarians, as a general rule, are highly educated professionals with extensive training in curating and managing book collections. The majority of them are also women. The audacity of these mediocre men thinking they know better. It’s the same with teachers. Clearly the wimmins need guidance and supervision from their betters. Ugh.

20

jupiterkansas t1_izactm7 wrote

Don't just complain on reddit, folks. That will do nothing. Send an email before Dec 15. You remember what emails are, right?

8

piercifer t1_izavbuo wrote

Email sent. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

5

stone500 t1_izay6zr wrote

Jay Ashcroft really needs a fire lit under his ass. I know we have idiots like Josh Hawley and Parson, but let's not let Ashcroft fly under the radar. The dude begged Roy Blunt to not vote to protect marriages for same-sex and interracial couples. Dude is living 50 years in the past.

15

Evanpik64 t1_izazcu8 wrote

It's not exaggerating when I say this book banning movement from the GOP is VERY fascist adjacent, though I doubt it'll reach the point of book burning purely for optics sake, since that's so associated with Nazism and authoritarianism. But when you look up what books the Nazis actually burned you'll probably notice an unsettling pattern.

10

deborah_jai t1_izb1le6 wrote

Replying to fphillips93 (#878,509)

I’m old enough to remember “parents need to parent” as an argument for abstinence-only sex ed or getting rid of sex ed entirely. What we’ve eventually discovered is that people don’t want to parent, they want to hide uncomfortable things from their kids. Unfortunately all that which is hidden will eventually be uncovered, generally in unhealthy ways.

18

AquaAndMint t1_izb6l4e wrote

I posted this the last time this came up, but in addition to the SGCL's statement OP linked to, the Missouri Library Association also has a statement with a form that can be filled out to oppose the rule.
For those curious, the full text of the proposed rule is available here.

There's also been a pretty ridiculous local Nextdoor thread going on about it.

7

Leo5030 t1_izba0m9 wrote

Replying to Evanpik64 (#880,007)

Freedom of speech has never been nor will ever be absolute. It’s antithetical to societal order. Additionally, I’m willing to bet that your values align far more with those of communist China, than mine. Though, I would not be surprised if the irony of that is lost on you. A lot of things seem to be lost on you by that one comment alone.

−23

hypo_____ t1_izcvs5d wrote

I thought conservative values = less government. This sounds like the opposite.

4

GinWithJennifer t1_izd4kql wrote

As a homeless person I really value the libraries and will support this cause. Not the censorship...I mean the anticensorship cause. I support not pulling funding from libraries. I hope I'm making sense 🤔

Definitely don't think in the age of the internet (the world's largest library) that banning books makes any sense at all anyway. its really boomer-esque or archaic that they think this makes any sense. In fact the reason I sought out and read "catcher in the rye" was because of the cultural taboo and history surrounding it. If anything banning books just makes people want to read them.

6

Leo5030 t1_izj9epj wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#893,205)

Assuming that my children and little siblings won’t pick up the mantle after I’m dead.

What is backward about “my ideas”?

Careful what you’re praying for. God may favor me over you, as you are a heretic.

−1

Leo5030 t1_izjhgd1 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#893,291)

Yes, it is indeed the current year. What an astute observation.

I never said I hate you, I simply will not condone what you do and if I am in a position to stop it, I will, accordingly.

We’ll see about that.

0

Leo5030 t1_izjifzy wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#893,298)

I don’t live in Missouri. I live in New York. I was raised in New York City during my early childhood and Long Island for the rest. I have also lived in Ecuador and the Dominican Republic and been to Florida. And a lot of my friends are from Texas. So I think I know a thing or two about what people are like outside Missouri, given that I’ve never set foot in Missouri.

Yes, let’s keep some stupidity within the state. Don’t move out.

0