'Parental rights' isn't as meaningful as merely 'being the (actual) parents.'

Students go to school under in loco parentis, while they are in school, simply to be able to run organizations of that size.

At no point ARE the Districts the parents.

These problems arise when Districts want to co opt the definition of 'parent' for themselves.

Whether its books that could be construed as (pick one) salacious, age inappropriate, content inappropriate, etc, or things like 'oh. What we say here you don't have to tell your folks' or even having a child choose to identify differently at school than at home, those are all red lines that Districts shouldn't be NEAR, forget crossing.

Child welfare is the care of the parents. Society gets to weigh in when parents have crossed certain red lines.

I'm just saying there should be distinct areas of separation.

They're not allowed to print excerpts because that would violate the paper's decency guidelines. Just like last week when the TV stations had to cut away from the Desantis press conference when he was showing actual pages from the books.

That right there should tell you everything you need to know.

> Party that screams “parental choice” won’t let others make those choices.

You're free to purchase any book you want to read to your child at home. Nobody is taking that away from you.

> he complainers, who often do not have kids at the high school

As opposed to 99.9% of the posters here who also do not have kids at that high school?

[removed]

So, neither Huckleberry Finn nor To Kill a Mockingbird were banned if you read your articles. There was just a discussion about the use of racial language, and it was determined that they needed to be properly contextualized as part of a curriculum so as to avoid romanticizing them. You are playing dumb by citing the PEN definition of banned to avoid this obvious difference. Also, wearing shirts with guns on them has nothing to do with book bans and bringing them up is you grasping at straws to make an argument that is not founded in reality.

Edit: also your third article is just a reposting of a bunch of tweets in tabloid fashion to create a false controversy.

[deleted]

[deleted]

>She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.

ezekiel 23:20

[removed]

Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mocking Bird, and Dr. Seuss (But only when Melania Trump reads it, not Michelle Obama) to name a few.

And while not a book, but just a general point on censorship, California, New Jersey, and other states passed laws or school policies to ban pro-gun clothing in schools.

It's worth noting that, according to PEN America, for a book to be put on the banned list, it doesn't actually have to be banned - just that someone has requested that a school look into whether something is age appropriate or not.

Edit: They're both on the ALA Top 100 Banned Books list. I used those sources because they specifically call out the people banning them. Also love how direct evidence of the Dr. Seuss hierocracy is completely written off because you don't agree with the website that compiled the tweets.

I couldn’t even think of a solution so props to you for even putting that together. I love solution people ☺️

Especially college students alcohol and 18-22 year olds don’t mix.

I wasn’t there but I had some friends that saw a temple U kid fall to death a few years ago at a party I think.

[removed]

[deleted]

I guess we have had the usual gap between my Alma Mater appearing in the national news

McCormick will give Casey a stronger run than Racist Lou did.

Wealthy, clever, and so well spoken! What a catch you are. /s

"Where can I buy some dam bait?"

It's just so much easier to keep people controllable if they're stupid. The easiest way to do this is to not let them be educated.

Yeah well stupid people will be stupid. Darwinism is real.

Our society values parental rights over child welfare.

> Yeah well, you should check again cause they're now all clearing 100k.

 
And that is peanuts. It isn't 1965 anymore.
 
Every number I can find indicates that they're spending less than two tenths of a percent of the state budget to operate the General Assembly. There are bigger fish to fry.

well said. its blatantly ridiculous at this point.. but thats apparently what the people need to realize how important it is to engage in the political process as a citizen. all the luxuries we enjoy today are not simply a given. they are a results of centuries' worth of work building a society both in terms of infrastructure but also law, government, and civics. we can't just coast on the past, we have to build like the ones who came before us.

Yeah well, you should check again cause they're now all clearing 100k. They recently voted themselves CoL increases. It's not like corruption and waste are some new and crazy thing when it comes to our representatives, but it is obviously something you give little Fucks about.

And yeah, the state police appropriating money that should be going to the states highways is a special level of dumbfuckery which has lead to us having one of the highest gas taxes at the fuel pump and the costliest toll roads in the nation.