NBC reports that North Dakota may impose a ban on sexually explicit books, especially those that refer to gender identity, on public libraries. Librarians who ignore the proposed ban will be subject to 30 days in jail. Since the bill was introduced by the House Majority Leader, it may pass.
Books containing “sexually explicit” content — including depictions of sexual or gender identity — would be banned from North Dakota public libraries under legislation that state lawmakers began considering Tuesday.
The GOP-dominated state House Judiciary Committee heard arguments but did not take a vote on the measure, which applies to visual depictions of “sexually explicit” content and proposes up to 30 days imprisonment for librarians who refuse to remove the offending books….
Library Director Christine Kujawa at Bismarck Veterans Memorial Public Library said the library has a book with two little hamsters on the cover. At the end of the book, the hamsters get married, and they are both male.
“It’s a cute book,” Kujawa said — but it would be considered pornography under the bill because the book includes gender identity.
Facing criminal charges for keeping books on shelves is “something I never thought I would have to consider during my career as a librarian,” Kujawa added.
In addition to banning depictions of “sexual identity” and “gender identity,” the measure specifies 10 other things that library books cannot visually depict, including “sexual intercourse,” “sexual preference” and “sexual perversion,” — though it does not define any of those terms. The proposal does not apply to books that have “serious artistic significance” or “materials used in science courses,” among other exceptions.
Thanks to Christine Langhoff for suggesting this article.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Library Director Christine Kujawa at Bismarck Veterans Memorial Public Library said the library has a book with two little hamsters on the cover. At the end of the book, the hamsters get married, and they are both male.
“It’s a cute book,” Kujawa said — but it would be considered pornography under the bill because the book includes gender identity.”
Don’t say “Hamster”
Dont say Gerbils
Don’t say “gerbils”
Don’t say “gay”
Just say Goebels
Every day
Goebbels
the measure specifies 10 other things that library books cannot visually depict…sexual perversion,” — though it does not define any of those terms.”
Let me guess: sex between hamsters?
Am I right to presume that the law also bans Muscat love?
Where does Clarence Thomas stand on hamster marriage?
He’s probably OK with interracial hamster marriage, but against same sex marriage and trans-hamster marriage.
And definitely against hamster abortion.
Looks like they read the Missouri law on “visuals” (a safe foot in the door for them) and now like this one, on to sexual identify and orientation.
That was easy, right? Stoke up the bon-fires, instill fear that those commie liberal schools are teaching what parents claim to hate as they hand their 13-year old a smart phone – – pass the law. Ah – but now ENFORCE the law? Define “violation.” Who is policing it? Anonymous hotlines “my teacher said ‘gay’ in class”).
And like in Missouri and other states, these are the laws filled with ambiguity (women’s control over their own bodies but no one can define “emergency” to save the woman’s life)- they put out the headline of their ideology but are too foolish, insincere about governance, or just don’t care who they hurt (literally, emotionally, physically).
Bad laws (like good ones) need to be enforced. They ignore that. What’s “sexual identity?” What visuals are artistic and not (illustrators would say their book illustrations are art. What do they do with the Bible? What if the teacher mentions Tom Hanks, you know all-that American Forrest Gump Saving Private Ryan Tom Hanks who was in… Bosom Buddies? Even Huck Finn dressed up like a girl (and befriended a slave)
If they bothered to read some of the explicit passages in The Bible, it should be on the banned list according to their standards for censuring material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
They must have real trouble with Song of Songs.
Reblogged this on Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News and commented:
The party of small government and freedom has become more like the thought police of China and Russia…
We in Florida have a law forbidding instruction in K-3 on gender identity or sexual orientation.
Here’s the text: “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
It is so broadly worded that, on its face, you can’t say “Joe is a boy with a mother and a father.” Love to see that go to court.
Of course, Governor DeSantis and the Republicans legislature mean LBGTQ+. But they didn’t want to say “gay.”
Or hamster
So when Dick asks Jane “Why do you have two mommies on your family drawing?” and the teacher says, “We can’t talk about that… Jane, don’t answer” does anyone care about Jane’s esteem?!
If Jane answers, is Jane in trouble? Is the teacher not supposed to intervene?
When Jane answers and Dick teases her, will teacher be in fear of the principal if she sends him to office and principal finds out “two mommies” came up in class?
Or do we now not let kids talk about the most important people in their lives, their parents, out of fear the Governor will drag them all to jail?
What grinds my gear to no end is that sometimes the most vulnerable students go to teachers for advice or just someone to talk to. These assholes (sorry Diane, that’s the nicest I can come up with these days) want to criminalize what may be among the most important, personal, and private experiences that sometimes make teaching worth it all.
These folks are really obsessed with sex! Identity, orientation, drag queens, fear of school pedophiles, visuals…
This law is about public libraries and not school libraries? So no D.H. Lawrence? What about picture books that explain how babies grow inside of mommies and how they get out?
That’s okay since it’s “science.” They might have a little more trouble with how those babies got in mommy”s tummy.
Does this mean that they will ban the Bible because of the “Song of Solomon” [also called “Song of Songs”]? I bet the fools never thought of that possibility!