Where is the evidence that that’s what was happening?

Pay attention.

I am. Where’s the evidence? The evidence provided by others don’t present themselves in such a way, so where is your evidence that this was done as a protest rather than out of an abundance of caution or because the law does demand it even if enforcement doesn’t follow that?

Prima facie evidence was provided by others

No, it wasn’t, pay attention.

It was. Citations were provided. You presented no evidence to refute them, just dismissed them based on some information you happened to know (or believe) that was not in the citation and for which you did not provide evidence for. In other words, you dismissed them based on claims without showing evidence for said claims.

Incidentally, a prima facie case simply means that, if the citation is true, it would support the claim. Even if you refute it later, until then, a prima facie case was presented.

There is an exception for sources that have been definitively proven to be unreliable quite frequently (like tabloids, The Young Turks, Breitbart, or Project Veritas), but I don’t see how any of the sources presented fit that.

Apparently, you disregarded everything else I said.

No. I’m just noting that they are assertions for which you provided no evidence. If they were based solely on the evidence provided, you wouldn’t need to provide a citation for it, but I don’t see how that’s the case here.

Really the best policy, I should follow it more.

You always do that. It makes you look lazy or illiterate or something since you then make claims about my position that are obviously wrong to anyone who reads the whole thing.

Nope. When I said nobody, I meant nobody, including the owners of the library.

Cuz you’re a fucking idiot, Bari. Public libraries are part of government. So are public schools! Since they are, they are subject to public will. Period, that’s it. You think it should be otherwise? Well not only do I not care but it’s irrelevant. K, thx.

Nope. This is about the 1A. The government can’t restrain 3rd Party speech outside of very few exceptions, and books found in or donated to public libraries are 3rd Party speech. As such, there are significant limitations on the government’s power here.

But that aside, when it comes to non-school public libraries, why does it matter to you what gets stocked on their shelves? Especially since much of the material they receive comes from donations, so no tax money is used to stock them in the first place.

As far as why you should care, I mean, for one thing, as I already said, this is a tangent to the discussion, so why you’re making a big deal of this, I have no idea. It was part of an offhand comment on my position, nothing more. That said, I mean, the whole point of this is that you are trying to defend this law, and if I don’t agree with its objectives as you claim them to be, that becomes a problem for your defense.

But really, I don’t care whether you like my position. I’m only defending it because you continue to mischaracterize what I said.

If you want a library that runs different, start a trust and fund a private library.

Like I said, a private library would automatically not be what I want. Ideally, no one would have the authority to make judgements about which books to stock or to refuse to stock (excluding illegal material). While I am compromising already with regards to governments having some say for practical reasons, by design, a private library cannot be restricted at all from doing so, period. It has to be a public library so that there are legal restrictions on the discretion that owners would have. It fundamentally cannot be a private library.

Cuz no, librarians on the tax payer dime do not have some extra special 1A right to show little kids porn.

See, there you go again, misrepresenting my position. Like I said, I completely support age-based restrictions on which patrons have access to certain content, which means, with the possible exception of some cases where parental permission would be acceptable, I am not suggesting that little kids would have access to adult material, including (but not limited to) porn.

Are you incapable of recognizing nuance? Just because a library stocks porn doesn’t automatically mean that little kids will have access to that porn via the library. Plenty of libraries and bookstores have special sections which children cannot access. As such, I reject your conflation of “libraries should stock porn” with “libraries should show little kids porn”. These are completely different things.

It’s close to the opposite of that.

I am well aware of the exception for obscenity for the 1A. However, it is a fairly limited exception, and in practice, it mostly involves things viewable on public streets and age-based restrictions that are feasible to implement. Since I already support not letting little kids have access to adult material in libraries the same way bookstores are restricted, this is irrelevant to my position.

You have the wildest, stupidest ideas, it’s almost impressive.

No. You have me confused with the strawman of me that you have concocted.

At least I can recognize the difference between personal preference and legal obligation/restriction

Can you? seriously?

Yes. That is, for example, why my ideal-library concept cannot be realized by a private library since it completely relies on the person preference of the owner or any successors to the owner. It is also why I stated multiple times that much of what I’m saying isn’t a legal obligation or restriction but my personal preference. Some is a legal obligation/restriction, but not all of it.

The fact that you fail to see these nuances in my position proves my point.