Sending Cops To Search Classrooms For Controversial Books Is Just Something We Do Now, I Guess

from the bigots-sure-love-them-some-fascism dept

Thanks to politicians (including a former president) being overly willing to scratch the bigoted itch of a voting bloc that appears to prefer the brutal caress of fascism to the freedoms of a democratic republic, far too many state and local legislators are crafting and enacting laws designed to relegate a whole lot of the nation to the lower echelons of society.

These are people who believe they’re Norman Rockwell characters residing in disturbingly lit Thomas Kinkade houses. They believe they have the moral high ground, if only because they say weird stuff about God while going about government business. They claim they’re worried about the children. But they don’t actually care about the children. They only care whether this supposed concern can be leveraged to demean and destroy people they don’t like.

The same people who claimed to care so much about children that they worked tirelessly to enact abortion bans are the same people that would rather see underprivileged children go hungry than accept federal funding for food programs. They believe children should be discouraged and destroyed if they question the status quo being erected by this disturbing group of politicians — ones who appear to believe the road to hell is paved with open minds.

All over the nation we’re seeing book bans targeting (almost exclusively) LGBTQ+ writers and/or content. We’re seeing expansions of existing obscenity laws to cover artistic performances by and for LGBTQ+ people.

And now, in Massachusetts, we’re seeing something we haven’t seen elsewhere. At least not yet. But, rest assured, this definitely won’t be the last time we see something like this:

Someone called the police last Friday.

About a book.

What happened next outraged the school community and left them in disbelief.

After the complaint, Great Barrington police and the Berkshire District Attorney’s Office began investigating whether the illustrated novel, “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe, was inappropriate content for an eighth grade classroom at W.E.B. Du Bois Regional Middle School.

The book was made available as a resource by an English teacher.

The new thing isn’t some idiot thinking the best way to handle a complaint about a book is to call the cops. No, the new thing we (in the royal sense) definitely shouldn’t be doing is what happened during the course of this investigation that never should have been initiated in the first place.

After the call came in, Police Chief Paul Storti notified Peter Dillon, superintendent of the Berkshire Hills Regional School District, that police were investigating the complaint and referring it to the DA’s Office.

After school let out, Principal Miles Wheat escorted a plainclothed town police officer to the classroom to investigate the potential crime of “obscenity.”

The search failed to turn up the supposedly “obscene” book. The officer (who has not been identified) left empty-handed. Later that same day, the district attorney’s office told the school the investigation was closed and that any questions about whether the book was appropriate for eighth graders was something the school itself needed to address, which is what should have happened in the first place.

When the Great Barrington PD received this complaint, they should have told the caller to take it up with the school. What it definitely should not have done is open an investigation. It very fucking definitely shouldn’t have sent an officer to a classroom to search for the book.

More details continue to emerge as The Berkshire Eagle digs into this:

The plainclothed police officer who entered an eighth grade classroom to search for a book wore a body camera and recorded the incident, leading to more legal questions and concerns. 

The American Civil Liberties Union and other free speech advocates say they are alarmed by the recording, as well as the entire Dec. 8 incident that took place after classes let out at W.E.B. Du Bois Regional Middle School.

They also say they cannot recall any instances of police going to a school to search for a book. Schools and libraries have internal procedures for book challenges. 

As for the school district, it has issued an apology for not handling this better.

“Faced with an unprecedented police investigation of what should be a purely educational issue, we tried our best to serve the interests of students, families, teachers and staff. In hindsight, we would have approached that moment differently. We are sorry,” the letter said.

I guarantee this sort of thing won’t remain an anomaly. There are groups being formed for the sole purpose of raising challenges targeting LGBTQ+ content and creators. They’re the sort of people who complain about being “censored” when they’re kicked off social media services but are more than willing to truly censor others by getting the government involved every time they come across content they don’t like. Those who don’t lack the self-awareness to recognize this hypocrisy simply don’t care how they come across or what they do, just as long as it hurts the people they hate.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sending Cops To Search Classrooms For Controversial Books Is Just Something We Do Now, I Guess”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
221 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Okay, all you usual “champions of free speech” who whine about content moderation and “wokeness” and whatnot: How many of you are willing to say this was an overreach of government power without offering some sort of “but…”/“to be fair…” defense for that overreach?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

… but of course YOU fully support compulsory-school-attendance for all children as directted and controlled by the government; you see not the slighest government overreach in this blatant deprivation of liberty.
You ignore the 5th Amendment because of strong cultural indoctrination, much of it from government schools.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

the relevant 5A QUOTE IS:

” No person shall nor be deprived of … liberty … without due process of law ”

…. meaning the government can’t force you into jail or school unless you are convicted 0f a crime, in a fair judicial process

every American therefore has basic right of free choice in how they conduct their lives , free from government coercion

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

of course YOU fully support

Don’t shove words down my throat that didn’t first come from it.

If a parent wants to send their child to a private school rather than a public one or even homeschool their child, I’ve no issue with that. I do take issue with federal funds going to private religious schools and the lack of standards in/oversight of homeschool curriculums, but those are issues that don’t need exploring at this juncture.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It seems funny, in all of this, that you are the one who is forgetting that somewhat more than half of all the public schools are in so-called ‘Red’ states and/or ‘Red’ communities (within ‘Blue’ states). Meaning, even Republicans see the need for an educated population, at least to the point where most of the populace has a functional understanding of what’s expected of them as they progress through adulthood.

Now, for extra credit, explain to us just exactly who is “forcing” children to forego their 5A liberties. We’re waiting….

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I said I was considering a break from commenting here in general. I haven’t yet decided to take one; if and when I do, I’ll do it without comment, because I’m pretty sure an extended absence on my part would be noticeable enough.

Besides, it’d be awful nice of me to give someone else a chance to rack up the “most comments of the year” stat. 😁

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You were so close to passing the test. Like, that first sentence is all I wanted⁠—a succinct and unequivocal denunciation of governmental overreach and abuse of police power! It’s perfect! …then you equivocated the police searching for books with social media moderation, and that’s where you failed the test.

For the sake of argument, let’s say I were to agree⁠—purely in hypothetical terms, mind you⁠—that content moderation on social media is censorship. Yes or no, Hyman Rosen: Is the chilling effect of being banned from a social media service equal to or greater than the chilling effect of the cops using their power to search libraries and classrooms for books on the basis of content?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh, and before you say “the search of that classroom didn’t create a chilling effect”, you should know that the teacher whose classroom was searched is taking a leave of absence. Go ahead and tell me Trump getting booted from Twitter was the exact same thing as a teacher being scared enough by a police search to damn near quit her job. I’ll tell you that you’re telling lies, but when has that ever stopped you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

a teacher who has given Gender Queer to their students

Do you have any proof whatsoever that the teacher in question did that? Right-wing fearmongering on social media doesn’t count, by the way.

angry fighting back

Not everyone wants to be the target of right-wing ammosexuals with a bug up their ass about anyone deemed “woke”, my good bitch.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

If the teacher didn’t do that, all the less reason to take a leave of absence.

As for not wanting to be a target, people have a moral obligation to fight injustice. Deciding to sit out a fight out of fear when you’re directly involved is moral cowardice, and hurts everyone else in similar circumstances.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

If the teacher didn’t do that, all the less reason to take a leave of absence.

You can shittalk that teacher all you want, but if you can’t actually understand not wanting to be in their position⁠—not wanting to be the center of a firestorm of right-wing lunacy because of a fucking book that wasn’t even in the classroom⁠—you’re likely incapable of empathy.

people have a moral obligation to fight injustice

People also have a right to keep themselves safe from harm. Or do you truly believe the teacher in question should put their neck on the line and stand in front of all the groups that would fight for that teacher so she can absorb the hate (and the violence) of right-wing shitbirds that would otherwise aim for those groups?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

I will do that once the site owner stops sending my signed-in posts to moderation, delaying them for up to days at a time.

I will do that once you stop harassing people over their genitals, in the interest of decorum, which you yourself have said is an important reason for sites to moderate, based on their own criteria for decorum.

Also, no, your posts are not delayed for “days at a time.”

Continuing to lie about such things also does not make me more interested in accommodating your obsession with harassing people over their genitals.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

But my posts pointing out the truth of the trans delusion show up quickly when I post anonymously. What are you gaining by delaying my posts when I’m signed in? I would expect that if you believe that my posts are so terrible, you would want then associated with my name.

People can only ever be the sex of their bodies, and people should not be allowed to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them. If you believe that there is no way to say this that you would not consider abuse and harassment, then you are simply trying to silence people who are stating a truth about reality. You have been so drawn into the cult of woke gender ideology that you are willing to destroy everything to force people to affirm insanity. You are a sad excuse for a pundit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Just the other day, I stuck my head into a neighborhood barbershop whose Muslim filth owners have been photographed ripping down Israeli hostage posters and saying they hate Jews, and I yelled at them a little bit (“I hear you’re poster rippers. Good luck staying in business.”) . Another time, I chanted “From the river to the sea, Israel will be Arab-free” to another poster ripper. I do sometimes troll in person, not just online. It’s very satisfying when I can do that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The chilling effect of police searching classrooms for books is much greater. For that reason, the pushback against such things would also be much greater, so there’s some balance there. But yes, government action of this sort is an order of magnitude worse than private censorship.

Nevertheless, private censorship should still be fought, and government malfeasance is not an excuse to ignore it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Is the chilling effect of being banned from a social media service equal to or greater than the chilling effect of the cops using their power to search libraries and classrooms for books on the basis of content?”

I know you posed this question to a neo-Nazi fuckturd, but I’ll answer it on his behalf and say that so-called “censorship” on social media is neither equal to or greater than the attempt at actual censorship under discussion in this article.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You still don’t get the difference between imposing censorship by outside force, and moderation by the owners or leaders of groups. A teacher deciding what books are or are not allowed in class is moderation, a government agent making that decision for the teacher is censorship.

Your complaint about what you are not allowed to say in certain groups only demonstrates that you are an authoritarian bigot who cannot stand the idea that in those matters other people disagree with you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

No, “choosing not to platform” is not allowing someone to speak, and disagreeing with them means letting them speak and then guving an opinion as to why they’re wrong. That’s a great difference, and the two are not the same, except, perhaps, in the mind of an idiot like yourself.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

“choosing not to platform” is not allowing someone to speak

Oh, is it now? Well, I guess someone should’ve told Donald Trump that after Twitter, Facebook, and a bunch of other social media services banned his ass in the wake of the insurrection, he wasn’t allowed to speak anywhere else ever~!

disagreeing with them means letting them speak

I disagree with bigots and Nazis; that doesn’t mean I have to platform their speech on my property no matter how “large” the platform or how “generic” the rest of the speech I host. You can’t make me do it, you can’t convince me to do it, and you can’t get the government to make me do it. Now tell me I’m a censor so I can tell you to rot in the depths of hell for thinking I have a “moral obligation” to host speech that celebrates the Holocaust, you gruesome son of a bitch.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

““choosing not to platform” is not allowing someone to speak”

No, it’s choosing not to allow someone to use your property to speak, they still have many thousands of other ways to express themselves.

“disagreeing with them means letting them speak and then guving an opinion as to why they’re wrong”

Or, it means telling them to STFU, GTFO your property because you’re tired of them not listening the other times you told them they’re wrong.

Whether you like it or not, “shut up and go somewhere else” is also valid free speech and freedom of association is part of it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

The right of the censor to do this is irrelevant.

If the ‘censor’ has the right, then your commentary on its relevance is irrelevant. Go cry in your fucking pillow if it hurts your feelings, snowflake. And take your fucking ‘Wah! Mommy, I bun censhored!’ bullshit with you.

And enjoy my censorship of your comment while you’re at it. That’s how much I give a shit about you whiners.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 'You stopped listening to me, censorship!'

Though the fact that they call it censorship when it takes all of one click to undo and the many, many replies to ‘censored’ comments shows how visible they remain does rather give away the game by making clear yet again that when they say ‘censorship’ what they mean is ‘any consequence whatsoever’.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

It was the AC who claimed to be censoring my comment, so I simply went along with that claim. If TechDirt allowed more than flagging, then that would be applied to my comments as well, so I’m comfortable with calling flagging censorship; it is an attempt to silence opinions based on viewpoint to the extent that the platform allows.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Flagging causes a comment not to be seen without extra effort and prevents “find in page” from finding text in hidden comments. It is censorship to the extent that the site allows, and there is no question that the people doing the flagging would do more if they could. Saying that flagging is not censorship under those circumstances is making a virtue of necessity.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14

The site owner pretends to believe in freedom of speech, so rather than entirely silencing me, he just subjects me to low-grade harassment when I’m signed in, and implements a completely useless flagging system to give commenters here the same satisfaction as a chicken pecking for feed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Support for Freedom of speech means not trying to silence you in places that we do not control, and coming out to stop the government from controlling speech. It does not mean, as you try to make it mean, that anybody will listen to you, or help you publish you words. Being told to take your bigotry elsewhere is compatible with freedom of speech.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

TechDirt is not particularly a generic speech platform. The articles are all written by a small stable of writers, and comments on an article should reflect its subject. If the site owner were to choose to silence comments based on topicality, that would be appropriate moderation, not censorship.

As for the moral obligation to support free speech, that is something the site owner has chosen to adopt himself, however imperfectly he performs it. If you don’t like that, go argue with him.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

TechDirt is not particularly a generic speech platform.

And yet, you keep acting like it is by talking about transgender issues on stories that have nothing to do with those issues. If anything, you’re pushing the comments section towards that label rather than away from it.

If the site owner were to choose to silence comments based on topicality, that would be appropriate moderation, not censorship.

You’d be mad as hell if Mike actually stopped your anti-trans comments from appearing on any article here because you’d be calling that “viewpoint censorship” even though⁠—as Mike has explained and you’ve refused to accept⁠—he’d only ever be moderating for decorum. And even if he weren’t doing that if he moderated your anti-trans rhetoric, so what? He isn’t obliged in any way to host your viewpoints if he disagrees with them. You can’t cite a single law that says otherwise⁠—all you can cite is the arbitrary idea of a “moral obligation” where you get to decide the morals by which Mike has to abide.

As for the moral obligation to support free speech, that is something the site owner has chosen to adopt himself, however imperfectly he performs it.

That doesn’t address what I said. For what objective reason should anyone who operates a platform for third-party speech have an obligation to host speech that celebrates atrocities like the Holocaust? (Please note that an appeal to a “moral obligation”, which you can define however you wish to best suit a given argument, will not be an acceptable answer here.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:18

One of the things that prompted Elon Musk to buy Twitter was Twitter’s censorship of the satirical Babylon Bee tweet awarding Man of the Year to Dr. Rachel Levine, and the site owner believes that such censorship was appropriate and has been raging at Elon Musk ever since. So you are wrong (as always) that writing about the trans delusion is irrelevant here.

If the site owner decided to fully censor my comments, I might or might not be angry about it, but no one here would know. He can choose to behave in any way he likes. I like to point out that he subjects me to special low-grade harassment for my viewpoints that to me is inconsistent with his stated belief in freedom of speech, and he likes to yell at me for believing that admission to single-sex spaces should be based on the body of the person seeking admission, which, as a woke gender ideologue, he would like to construe as “obsession with genitals”.

I have not the slightest regard for what answers you consider acceptable. Large private generic speech platforms in a country founded on the principle of free speech have a moral obligation to not censor their users based on viewpoint. They can choose to believe and honor that or not as they please (and will be criticized for whatever they do).

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19

If the site owner decided to fully censor my comments, I might or might not be angry about it, but no one here would know.

Given how much you whine and bitch and complain about “viewpoint censorship”? Trust me, we would know.

I like to point out that he subjects me to special low-grade harassment for my viewpoints

What do you think the average person would call your whole “I’m going to keep bugging you and you can’t stop me, I’m going to keep right on getting in your face and there ain’t shit you can do to prevent it” schtick? Because it sure as hell reads more like harassment than anything Mike has ever done. Then again, of course you have to DARVO your own bullshit⁠—admitting to being the harasser in this situation doesn’t let you whine about your account being trapped in the spamfilter on account of you being an asshole.

that to me is inconsistent with his stated belief in freedom of speech

Yeah, yeah, we know you believe in freedom of reach. Whose private property do you want to commandeer for your next transphobic tirade?

he likes to yell at me for believing that admission to single-sex spaces should be based on the body of the person seeking admission, which, as a woke gender ideologue, he would like to construe as “obsession with genitals”

It is an obsession with people’s genitals, though. You’ve literally expressed a desire to force anyone whom you think might be transgender to drop their pants and show you their junk only and specifically so they can piss/shit in the “right” public restroom. You keep bitching about trans people (trans women, specifically) and “single-sex spaces” and whatnot so much that your obsession is incredibly obvious. And since you’ve said that you disagree with any kind of gender-affirming treatment for transgender youth…well, figuring out the full extent of your obsession isn’t that hard, you sick fuck.

Large private generic speech platforms in a country founded on the principle of free speech have a moral obligation to not censor their users based on viewpoint.

Assume I own an open-to-the-public social media service. Yes or no: Do I have a moral obligation (if not a legal one) to host speech that celebrates the Holocaust? If “yes”, why? If “no”, why not?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:19

I like to point out that he subjects me to special low-grade harassment for my viewpoints that to me is inconsistent with his stated belief in freedom of speech

It’s entirely consistent, but since he is dealing with a sociopath like you who is incapable of learning some very basic social norms like ‘when you are a guest you don’t take a shit on the host’s living-room floor’ or ‘when you are a guest and the hosts tells you to leave, you leave’.

The consistency that you fail to grasp here is that you are free to say whatever you want wherever you want except on another persons property against their wishes.

Since you are a sociopath and a fanatic you will ignore everything I said and persist in your asocial behavior like a true sociopath and fanatic.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:20

Since the site owner does not delete my posts, his telling me to leave is just bluster, hoping that I will silence myself so that he can maintain his delusion of supporting free speech. There is nothing quite as amusing as the cognitive dissonance of someone claiming to support free speech while desperately hoping and trying to slantwise silence viewpoints they hate.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21

Since the site owner does not delete my posts, his telling me to leave is just bluster

“Since my friend doesn’t physically throw me out of his house for insulting his mother, his telling me to leave is just bluster.” That’s you. That’s you right now.

There is nothing quite as amusing as the cognitive dissonance of someone claiming to support free speech while desperately hoping and trying to slantwise silence viewpoints they hate.

There is nothing quite as fucked up as the cognitive dissonance of someone claiming to support private property rights while desperately using the excuse of “well they’re not throwing me out” to ignore demands from the property owner that said someone leave the property.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I can disagree with you.

But please, make your argument elsewhere.

“Choosing not to platform” is akin to me exercising my castle doctrine rights granted to me via private property rights.

If you oppose that, you also oppose the ownership of private property, and by extension, also allow me to come into your house to scream at you for being an asshole.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Okay, all you usual “champions of free speech” who whine about content moderation and “wokeness” and whatnot: How many of you are willing to say this was an overreach of government power without offering some sort of “but…”/“to be fair…” defense for that overreach?

“Overreach”?? This doesn’t go far enough! Until agents of the state are detaining groomers and liquidating them shortly thereafter, I’ll be unsatisfied.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Crafty Coyote says:

Considering the kind of works that WEB DuBois wrote, I wouldn’t be shocked if this kind of censorship at WEB DuBois Middle School would lead to the banning and confiscation of books written by… WEB DuBois

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Pornography is a genre dedicated to entertaining solely through the showing of explicit sex (perhaps with a framing story, back in the day, but with the sex being the point of the endeavor). Sex scenes as part of a larger narrative are not pornography.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Children become interested in sex at a younger age than some people would prefer, and that includes depictions of sex in the media they consume. Seeing such depictions in fiction is arguably better than formal sex education (or pornography), because fiction includes illustrative relationships and emotions that give context to the sexual activities.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

Good that you stated “images” there, though it’s still dumb. If you’d have said text, I’d have quoted the porn in the Bible for you to mull over.

Meanwhile, the stats still show that “youth pastors”, clergy and Republicans are way more likely to be abusing kids than drag queens or school librarians…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Just as I expected. Porn is not a simple “A did this to B”. Porn is meant to arouse, and provides detailed depictions of the acts in words and images. These biblical passages are all merely a summarizing verse or two. Maybe Ezekiel has a little bit more of that, but of course he’s being allegorical about the sins of Israel.

The book of the Bible that does have lyrical depiction of physical and romantic attraction is the Song of Songs, and indeed, Jewish tradition says that it should not be literally translated into the vernacular, but only as an allegory of the love between God and Israel. I think the Bible haters don’t like to mention this book because it’s so sweet.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Porn is not a simple “A did this to B”.

It kind of is, though. Hell, the vast majority of porn films shot these days is “A fucked B” without any real setup or storyline to justify the sex.

Porn is meant to arouse, and provides detailed depictions of the acts in words and images.

That you don’t find it arousing doesn’t mean it can’t be arousing to someone else.

These biblical passages are all merely a summarizing verse or two.

Irrelevant. You asked for examples of pornographic/sexual content in the Bible; trying to weasel your way out of this argument after I gave you plenty of examples doesn’t make you look good. If you want to treat even the most milquetoast sexual content in secular books as an inherent moral evil to which children should never be exposed, you can’t go on to defend the sexual content in religious books⁠—and one religious book in particular!⁠—without being a hypocrite.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Pornography depicts the sex act in detail, whether or not there’s story to justify it. It is that explicit, detailed depiction that arouses. Note that if you declare that simple mention of a sex act is pornography, you are the one that is then providing ammunition for the people you decry that are trying to remove books from schools and libraries.

You asked for examples of pornographic/sexual content in the Bible

For someone who complains that other people are trying to put words in your mouth, you persist in arguing with illusory versions of me who say what you want them to say so that you can win arguments with yourself.

I asked for “porn in the Bible”, not sexual content. If I just wanted “sexual content”, I might have gone with Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.” As an atheist, I do not believe that one should let the Bible guide one’s sexual activities, of course, not their clothing choices, as in Deuteronomy 22:5 – “A woman must not put on man’s apparel, nor shall a man wear woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to your God יהוה.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Pornography depicts the sex act in detail

Not really. Why do you always ignore what words actually mean and substitute their meaning with your own definition thinking you are the arbiter of absolute truth?

Pornography is simply visual, textual or other content meant to arouse/titillate people. What is considered pornography is highly individual which is something Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart eluded to when he said “I know it when I see it”.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Pornography depicts the sex act in detail

Some people consider nude images/videos of naked people who are doing nothing but posing for the camera while naked to be “pornography”. And I would bet that if a high school library stocked an issue of Playboy, you’d be calling that “pornography”, too.

It is that explicit, detailed depiction that arouses.

Again: The descriptions of sexual acts in the Bible could arouse someone. That you aren’t such a person doesn’t affect my statement.

if you declare that simple mention of a sex act is pornography, you are the one that is then providing ammunition for the people you decry that are trying to remove books from schools and libraries

The funny thing is, that’s my point: Right-wingers are such prudish dipshits that they’ll ask for the removal of books with even a mere mention of a sex act. Doesn’t matter if the book has been in the curriculum for years or if the book is widely regarded as a classic⁠—any mention of sex means “it’s age inappropriate” and off the shelves it comes, at least if right-wing dipshits have their way.

I asked for “porn in the Bible”

And as pointed out, “porn” can cover a lot of content depending on who you ask to define “porn”. Certain descriptions of genitals in the Bible may not be “porn” to you, but it might be “porn” to someone else, including conservative Christians. If a Playboy centerfold would be age-inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18, for what reason would Ezekiel 23:18-21 be age-appropriate for kids in elementary school?

Leviticus and Deuteronomy mentions

Yes, yes, we all know you’re on the side of Christian nationalists who want to shove queer people back into their closets (if not their graves). Whether you willingly acknowledge that association is irrelevant.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I went to yeshiva through high-school, where we studied way more Bible and Talmud and things like that than you can possibly imagine, but I missed that part of Ezekiel. Pretty cool! Who knew he was a size queen? (The part of Ezekiel that does get studied a lot is chapter 1, the story of those weird four-faced angels with the spinning wheels.)

Another thing we did back in yeshiva high-school was to hunt through issues of Time Magazine in the school library for pictures of topless women, which Time had in those days. Not exactly Playboy centerfolds, but needs must when the Devil drives. Keeping teenage boys from their porn was as futile then as it is today.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

“Could arouse someone” is meaningless because anyone can say anything. When courts need a concept like this, they use a “reasonable person” standard. (And yes, that means you would be excluded. Me too, probably.)

When it comes to school and library censorship, similar reasoning should apply.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Again, that’s my point: If someone can argue that even the most milquetoast form of sexual content (e.g., a Playboy centerfold) is “pornography”, they can’t reasonably argue that the Bible contains no “pornography”. Right-wing dipshits will say “the Bible has significant historical and literary value” as an argument to keep that book on the shelves⁠—which, in fairness, is a reasonable enough point⁠—but those same people would all but burn down a library to get rid of any secular book that contains even a fraction of the sexual content of the Bible. They’re engaged in hypocrisy in service of Christian nationalism.

And the same people who do that are the same people who are on your side of what I’m sure both you and they have called “the transgender question”. You shittalk them in the context of book bans, but your dislike of their methods doesn’t erase the fact that y’all have the same goal: the complete eradication of transgender people and any public sympathy towards them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

The trans delusion is a false belief and all religion is a false belief. In a society founded on the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, it is not the purpose of that society to silence people who believe in lies, much less eradicate them. It is the purpose of that society not to allow believers to force non-believers into affirming their lies.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Yeah, lets use the context of the time when the US was founded for what free speech meant:

Are you as Jew? Better shut up, because your word is less worth than a Christian’s.

Are you colored? Better shut up, because your word will only bring pain.

Are you a woman? Better shut up, because your word is less worth than a man’s.

Are you a poor? Better shut up, because your word is less worth than the rich.

Should I go on listing the deficiencies in your stupid little mantra?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

It won’t make a difference to me. That the principles may have been more aspirational than actual at the time of the founding of the nation does not make those values any less real or fundamental. They are in any case much better principles than “we must believe the delusions of the insane” and “we must pick favored victim groups and exalt them above all others”.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Gonna handle two comments in one shot because fuck you.

In a society founded on the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, it is not the purpose of that society to silence people who believe in lies, much less eradicate them.

You have admitted that you would, if given the chance, harass transgender people⁠—off- and online⁠—over their gender identities, their genitals, and their decision to live as transgender in the public sphere. You’ve all but admitted that you don’t care if such harassment leads trans people to take their lives. You’ve heavily implied that you wouldn’t see the eradication of transgender people as a net negative for society. I don’t see how you can say the shit you just said when the entire purpose of all the anti-trans shit you’ve said in the past is “helping get rid of trans people”. No amount of handwringing about “well I’m not on the side of the people who want to do violence” is going to change that because those people are using the same anti-trans arguments that you do. You shouldn’t be talking like anti-trans extremists if’n you don’t want to be associated with them.

It is the purpose of that society not to allow believers to force non-believers into affirming their lies.

If I legally change my name and ask you to call me by that name, would you be “affirming a lie” by calling me by that new name instead of my birth name?

Also: No one is asking you to “affirm” any-goddamn-thing. You’re being asked to stop bringing up trans people in conversations that don’t involve trans issues, obsessing over the genitals of trans people (including children’s genitals, you sick fuck), and otherwise openly hating on trans people. You can still believe trans people are “delusional” and “diseased”, or that society should consider them “undesirables”, all the live-long day. All anyone here wants you to do is shut the fuck up about it and stop trying to actively make trans people’s lives miserable only because a bunch of conservative shitbirds told you that queer people (but especially trans people) are “poisoning the blood and soil of America” or whatever Nazi-adjacent rhetoric they used to convince you that trans people need to be exterminated.

That the principles may have been more aspirational than actual at the time of the founding of the nation does not make those values any less real or fundamental.

But those principles were, at the time period you want us to yank those principles from, only applicable in their entirety to white men. Also, none of those principles ever said shit about the still-imaginary right of free reach. But please feel free to cite how “someone being bullied and harassed into printing/hosting/associating with speech that praises atrocities like the Holocaust” is what the Founding Fathers really intended the law to protect when they envisioned the First Amendment.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Hypocrisy has lost it’s meaning and irony died long ago with these Republicans.

Just look at the group leading the charge to have all LGBTQ+ content removed from public schools, while at the same time having bi-sexual threesomes.

Found another disgusting degenerate groomer who’s mad that children aren’t allowed to read about and engage in “bi-sexual threesomes” in “public schools.”

Absolutely irredeemable–these are the people we need to remove permanently from society.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

disgusting degenerate groomer

Here is a story of a disgusting degenerate groomer…

https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/crime/former-midland-youth-minister-corey-white-pleads-guilty-to-child-porn-charges/513-4c00f1e4-526c-42ee-b372-93f1227bd099

But guess what, it’s not an LGBTQ+ person, it’s a straight white male church youth minister.

So again, who are the ones grooming children, because it is 100x more often a church leader and not somebody from the LGBTQ+ community.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Who said anything about the kids reading about bisexual threesomes? There’s plenty of LGBTQ material that doesn’t even mention bisexual threesomes. And who said anything about kids engaging in anything besides reading? No one besides you was talking about kids doing anything sexual at all here.

Sounds like you have a perverted mind. Maybe you’re the “degenerate” here.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Something in the water?

“Great Barrington” rang a bell, so I checked:

Yes, this is the same Great Barrington that is home to the infamous AIER (American Institute for Economic Research), most recently famous for sponsoring the Great Barrington Declaration (opposing effective measures against the Covid pandemic, in favor of a let-er-rip “herd immunity” strategy). Besides being known for distributing health misinformation, and trying to hamstring the CDC, AIER has made a name for itself for pushing climate change denialism, and lauding the benefits that sweatshops provide their workers by employing them.

And oh yeah (I hadn’t known this):
You just can’t make this stuff up.

The events that inspired the Arlo Guthrie’s classic song Alice’s Restaurant actually occurred in and around Great Barrington — and the actual restaurant was located directly beneath the studio of Norman Rockwell.

Incidentally, WEB DuBois actually grew up in the area, hence the school being named after him. At this rate, I wonder how long his works will continue to permitted to be part of the Great Barrington school curriculum, or the bookshelves of the Great Barrington public library?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Now what was it called, 'B-' something or other...

Now imagine the nationwide outrage if someone had (rightly by the bigots’ standards) reported a book filled with rape, genocide, incest and human sacrifice in the classroom and send cops to get that book out of the hands of impressionable children…

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: 'And in today's reading a father offers his daughters up to a horny/violent mob...'

I’m sure they have been, but even if they have it’s a book filled with the most abhorrent content one could imagine and as those trying to ban books now are arguing that sort of filth has no business being in the hands of kids, whether schools or libraries.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Now imagine the nationwide outrage if someone had (rightly by the bigots’ standards) reported a book filled with rape, genocide, incest and human sacrifice in the classroom and send cops to get that book out of the hands of impressionable children…

So a book about those disgusting Aztec savages, you mean?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
blakestacey (profile) says:

Unlike all the people who try to ban it, I’ve actually read Gender Queer. (I bought a copy at the Massachusetts Independent Comics Expo.) As I’ve remarked now and then, its rocketing to the status of the most banned book in the United States is darkly hilarious. Yeah, nothing says “pornography” like four pages of quotations from philosopher Patricia Churchland.

It’s a memoir by someone who just doesn’t want or like sex all that much. (Representative dialogue from page 138: “I think I’m asexual.” “You can’t be, I’ve seen you lust after other people.” “Well. Yeah. But not very often and I don’t enjoy it.”) Oh, noes, three panels of mostly-clothed fooling around by two people in an affectionate, monogamous relationship that ends with them deciding that the activity was hotter in the anticipation than the actuality. That’s roughly one one-billionth as steamy as anything Famke Janssen says or does in GoldenEye.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: 'It has 'queer' in the title, or course it's porn!'

Which rather gives away the game by making clear that when those pushing these book bans claim that they’re justified because they’re just going after ‘pornographic’ content what they actually mean is ‘any positive depiction of relationships involving non-heterosexual characters, sexual or not’.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

I believe I’ve found the original complainant’s motive for this overreach: “Schools have a protocol for book challenges, but those do not involve anonymity for the person making them.”

Basically, the original complaint came from some transphobe who was too much of a coward to follow the correct procedure.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

DNY says:

Government schools, government rules.

As the title says.

And while we’re at it. Curriculum decisions to remove books formerly in the curriculum or move them to a later grade when children are more mature are not censorship. They are curriculum decisions, which, depending on the laws of the particular state are a matter for some level of government, be it the state legislature or an elected school board, unless one of those has delegated its authority to teachers or professional administrators, in which case, it can still take back that authority and make curriculum decisions.

Free speech is about the government not being able to control what citizens say, not about the government not being able to control what agents of the government say.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

In that case, let’s remove all the books that aren’t part of the approved curriculum from that school. That means yanking every book that isn’t (and won’t ever be) part of the curriculum from both a school’s library and every classroom in that same school. And hey, let’s send the cops to do the removal because that seems to be a thing we’re doing these days. While we’re at it, how about we burn the books that were removed to make sure they never make their way back into any school. Does that sound like an appealing solution to the problem of “someone doesn’t like a specific book being in a school library because it offends them”? Because if it does, you’re a goddamn fascist.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
BernardoVerda (profile) says:

Re:

Oddly enough, while reading material tends to be adjusted both upwards and downwards in the “age appropriate” classifications, the reasons differ.

On one hand, young people have been steadily been recognized as being able to handle (and motivated to or interested in) more “mature” topic matter. On the other hand, “reading level” or vocabulary and language sophistication assessments have steadily been pushing age classifications higher.

It seems to me that the “grown-ups” should be more concerned with encouraging reading, period, than stampeding moral panics over young people apparently being somewhat more mature than their parents were at the same age.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The concern comes from the fact that the bodycam was on⁠—which means the cop wearing it was performing a search authorized by their superiors without either a search warrant, probable cause, or an “exigent circumstances” excuse. Any permission they may have had from the school to perform the search is largely irrelevant, since the cop wasn’t looking for evidence of a crime or a suspect in a criminal act. The cop was searching for a book that some right-wing MAGA dipshit didn’t like (and ultimately wasn’t even in the classroom that was searched).

LostInLoDOS (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

From what I gather there was a report and thus probable cause. If the school allowed the search there is no problem on the act itself.

That the book was missing doesn’t meant it wasn’t, or was, there at the time of the report

That a nation full of prudes still sends cops out over obscenity is a problem. The real one.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Obscenity is a legal reality.

The police could’ve called the school to inquire about the book’s whereabouts instead of sending an officer to search the classroom. A minute’s worth of forethought about how a “Police Searches Classroom for Book” headline might play out in the press could’ve saved both the police and the school from a PR shitshow.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

I’m of the thought the public attention is exactly what then ordering office wanted. Get the book and make headlines.

The cop taking the book would’ve generated far worse headlines than what we’re getting right now. The right-wing shitbird who wanted the book gone likely didn’t want this story in the headlines⁠—if anything, the very public (and very negative) uproar over the cops searching the classroom works against whoever tried to get the book gone: The cops are now more likely to think twice before doing this again. Also, I recommend reading the opinion of the outlet that broke this story about how fucked up this all was, because I don’t really think you’re grasping the depths of how fucked up this all was (which is typical for a Trumpist like you, but still).

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

I didn’t say any of it was smart. Just that there was legal precedent.

And in so doing, you effectively tried to justify a police officer policing books. But I suppose that’s what a Trumpist would do.

And again, the religious nutz like to parade what they do, “look at this smut” etc.

The person who made the complaint in the first place hasn’t come forward to accept their role in the police making that search. I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t…unless they were waiting for the book to be removed quietly and without fuss instead of waiting for the headlines of “Police Search School for Book That’s Never Been Ruled Obscene” to drop.

Maybe some Trumpists still have the ability to self-reflect and feel shame. Can’t be many of them, considering how many millions of people will vote in November for a man who ran a failed coup against the U.S. federal government by trying (and failing) to prevent the winner of a lawful election from having his victory certified and therefore preventing that winner from assuming office. (You’ll be one of those millions, Lodos. Dread it, run from it⁠—destiny arrives all the same.)

LostInLoDOS (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

I justify enforcing the law as written. If you don’t like it vote to change it. Or run for office yourself.

Clearly every aspect of this case is wrong. There’s an obscenity waiver in education. So there should never have been a search. And thus there is nothing to justify. Unfortunately police don’t know the whole of the law (and neither do you or I). They were instructed to pursue an obscenity report. They did.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Clearly every aspect of this case is wrong.

And yet, you still tried to justify the search itself by saying there was “legal precedent” for it. If you believed “every aspect of this case is wrong”, you wouldn’t have tried to justify any aspect of it. I don’t give a single flying fuck if legal precedent existed for the search⁠—the search was still wrong on a moral and ethical level.

police don’t know the whole of the law

So what? The cops could’ve taken a minute of forethought and done something far less intrusive like, say, call the school. Or look up the book online and see if it had been ruled obscene. Or sent the book-banning whackjob on their way. The cops could’ve done anything besides search the classroom to address that complaint. That you’re still trying to find an excuse for this authoritarian bullshit even while you say “there should never have been a search” is an astounding display of cognitive dissonance.

LostInLoDOS (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

My initial posting was before I verified the obscenity laws of the state.
That said, the law is the law. If you break the law you suffer the consequences for it. Without the education waiver, it’s up to a court to decide if an item is obscene. Some states have situational waivers, some don’t.

You’re fixed on the subject, not the law. What is, and is not, obscene, is a long running argument.
We finally have a (I believe) constitutional majority on the court. We may finally see the end of miller if one of these cases makes it that far. The government has no constitutional right to ban obscene material.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

You’re fixed on the subject, not the law.

Yeah, and there’s a reason for that: Cops going around looking for “obscene” books is some goddamn Gestapo shit. I don’t care if they had every legal right to do it⁠—it was morally indefensible regardless of whether it was legal, and I’m not about to say “yeah, it’s wrong, buuuuuuuuuuuut…” because it was legal. Besides, slavery was legal two-and-a-half centuries ago, but no one with any goddamn sense should ever try to defend that moral atrocity with a “but it was legal” argument.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
09:31 Court To Bondi: Demanding Platforms Censor Speech And Bragging About It On Fox News Is, In Fact, A First Amendment Violation (14)
11:03 A First Amendment Legend Eviscerates Brendan Carr With Substance And Style (13)
05:28 Brendan Carr Cooking Up New Sham Investigation Of Jimmy Kimmel (11)
09:29 Oh Look, The MAGA FTC Built The Censorship Industrial Complex It Was Screaming About (22)
15:16 War As A Pretext: Gulf States Are Tightening The Screws On Speech—Again (6)
15:12 The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction For Drones Is A Blatant Attempt To Criminalize Filming ICE (14)
13:03 Trump Threatens CNN For Very Basic Reporting On His Shitty, Unpopular War (24)
05:25 Trump Attacks On Public Media Blocked By Judge (But It's Too Little, Too Late) (5)
05:24 Supreme Court Shrugs Off Opportunity To Save The First Amendment From The Fifth Circuit's Antipathy (6)
15:34 Free Speech Experts: Jonathan Haidt's Moral Panic Is As Old As Democracy Itself (32)
15:31 Hegseth's War On Anthropic Encounters The First Amendment (9)
12:25 America's Self-Proclaimed Free Speech Warrior, Brendan Carr, Gets A Letter Documenting His First Amendment Violations (10)
10:44 The Trump Admin's Own Investigators Found No EU Internet Censorship. So They Ignored The Findings. (14)
09:25 5th Circuit Flips Cop V. Protester Case To Jury After Spending 7 Years Pretending The 1st Amendment Doesn't Exist (12)
13:34 Court Says Pentagon Can't Pick And Choose Which News Outlets Have Access (7)
15:28 Rep. Finke Was Right: Age-Gating Isn’t About Kids, It’s About Control (13)
13:11 Fifth Circuit: Actually, Putting The Ten Commandments In Schools Is Probably Fine (26)
09:18 Afroman Wins: Jury Rules Mocking Cops Who Raided Your Home Is Protected Speech (19)
14:51 Afroman's Defamation Trial Is Going About As Well For The Deputies As Their Original Raid Did (28)
05:23 Pete Hegseth: We Can't Wait For Larry Ellison To Turn CNN Into Another Right Wing Propaganda Mill (13)
05:20 Brendan Carr Pretends To Be Tough, Demands Broadcasters Support Disastrous War (27)
09:27 Ninth Circuit Guts California’s Kids Code Once Again (3)
12:16 Don’t Ban Kids From Using Chatbots (42)
13:03 Congressional Republicans Push Bills That Would Block Kids Access To Content For Ideological Reasons (14)
12:58 Utah’s Proposal To Tax Online Pornography Is A Civil Liberties Disaster Waiting To Happen (21)
05:26 Brendan Carr Can't Explain Why 'Equal Time' Rule Doesn't Apply To Right Wing Radio (13)
09:24 Ron Wyden Is Begging His Colleagues To Stop Trying To Hand Trump A Censorship Weapon (13)
09:23 Palantir Sues Swiss Magazine For Accurately Reporting That The Swiss Government Didn't Want Palantir (14)
05:26 Trump FCC Demands 'Pro-America' Media Programming All Summer Long (35)
12:12 Administration Says DHS Can Demand Social Media Info From Legal Immigrants And US Citizens (28)
More arrow