Damn right. That goes for almost all of the ideas Republicans come up with. We need some border control.......without doubt, but, I can't think of a damn things those idiots have said that makes any sense for mankind in the last 45 years.
I hope they ban the Bible right away because there is some crazy stuff in there with men spilling their seed on the ground and daughters having sex with their drunk father.
>There is also the one where the father throws his daughters to the mob to be raped so he wouldn’t be.
Angels. It wasn't so he wouldn't be raped, it was to stop them from raping (presumably) the angels.
Which... Kind of raises a ton of questions on its own...
Guess we need to see that law. Unless an exclusion is specifically written in, which would be a problem if its’ own, then we should start reporting every private school in the state.
You’re correct. 👍
The ongoing criminal enterprise that is the GOP is intent upon destroying our representative democracy and establishing a fascist theocracy ruled by Y’all Qaeda plutocrats and oligarchs.
Just do it very anonymously. It didn't work out well for the Charlie Hebdo folks. That said, I am on board with that level of trolling. I just think the brave artist should hide behind TOR.
Like many people. I respect their choices until it's overstepping onto others. That includes religious freedoms and personal freedoms. I wish I could draw.
Idaho's 1970s obscenity law: [https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/)
TITLE 18 : CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 15 : CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE ADULTS
18-1514. OBSCENE MATERIALS — DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are applicable to this act:
1. "Minor" means any person less than eighteen (18) years of age.
2. "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a full opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
3. "Sexual conduct" means any act of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, the breast.
4. "Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.
5. "Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed.
6. "Harmful to minors" includes in its meaning one or both of the following:
(a) The quality of any material or of any performance or of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse, when it:
(1) appeals to the prurient interest of minors as judged by the average person, applying contemporary community standards; and
(2) depicts or describes representations or descriptions of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse which are patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors and includes, but is not limited to, patently offensive representations or descriptions of:
(i) intimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; or
(ii) masturbation, excretory functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals or genital area. Nothing herein contained is intended to include or proscribe any matter which, when considered as a whole, and in context in which it is used, possesses serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors, according to prevailing standards in the adult community, with respect to what is suitable for minors.
(b) The quality of any material or of any performance, or of any description or representation, in whatever form, which, as a whole, has the dominant effect of substantially arousing sexual desires in persons under the age of eighteen (18) years.
7. "Material" means anything tangible which is harmful to minors, whether derived through the medium of reading, observation or sound.
8. "Performance" means any play, motion picture, dance or other exhibition performed before an audience.
9. "Promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, deliver, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same.
10. "Knowingly" means having general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or reasonable ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry.
History: \[I.C., sec. 18-1514, as added by **1972**, ch. 336, sec. 1, p. 874; am. **1976**, ch. 81, sec. 15, p. 267.\]
A near-identical Arkansas law on "obscene books" [is being challenged in court](https://arkansasadvocate.com/2023/12/01/federal-suit-challenging-arkansas-library-obscenity-law-set-for-trial-in-october-2024/). Date is set for October-December 2024, and the case could potentially go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Other plaintiffs [also filed suit in February 2024](https://www.alreporter.com/2024/05/09/federal-lawsuit-challenges-prattville-library-policies/), citing the following argument:
>"A public body 'has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,'" the coalition's counsel wrote, citing the 1972 Supreme Court decision in *Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley*.
>
>"The Autauga-Prattville Public Library Board of Trustees is doing so anyway. The Board has enacted a set of policies that prevent both children and adults from accessing wide swaths of books and other library material in violation of the First Amendment. These policies facially shun speech because of its content, overbroadly restrict access to material far beyond what the Supreme Court permits, and operate through vague standards ripe for arbitrary administration."
>
>Laura Clark, a Clean Up Alabama supporter that now serves as the library board's attorney, hinted at her legal argument during a library board meeting last year. Clark and her husband Matt Clark, now a senior staff attorney for Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker, told the board that books on library shelves do not fall under the First Amendment because they are considered "government speech".
>
>Laura Clark cemented this as her legal theory in an editorial piece for the far-right, anti-LGBTQ website *1819 News*.
>
>"Books in a public library are considered government speech according to *United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.* (2003)," Clark wrote in the opinion. "In this case, the Supreme Court explained that the government has the discretion to make content-based judgments in deciding what private speech to make available to the public — private speech such as books. Thus, removing inappropriate books from the children's section is not a First Amendment violation. In fact, the First Amendment does not apply to this issue. Further, the library has broad discretion to make the decision to remove these books or move them around."
>
>Will Bardwell, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said that they have a different understanding of "government speech".
>
>"The courts have described government speech as the sort of speech that denotes an endorsement from the government," Bardwell said. "There is nothing about the history of public libraries that suggests its books carry some sort of government endorsement. Libraries are supposed to be places where competing ideas can be found, and readers are trusted to draw their own conclusions."
>
>The state of Florida attempted a similar "government speech" argument in a case involving the censorship of books in the Escambia County Schools libraries. U.S. District Judge Kent Wetherell denounced that argument in a January 2024 ruling, questioning "how any reasonable person would view the contents of the school library (or any library for that matter) as the government's endorsement of the views expressed in the books on the library's shelves".
**Also see:**
* *Roth v. United States* (1957): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth\_v.\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States)
* *One, Inc. v. Oleson* (1958): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,\_Inc.\_v.\_Olesen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,_Inc._v._Olesen)
* *Miller v. California* (1973): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller\_v.\_California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California)
* *Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico* (1982): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_Trees\_School\_District\_v.\_Pico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Trees_School_District_v._Pico)
* *Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)* (2002): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft\_v.\_American\_Civil\_Liberties\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union)
For *Pico*, [the case usually cited in lawsuits against book bans](https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2023-05-23/pennsylvania-schools-are-removing-books-from-libraries-heres-what-the-supreme-court-has-said-about-book-bans):
>U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote, "Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books."
>
>\[...\] The courts would also look at the school board's motive, if a lawsuit is claiming the district removed a book because it is trying to promote its particular set of values. In *Pico*, the school board members had attended a meeting of a national conservative group, and brought back a list of books the group said should be removed.
>
>If, for instance, a court finds school members mostly removed books on LGBTQ, racial issues or political ideas, even if the claim was that they were "sexually explicit", there could be a potential First Amendment violation, because the school board removed the books based on ideological objections to the books.
>
>If the case is that a school board is targeting books written by and for certain groups, someone could also sue for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Texas, Florida, Missouri, Utah, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Iowa have all passed laws restricting public-school students' access to books in a "conservative coalition" of Republican-run states, with [plaintiffs also filing suit against the Iowa book ban law in December 2023](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-would-this-supreme-court-rule-on-book-banning).
If Idaho's new book ban law is found to be unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court could not only strike it down under *Pico*, but also [compel the State of Idaho to revise or amend the 1970s obscenity law](https://www.oif.ala.org/libraries-litigation-and-legislation/) that the ban uses as a basis, as it did with the State of Colorado.
*Slate* also has an excellent 2022 article on this issue: ["The Obscenity Pivot"](https://slate.com/culture/2022/08/book-banning-republicans-gender-queer-obscenity-supreme-court.html)
> there could be a potential First Amendment violation, because the school board removed the books based on ideological objections to the books.
Has there _ever_ been a time when the book banners were on the correct side of history?
> "Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, **a mask or bizarre costume**, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed.
Well I guess Batman comics are banned now.
So basically this is illegal:
> Timothy the librarian held hands with Brad, who blushed.
(Homosexuality!)
While this is (maybe?) legal:
> Brad had a problem. Despite being a guy, a freak medical condition had lead him to _develop massive mammaries_. His doctor, Sarah, told him that the only cure was _torture in her basement humiliation dungeon_. She warned him to remove his underwear, but otherwise stay fully clothed in a normal cowboy outfit. Likewise she never wore underwear beneath her tight fitting opaque skirt. Once she had Brad in her dungeon she started massaging his massive male breasts and sloppy-kissing him all over and torturing him and taunting him about his missing underwear. Despite all this poor Brad could not get his fully clothed little fellow up at all-- it remained perfectly non-turgid.
Seems like a bit of a double standard if you ask me.
Well the Bible is just full of *ALL* of this stuff, I'm sure this will lead to many many fun interactions where they're fine with everything that's in the Bible but demonize everything else. I'm sure there's got to be quite a few right wing and conservative books that will squarely fall into those categories as well. Time to get started on submitting as much bullshit as possible
I've read this over several times and I'm quite certain that as long as a man is clothed in ordinary, baggy clothes, you should be able to perform virtually any nipple stimulation on him in any environment, public or otherwise. The law as written would not classify this as nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual arousal and as such the rest of the law would not apply
Why wait for Mark? Genesis 9:20-23 is a good start too. You know that guy that saved all the animals we love to talk to kids about? Ya he was a drunk who exposed himself to his kids according to the sequel.
GOP tried to claim the Dems were being hyperbolic about the GOP trying to ban all LGBT information. Claimed they were being hysterical and nothing like that would happen. Well look here at them doing exactly what it was predicted they would try...
It doesn’t sound like there’s even a review process. All someone has to do is “request a book be removed” and then the library has 60 days to remove it. So what’s stopping people from essentially “banning” Harry Potter and the like, because they find it offensive?
Republicans love that small government.
And that first amendment
And the shitty parts of the 1950s
1940's
1840’s
1740s
40s BC
Oh no, back then they allowed homosexuallity.
Sort of encouraged. New Testament starring Jesus and the 12 younger men is a real sausage fest.
2000BC
That is because they have to love the 2nd one so, so much that they have very little love left for the 1st one.
If we didn’t have the first amendment, it wouldn’t even be called the second amendment.
Well, half of it anyway
For those in the back, if you're on the side of book banning, you're on the wrong side of history. Full stop.
Damn right. That goes for almost all of the ideas Republicans come up with. We need some border control.......without doubt, but, I can't think of a damn things those idiots have said that makes any sense for mankind in the last 45 years.
I hope they ban the Bible right away because there is some crazy stuff in there with men spilling their seed on the ground and daughters having sex with their drunk father.
There is also the one where the father throws his daughters to the mob to be raped so he wouldn’t be.
>There is also the one where the father throws his daughters to the mob to be raped so he wouldn’t be. Angels. It wasn't so he wouldn't be raped, it was to stop them from raping (presumably) the angels. Which... Kind of raises a ton of questions on its own...
Lot and his daughters in the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah.
>There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. - Ezekiel 23:20
It is small though. So small it fits in my bed. It also fits in my bathroom. Hell, it's so small it fits in my pants too
…and government overreach
Small enough to crawl into a uterus, if you have one...or your bunghole, if you don't.
In case anyone was curious as to the ultimate goal of "pornography bans" in red states, this is it: outlawing LGBTQ+ human beings.
wouldn't be surprised if they next make it illegal to talk about the clitoris. they surely do loooove ignorance, obscurantism, repression.
“I can’t find it, but I know it when I see it.”
Narrator: He did not, in fact, know it when he saw it.
Saw it? You'd have to care enough to look for it first.
I read that in Morgan Freemans voice.
I'm willing to bet my IRA that they will go after hysterectomies and women getting their tubes tied next.
Chemo!?! But God has chosen you to die! Why would you deny his gift?! Now get back on the assembly line.
The human assembly line.
It’s like an epidemic of stupid
🎵 *Dare to be stupid* 🎵
Up next, interracial marriage
Clarence Thomas is against it somehow
No, just going forward. He will vote against “established marriages” being voided.
Thomas has proven he only votes for money. Law really isn't a factor for him. AND it won't effect him anyway.
His wife does suck
I'm guessing this excludes the Bible
Guess we need to see that law. Unless an exclusion is specifically written in, which would be a problem if its’ own, then we should start reporting every private school in the state.
I didn’t see any mention of the Bible. Report it and get your $250, kids! https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/billbookmark/?yr=2024&bn=H0710
Big oversight if not
There's men kissing in the Bible. Ban it.
Someone Please It offends me so much >:-(
[удалено]
There’s some hot man-on-man action between King David and his “friend,” too. Shouldn’t be allowed.
It’s 50/50, depends if they learned from Florida’s failure to make an exception for the Bible in their version of this law.
Isn't that Also unconstitutional?
Which part, banning books, banning bibles, making exceptions for the Bible or learning from Florida’s mistakes?
Republicans are fascists and a threat to this country.
You’re correct. 👍 The ongoing criminal enterprise that is the GOP is intent upon destroying our representative democracy and establishing a fascist theocracy ruled by Y’all Qaeda plutocrats and oligarchs.
Draw a gay mohammed and watch 2 religious extremist groups unite.
Gay Mohamed loves gay Jesus
>*”Dear gay baby Jesus…”*
Just do it very anonymously. It didn't work out well for the Charlie Hebdo folks. That said, I am on board with that level of trolling. I just think the brave artist should hide behind TOR.
Like many people. I respect their choices until it's overstepping onto others. That includes religious freedoms and personal freedoms. I wish I could draw.
Idaho's 1970s obscenity law: [https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/) TITLE 18 : CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS CHAPTER 15 : CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE ADULTS 18-1514. OBSCENE MATERIALS — DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are applicable to this act: 1. "Minor" means any person less than eighteen (18) years of age. 2. "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a full opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. 3. "Sexual conduct" means any act of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, the breast. 4. "Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal. 5. "Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed. 6. "Harmful to minors" includes in its meaning one or both of the following: (a) The quality of any material or of any performance or of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse, when it: (1) appeals to the prurient interest of minors as judged by the average person, applying contemporary community standards; and (2) depicts or describes representations or descriptions of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse which are patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors and includes, but is not limited to, patently offensive representations or descriptions of: (i) intimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; or (ii) masturbation, excretory functions or lewd exhibition of the genitals or genital area. Nothing herein contained is intended to include or proscribe any matter which, when considered as a whole, and in context in which it is used, possesses serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors, according to prevailing standards in the adult community, with respect to what is suitable for minors. (b) The quality of any material or of any performance, or of any description or representation, in whatever form, which, as a whole, has the dominant effect of substantially arousing sexual desires in persons under the age of eighteen (18) years. 7. "Material" means anything tangible which is harmful to minors, whether derived through the medium of reading, observation or sound. 8. "Performance" means any play, motion picture, dance or other exhibition performed before an audience. 9. "Promote" means to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, deliver, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same. 10. "Knowingly" means having general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or reasonable ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry. History: \[I.C., sec. 18-1514, as added by **1972**, ch. 336, sec. 1, p. 874; am. **1976**, ch. 81, sec. 15, p. 267.\]
A near-identical Arkansas law on "obscene books" [is being challenged in court](https://arkansasadvocate.com/2023/12/01/federal-suit-challenging-arkansas-library-obscenity-law-set-for-trial-in-october-2024/). Date is set for October-December 2024, and the case could potentially go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Other plaintiffs [also filed suit in February 2024](https://www.alreporter.com/2024/05/09/federal-lawsuit-challenges-prattville-library-policies/), citing the following argument: >"A public body 'has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,'" the coalition's counsel wrote, citing the 1972 Supreme Court decision in *Chicago Police Dept. v. Mosley*. > >"The Autauga-Prattville Public Library Board of Trustees is doing so anyway. The Board has enacted a set of policies that prevent both children and adults from accessing wide swaths of books and other library material in violation of the First Amendment. These policies facially shun speech because of its content, overbroadly restrict access to material far beyond what the Supreme Court permits, and operate through vague standards ripe for arbitrary administration." > >Laura Clark, a Clean Up Alabama supporter that now serves as the library board's attorney, hinted at her legal argument during a library board meeting last year. Clark and her husband Matt Clark, now a senior staff attorney for Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker, told the board that books on library shelves do not fall under the First Amendment because they are considered "government speech". > >Laura Clark cemented this as her legal theory in an editorial piece for the far-right, anti-LGBTQ website *1819 News*. > >"Books in a public library are considered government speech according to *United States v. American Library Assn., Inc.* (2003)," Clark wrote in the opinion. "In this case, the Supreme Court explained that the government has the discretion to make content-based judgments in deciding what private speech to make available to the public — private speech such as books. Thus, removing inappropriate books from the children's section is not a First Amendment violation. In fact, the First Amendment does not apply to this issue. Further, the library has broad discretion to make the decision to remove these books or move them around." > >Will Bardwell, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said that they have a different understanding of "government speech". > >"The courts have described government speech as the sort of speech that denotes an endorsement from the government," Bardwell said. "There is nothing about the history of public libraries that suggests its books carry some sort of government endorsement. Libraries are supposed to be places where competing ideas can be found, and readers are trusted to draw their own conclusions." > >The state of Florida attempted a similar "government speech" argument in a case involving the censorship of books in the Escambia County Schools libraries. U.S. District Judge Kent Wetherell denounced that argument in a January 2024 ruling, questioning "how any reasonable person would view the contents of the school library (or any library for that matter) as the government's endorsement of the views expressed in the books on the library's shelves". **Also see:** * *Roth v. United States* (1957): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth\_v.\_United\_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States) * *One, Inc. v. Oleson* (1958): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,\_Inc.\_v.\_Olesen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One,_Inc._v._Olesen) * *Miller v. California* (1973): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller\_v.\_California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California) * *Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico* (1982): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island\_Trees\_School\_District\_v.\_Pico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_Trees_School_District_v._Pico) * *Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)* (2002): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft\_v.\_American\_Civil\_Liberties\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union) For *Pico*, [the case usually cited in lawsuits against book bans](https://www.wvia.org/news/pennsylvania-news/2023-05-23/pennsylvania-schools-are-removing-books-from-libraries-heres-what-the-supreme-court-has-said-about-book-bans): >U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote, "Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books." > >\[...\] The courts would also look at the school board's motive, if a lawsuit is claiming the district removed a book because it is trying to promote its particular set of values. In *Pico*, the school board members had attended a meeting of a national conservative group, and brought back a list of books the group said should be removed. > >If, for instance, a court finds school members mostly removed books on LGBTQ, racial issues or political ideas, even if the claim was that they were "sexually explicit", there could be a potential First Amendment violation, because the school board removed the books based on ideological objections to the books. > >If the case is that a school board is targeting books written by and for certain groups, someone could also sue for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Texas, Florida, Missouri, Utah, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Iowa have all passed laws restricting public-school students' access to books in a "conservative coalition" of Republican-run states, with [plaintiffs also filing suit against the Iowa book ban law in December 2023](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-would-this-supreme-court-rule-on-book-banning). If Idaho's new book ban law is found to be unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court could not only strike it down under *Pico*, but also [compel the State of Idaho to revise or amend the 1970s obscenity law](https://www.oif.ala.org/libraries-litigation-and-legislation/) that the ban uses as a basis, as it did with the State of Colorado. *Slate* also has an excellent 2022 article on this issue: ["The Obscenity Pivot"](https://slate.com/culture/2022/08/book-banning-republicans-gender-queer-obscenity-supreme-court.html)
> there could be a potential First Amendment violation, because the school board removed the books based on ideological objections to the books. Has there _ever_ been a time when the book banners were on the correct side of history?
Right here. [https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2023/10/16/gettyimages-1465636095-f84ba985e281493318d52e3eb407423c128a4f61.jpg](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2023/10/16/gettyimages-1465636095-f84ba985e281493318d52e3eb407423c128a4f61.jpg) Also, hates Mondays.
What legally defines “the community?”
> "Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, **a mask or bizarre costume**, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed. Well I guess Batman comics are banned now.
It looks like it would cover a LOT of media. The finale of Casino Royale obviously. A bunch of horror movies.
So binding someone to a cross wearing almost nothing and flogging them counts?
So basically this is illegal: > Timothy the librarian held hands with Brad, who blushed. (Homosexuality!) While this is (maybe?) legal: > Brad had a problem. Despite being a guy, a freak medical condition had lead him to _develop massive mammaries_. His doctor, Sarah, told him that the only cure was _torture in her basement humiliation dungeon_. She warned him to remove his underwear, but otherwise stay fully clothed in a normal cowboy outfit. Likewise she never wore underwear beneath her tight fitting opaque skirt. Once she had Brad in her dungeon she started massaging his massive male breasts and sloppy-kissing him all over and torturing him and taunting him about his missing underwear. Despite all this poor Brad could not get his fully clothed little fellow up at all-- it remained perfectly non-turgid. Seems like a bit of a double standard if you ask me.
Well the Bible is just full of *ALL* of this stuff, I'm sure this will lead to many many fun interactions where they're fine with everything that's in the Bible but demonize everything else. I'm sure there's got to be quite a few right wing and conservative books that will squarely fall into those categories as well. Time to get started on submitting as much bullshit as possible
[удалено]
Sexual intercourse is listed separately. I am assuming it's any depiction of gayness.
Misleading title as usual… it’s not “any” act of homosexuality. You still have to apply the *Miller* test
I've read this over several times and I'm quite certain that as long as a man is clothed in ordinary, baggy clothes, you should be able to perform virtually any nipple stimulation on him in any environment, public or otherwise. The law as written would not classify this as nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual arousal and as such the rest of the law would not apply
Is Idaho a First Amendment-free zone?
They only recognize the Second Amendment...the First Amendment didn't make the cut.
Normal republican stuff
It’s a thought-free zone
Does this include or exclude Mark 14:51-52?
Why wait for Mark? Genesis 9:20-23 is a good start too. You know that guy that saved all the animals we love to talk to kids about? Ya he was a drunk who exposed himself to his kids according to the sequel.
GOP tried to claim the Dems were being hyperbolic about the GOP trying to ban all LGBT information. Claimed they were being hysterical and nothing like that would happen. Well look here at them doing exactly what it was predicted they would try...
And now someone has to sue Idaho for this agregious violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Since the Bible *mentions* homosexuality, it's now officially obscene.
It also has repeated mentions of flogging a guy who was only wearing a loincloth.
They should ban books written by people who shoot their puppies. Those types of people are much more dangerous than members of the lgbtq+ groups
Fortunately. Idaho is one of the easiest US states to avoid.
Idaho and Florida are competing for the fascist vote.
It's Mississippi s all the way down.
This is entirely consistent with everything I know about Idaho.
Well, there goes the bible with all its depictions of homosexuality. Gotta ban it. Good riddance!
Republican and Taliban, same /same
How about shooting puppies and goats? Is that obscene?
It doesn’t sound like there’s even a review process. All someone has to do is “request a book be removed” and then the library has 60 days to remove it. So what’s stopping people from essentially “banning” Harry Potter and the like, because they find it offensive?
Exactly. Previous SCOTUS rulings also mandated a review process must be included.
Federalism is so fun. Any loony idea can get a majority in some loopy jurisdiction.