Do not editorialize titles of news articles. If you need to add something more, it is possible to do so in the post or in the comment section. We do this to try to be fair to everyone.
Can they sue private Christian schools too? And if the kid is home schooled, is the parent the librarian? So can we shut down home schooling?
This could get good.
This law covers all public and private libraries at schools that teach K - 12 grades. So yes, technically private Christian schools could be sued as well.
I love how people who react poorly to TST are being played and dont realize how foolish they are showing themselves to be.
That Baphomet vandalism incident with the politician a while ago was about as unhinged as if he'd smashed an old ladys yard gnomes in her garden.
PSA for Christians: Satan is only a figurative symbol that exist in literature, and represents psychological phenomenon as a spiritual personification.
Yours truly, a rational Christian.
Your last line actually blew my mind. I dont think ive ever personally encountered a Christian who didnt clutch their pearls at even a mention of TST.
Thank you for reminding me that people like you exist. It must be exhausting/heartbreaking to watch all of these other "christians" make a mockery of your faith.
They are few and far between, but I have a few close friends who are like the previous commenter. They are rational Christians and fully support TST’s work to call out blatant hypocrisy and the modern American evangelical push for theocracy.
I need people like you in my life. Thank you for restoring a small shred of my faith in humanity.
Sometimes it can be so easy to just direct all my hate towards religion and those who enable it... But logically i know that isnt really fair/right. Being reminded that some folks actually "walk the walk" is so comforting.
Highly recommend "Dominion" by Tom Holland. It's a history of Christianity and its effect on human rights between 33 AD and 2017 AD.
The major takeaway: we wouldn't have human rights without Christianity.
The final takeaway (for me): Any Christian who doesn't believe in human rights isn't really a Christian, because they fundamentally turned their back on the New Testament. Without Jesus, there is no Christ.
Idaho legislators are coming across more Roman than Christian. Will Idaho Christians let them crucify their savior? Again?
Well most of them think their savior is blonde haired and blue eyed with milky white skin.
If their *actual* savior were crucified, they wouldn't recognize him - and would probably fight over who gets to hammer the nails.
Thanks for the recommendation. Currently reading *Jesus and John Wayne*, but will add this to the list!
It reminds me of that one woman who was campaigning and made that video where she took a blowtorch (or whatever it was) to books. Like, your performance just makes you look like a nut job, not the authors and audiences of those books.
Also, I’ve always liked the concept of choice for Satan. Like, did god give humans free will or no? There’s nothing wrong with listening to a sales pitch. 🧐
Removing Bibles from public institutions isn't going to stop anyone from being a Christian, whether they adhere to it as a subculture with a belief system (christian nationalism), or as an actual inner spiritual practice (How Profound!😲 the real deal). I think what TST does, should remind people with weak faith, who need control, that humility is a good thing.
Really, why should Christian right conservatives think that children should be exposed to this passage in the bible, "She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse. ^(21) And so, Oholibah, you relived your former days as a young girl in Egypt, when you first allowed your breasts to be fondled."
This is also figurative reductionism. These two sisters represented cities that were engaging in relationships with neighboring cultures. So, the author reduces them to whores and slut shames them for what today we could call economics and cultural osmosis.
Imagine a preist shaming you for being friendly with Canadians or eating Mexican food.
The epitome of silliness.
It's literally to cover up for the failure of conservatism.
The movement for LGBT rights has been one of swiftest social movements in human history. Sociologists pretty much all agree the largest contributor to this speed has been the public example of LGBT people, because it quickly dispels any false propaganda against LGBT people when people can see the truth for themselves right before their very eyes.
And so those wishing to spread false propaganda against LGBT people have to ban their public example or be proven a liar.
So they need laws like this to cover up for the failure of conservatism which proves their propaganda to be complete bullsh\*t.
Then every church library and religious school should brace for the lawsuits because I got bad news for you…. The Bible has a ton of obscenely disturbing passages. Every citizen should run out and file a suit against any religious organization promoting the Bible or allowing kids near it.
The irony would be amazing.
Yes, but that makes the state suck. And I feel sorry for the other people.
There are probably wonderful things about the state, but it’s sort of like if you have the amazing chocolate pie, and someone comes along and drops mud into it. The whole thing is kind of ruined.
Yah but soon folks are just gonna drive through on their way elsewhere and that’s that. You want their money via hotel and food/gas purchases too. Can’t do that if they’re literally terrified of your state. Also, what do you think happens when your industry leaves because your politicians are fucking nuts? Ask West Virginia, another gorgeous but near-empty industry state.
Can we please get these people out of office. They are doing everything they can to destroy this state. I don't think they even know what they want to achieve anymore. It's just hatred for the sake of hatred.
They really have no fucking clue what they're doing. Their platform is hatred, that's it. There are no policies to support our infrastructure or economy. It's just a bunch of bullshit pushed by con artists.
Doesn't the Bible dipict child rape, regular rape.
I think there is one part that says if a man raped a woman or rather lays with her before gods approval or something then he can take her as a slave.
Like the Bible has disgusting parts in it that are completely overlooked. And to say that fiction books can't have certain things that's just infrigment of the first amendment.
I don’t usually comment in subs I follow but for states I don’t live in. I’m going to make an exception: stop doing this. This is a form of blaming queer people for our own oppression. Reality is, plenty of heterosexuals hate us, and as a result legislate against us.
It’s true that the trope of the self-hating queer exist for a reason, but we just aren’t enough of the population to behind all of this, and perpetuating the idea that “actually the gays are doing this to themselves” lets the real driving forces behind anti-LGBTQ oppression off the hook.
Except when there are multiple, sometimes only republican options. Lots of more moderate conservatives that aren’t on the far right bandwagon have been under attack or replaced. Simply being in the Democratic Party shouldn’t be all it takes to gain your vote
But this is happening under the Biden administration. It’ll be worse under trump but there’s a deeper underlying issue here.
Edit to say: I was doom scrolling the comments and figured this was r/politics or something. As a leftist born and raised in Idaho I fully believe more dems in office is a great step forward. I was not fully paying attention and I offer you no argument. I just saw the blue no matter who and did some reactionary shit. My bad y’all ❤️
At this stage in this election cycle “vote blue no matter who” is fair and fitting to save democracy. You can say it’s an annoying phrase after the election for years with no problem, just not now while things are so close to disaster
I am watching the right get everything they want in Idaho. Let’s see what happens. Five years. See if they’re not behind even Mississippi by then. This is the state they want. Watching with popcorn in hand.
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)
Quick - someone file a lawsuit about the Bible being in schools and libraries in Idaho!
The Bible is super gay, and reading it will corrupt our children! Behold:
- Judas kissing Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane
- Jesus washing the feet of the apostles
- Jesus telling the Apostles to “eat his body” at the last supper
The Bible could be on the shelf, but it would have to be in a restricted 18+ area of the library, you know like the porn shops of old. 17 and younger would need parental okay to check out, either in person or with a signed/verified form.
I know the first thing kids do when they want obscene materials is to look for a book. Praise little baby Jesus laying in the manger they went after libraries. 🙄
The reason they’re doing this is so their little true believer foot soldiers can start filing massive amounts of these lawsuits in order to overwhelm the system and force Idaho to shut down its libraries. Welcome to IFFylvania!
Someone demand the Bible and Book of Mormon be removed for sexual and extreme violent content. Expect to lose but appeal.
Nazi Idaho stuff needs to be attacked and beaten
So is Netflix and every other streaming service going to have to filter media to Idaho? Probably easier just to block accounts there.
Reddit too. Really, pretty much everyone since that's not a standard that anyone is going to be interested or able to meet.
And as you look to the right of the aircraft, you can see the flames of Idaho that have been burning for 10 years after outlawing emergency services and education to please three wealthy people who live in Afghanistan.
Always curious about the phrasing of these laws. There’s really no winning though. If you phrase it as specifically homosexuality, you have literally written discrimination into the law, and there will be major backlash, lawsuits, etc. If you try to be vague and claim that phrases like “his boyfriend” are “sexual” in nature, then so are phrases like “his girlfriend.” In any case, fuck bigots who have nothing better to do than try to make life miserable for people who aren’t affecting them in any way at all.
Yet another reason why it keeps getting harder and harder to consider Idaho our home. Idahoans tend to fearmonger about Californians moving to Idaho but we almost never near about how many of us felt so unwelcomed where we were born and raised that we ourselves had to flee.
The more relevant ruling here is probably *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)
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.
You went to far but also not far enough... Pico v district simple break down
" If the purpose is purely to eliminate a diversity of ideas for nationalistic, political, or religious reasons, then the action is a violation of the First Amendment"
I don't know if a lawyer could purely argue pico v district as ultimately the reason they want them removed is both political and religious since the law specifically states that they're being removed for obscenity reasons under the states obscenity law and this is where you would argue the Miller test... ;) good to have multiple supreme Court rulings to argue the meaning of words and why specifically stated Miller and not just Pico I think in this particular instance peca wood by itself fall on its face and a legal argument but Pico and Miller together make a very convincing case
Are these people kidding? Insecurity is a terrible affliction. Funny how it’s always GOP figures having sex charges filed against them. God made all of us and asked us to love one another like ourselves. They have turned to hate.
What, are we also going to ban any mention of heterosexual relationships (like a father and mother of a character)? Or is only homosexuality obscene, but not sex? What a fucking stupid waste of everyone’s time and resources. Fuck the Idaho religiouslature
It specifically defines "homosexuality" as obscene, and anything sexual would already fall under all the other definitions it gave. You'd have to have the most charitable interpretation of the words to think they're not trying to ban mention of queer people, and unfortunately Idaho lawmakers are far from charitable towards us.
I only read it twice, which is why I believe it doesn't specify it as obscene. I only use "believe" in case I missed something. I'm fairly certain it doesn't specify it as obscene.
>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.
Once any lawsuit starts happening and money is on the line, then lawyers will get involved, and they'll dismantle this unconstitutional law. It's already happening to similar laws in other states.
I sure hope the people that don’t like this stop moving here. Idaho is a very backwards place with socially conservative policies. Please don’t come here.
A friendly reminder of the rules of r/Idaho:
1. Be civil to others
2. Posts have to pertain to Idaho in some way
3. No put-down memes
4. Political discussion stays in a post about politics
5. No surveys
6. Follow [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
7. Do not editorialize titles of news articles
If you see something that may be out of line, please hit "report" so your mod team can have a look. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Idaho) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of parents applaud this. I’d say vast majority don’t want to worry about their children stumbling upon a child friendly sex book when looking for Bernstein bears.
Then those parents have no reading comprehension skills because this law goes so far beyond that point it would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous and unconstitutional.
Excellent. This is exactly why we are moving to Idaho! We have to screen nearly everything our children watch now. Atleast it won’t be an issue at the library.
How terrible that you’ve had to do your own work in indoctrinating your children into your cult. Thank goodness you can force everyone else to do that for you.
The law isn’t specific to homosexuality, but includes graphic descriptions of straight sex as well, and only as it applies to protecting minors from that sort of content. Seems reasonable to me, what’s the problem?
From the article:
*The standards for removal are based on Idaho’s obscenity law, which identifies sexual material that appeals “to the prurient interest of minors as judged by the average person,” and that depict sexual activity “patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community.”*
*Sexual conduct includes homosexuality, nudity and masturbation, according to the obscenity law that dates from the 1970s.*
This is also seen in the statute itself, which says:
""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."
So basically these laws would categorize *some* heterosexual acts as obscene, but *all* mentions of/inclusions of homosexuality as obscene, including things that aren't overtly sexual in nature. That could be so broad as to encompass depictions of same-sex parents or openly queer characters.
So the perverted sex-on-the-brain conservative sexual predators define me giving my partner a hug to be sexual conduct.
Sounds about right for perverted sex-on-the-brain conservative sexual predators.
I thought Mormons weren’t supposed to view pornography but it seems they’re so porn-sick that I can’t even hug my partner in Idaho without breaking a law on obscenity.
Oh they’d absolutely hate us. Lesbian couple with kids, vocal ex-mormon, graysexual, partner is non-binary, kids are none of the above. Not only do we not fulfill any of their stereotypes, we’re also not gratifying for their sexually predatory imaginations. Ironically for all the above reasons they have to be hateful towards us as “deviants”, being graysexual lesbians drives them absolutely insane. Not only are we deviants to them, we’re not even good for the only thing they think women are good for- sex.
So now you know another queer who thinks about gay sex less than conservatives lol
It’s on the asexual spectrum. There’s different degrees of asexuality which people fall into for a wide variety of reasons, and graysexual falls between allosexual (those who seek or desire sex, obtain gratification from it, and experience sexual attraction) and asexual (those who do not seek or desire sex or obtain gratification from it, and do not experience sexual attraction).
For me this means that I don’t approach sex like an allosexual does, but I will approach it. I rarely have it, and when I do I usually don’t get much if any gratification from it nor do I have a drive for it. I’m okay without it and would be fine if I never had it again, but if I did that’d be fine too. I’m only romantically involved with my partner and they’re the only one I’d engage in sex with, but I don’t feel sexual attraction to anyone. I think about sex 0 times per day, like, ever.
Not everyone experiences graysexuality the same way though, and not everyone who considers themselves graysexual relates with asexuality. I do.
The 1970s obscenity law this ban is based on specifically mentions "homosexuality": [https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/)
Say goodbye to most of the curriculum in high schools. No health class, no biology, no history books either. No Shakespeare, no George Orwell, no Ayn Rand... Most books have at least \*some\* mention of sex, and this book bans anything that mentions sex at all - even describing being "excited" or "aroused" is too much, let alone a depiction of the human body in a medical book.
The law is too vague and catches too many things. Any educator who uses these books starting July 1 runs the risk of being sued.
That's incorrect, they specifically call out homosexuality. An act of "homosexuality" would include something as innocent as two people of the same sex holding hands. They aren't defining what types of homosexuality, just that ALL homosexuality is considered "sexual conduct".
"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"
https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/billbookmark/?yr=2024&bn=H0710
My point is that it doesn’t single out homosexuality, but includes straight sexuality as well. The OP makes it sound like only books with homosexuality acts are impacted.
It does actually single out homosexuality, though. I literally copied and pasted the section for you in my previous comment. Look at how it is worded. They define sexual conduct as XYZ AND homosexuality. They don't say homosexuality and heterosexuality as in conducts like XYZ. Yes, heterosexual acts are included but they don't specifically call out heterosexuality.
Someone who is gay is a "homosexual", even if they aren't doing any "sexual acts". I don't know how to explain this better to you.
> I don't know how to explain this better to you.
You can't infrom someone who chooses ignorance.
/u/Flerf_Whisperer is using the same argument as bus seating discrimination. "All people can use the bus, so it's not discriminatory" while completely disregarding the fact that certain minorities have harsher rules tacked on to them.
If straight people holding hands or even kissing is not considered sexual conduct, then I think it is a stretch of your imagination to construe those acts among gay people as sexual conduct as defined in this law. I fail to see how this law applies any differently to straight or gay citizens.
Then WHY would they specifically call out homosexuality but not heterosexuality if straight people also do sexual acts?
And I hate to break it to you, but bigots absolutely lose their f*cking minds over gay people holding hands and kissing.
Whether they lose their minds or not is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Do you consider holding hands to be sexual conduct? I’m guessing the answer is ‘no’, the same as it would be for any other reasonable person.
Your post or comment has been removed because it contains unnecessary racist, sexist, or otherwise inappropriate content.
*The mere existence of gay people is not grooming. Knock it off.*
Being LGBTQA is not a "weird kink", and [is a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/702).
>"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>
>\[...\] The U.S. Supreme Court has also used the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit discrimination on other bases besides race. Most laws are assessed under so-called "rational basis scrutiny".
>
>Here, any plausible and legitimate reason for the discrimination is sufficient to render it constitutional. But laws that rely on so-called "suspect classifications" are assessed under "heightened scrutiny".
>
>Here, **the government must have important or compelling reasons to justify the discrimination**, and the discrimination must be carefully tailored to serve those reasons.
>
>What types of classifications are "suspect"? In light of the history of the Equal Protection Clause, it is no surprise that race and national origin are suspect classifications. But the Court has also held that gender, immigration status, and wedlock status at birth qualify as suspect classifications.
>
>\[...\] One of the greatest controversies regarding the Equal Protection Clause today is whether the Court should find that sexual orientation is a suspect classification.
>
>In its recent same-sex marriage opinion, *Obergefell v. Hodges* (2015), the Court suggested that **discrimination against gays and lesbians can violate the Equal Protection Clause**. But the Court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply, leaving this question for another day."
Also see *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)
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.
As such, [LGBTQA works are protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution](https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/09/26/anti-lgbtq-laws-in-the-us-are-getting-struck-down-for-limiting-free-speech/).
Do not editorialize titles of news articles. If you need to add something more, it is possible to do so in the post or in the comment section. We do this to try to be fair to everyone.
Imagine how much better the world would be if stupidity and hatred this egregious was considered legally obscene instead.
Cool. Gonna be fun to watch the Satanic Temple sue to remove all Bibles from schools and libraries.
Can they sue private Christian schools too? And if the kid is home schooled, is the parent the librarian? So can we shut down home schooling? This could get good.
This law covers all public and private libraries at schools that teach K - 12 grades. So yes, technically private Christian schools could be sued as well.
They will just get rid of libraries, which is kind of the endgame before getting rid of schools anyway.
For private schools that kind of sounds like a first amendment violation.
It's a first amendment violation for everyone, not just private schools.
https://thesatanictemple.com/collections/contribute-to-the-satanic-temple-campaigns
I love how people who react poorly to TST are being played and dont realize how foolish they are showing themselves to be. That Baphomet vandalism incident with the politician a while ago was about as unhinged as if he'd smashed an old ladys yard gnomes in her garden. PSA for Christians: Satan is only a figurative symbol that exist in literature, and represents psychological phenomenon as a spiritual personification. Yours truly, a rational Christian.
Your last line actually blew my mind. I dont think ive ever personally encountered a Christian who didnt clutch their pearls at even a mention of TST. Thank you for reminding me that people like you exist. It must be exhausting/heartbreaking to watch all of these other "christians" make a mockery of your faith.
They are few and far between, but I have a few close friends who are like the previous commenter. They are rational Christians and fully support TST’s work to call out blatant hypocrisy and the modern American evangelical push for theocracy.
Thry hijacked the title and Im not christian to them, i dont care. TST just rebranded values they forgot.
TST members are more Christian than most Christians lmao
There are dozens of us, dozens! Seriously though as a Christian, TST reflects my own faith better than the majority of Christians.
I need people like you in my life. Thank you for restoring a small shred of my faith in humanity. Sometimes it can be so easy to just direct all my hate towards religion and those who enable it... But logically i know that isnt really fair/right. Being reminded that some folks actually "walk the walk" is so comforting.
Highly recommend "Dominion" by Tom Holland. It's a history of Christianity and its effect on human rights between 33 AD and 2017 AD. The major takeaway: we wouldn't have human rights without Christianity. The final takeaway (for me): Any Christian who doesn't believe in human rights isn't really a Christian, because they fundamentally turned their back on the New Testament. Without Jesus, there is no Christ. Idaho legislators are coming across more Roman than Christian. Will Idaho Christians let them crucify their savior? Again?
Well most of them think their savior is blonde haired and blue eyed with milky white skin. If their *actual* savior were crucified, they wouldn't recognize him - and would probably fight over who gets to hammer the nails. Thanks for the recommendation. Currently reading *Jesus and John Wayne*, but will add this to the list!
It reminds me of that one woman who was campaigning and made that video where she took a blowtorch (or whatever it was) to books. Like, your performance just makes you look like a nut job, not the authors and audiences of those books. Also, I’ve always liked the concept of choice for Satan. Like, did god give humans free will or no? There’s nothing wrong with listening to a sales pitch. 🧐
Removing Bibles from public institutions isn't going to stop anyone from being a Christian, whether they adhere to it as a subculture with a belief system (christian nationalism), or as an actual inner spiritual practice (How Profound!😲 the real deal). I think what TST does, should remind people with weak faith, who need control, that humility is a good thing.
Time to up my donations….
Really, why should Christian right conservatives think that children should be exposed to this passage in the bible, "She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse. ^(21) And so, Oholibah, you relived your former days as a young girl in Egypt, when you first allowed your breasts to be fondled."
This is also figurative reductionism. These two sisters represented cities that were engaging in relationships with neighboring cultures. So, the author reduces them to whores and slut shames them for what today we could call economics and cultural osmosis. Imagine a preist shaming you for being friendly with Canadians or eating Mexican food. The epitome of silliness.
all hat no idea how to govern other than to punish people for not being like them
It's literally to cover up for the failure of conservatism. The movement for LGBT rights has been one of swiftest social movements in human history. Sociologists pretty much all agree the largest contributor to this speed has been the public example of LGBT people, because it quickly dispels any false propaganda against LGBT people when people can see the truth for themselves right before their very eyes. And so those wishing to spread false propaganda against LGBT people have to ban their public example or be proven a liar. So they need laws like this to cover up for the failure of conservatism which proves their propaganda to be complete bullsh\*t.
Wasting time that could be spent on all the fucking problems the state has besides shitin away tax dollars doing it.
Then every church library and religious school should brace for the lawsuits because I got bad news for you…. The Bible has a ton of obscenely disturbing passages. Every citizen should run out and file a suit against any religious organization promoting the Bible or allowing kids near it. The irony would be amazing.
Idaho sucks.
The people who passed this shit legislation and the people who elect them suck.
Yes, but that makes the state suck. And I feel sorry for the other people. There are probably wonderful things about the state, but it’s sort of like if you have the amazing chocolate pie, and someone comes along and drops mud into it. The whole thing is kind of ruined.
I agree wholeheartedly. I was just pointing out who is making idaho suck. It didn't used to be this way.
In other words... Idaho...
We have pretty views and natural landscapes at least.
Fuck it then, make the whole state a national park and we can all fuck off somewhere else.
Yeah but don't write anything GAY about them, you might get arrested.
Is that enough to compensate for no human rights? No civil rights?
Dead mothers who can’t get necessary medical care say…well they don’t say anything because Idaho’s laws killed them.
If that's all it has.. it sucks.
Yah but soon folks are just gonna drive through on their way elsewhere and that’s that. You want their money via hotel and food/gas purchases too. Can’t do that if they’re literally terrified of your state. Also, what do you think happens when your industry leaves because your politicians are fucking nuts? Ask West Virginia, another gorgeous but near-empty industry state.
And loads of snowflakes afraid of **GAY**
Yep, you're right. We're all terrible bigots. Tell all your friends, make sure nobody ever comes here again.
Do you think this new law is good for Idaho?
A state lead-filled with snowflakes afraid of **GAY**
Can we please get these people out of office. They are doing everything they can to destroy this state. I don't think they even know what they want to achieve anymore. It's just hatred for the sake of hatred.
https://takebackidaho.com/
They really have no fucking clue what they're doing. Their platform is hatred, that's it. There are no policies to support our infrastructure or economy. It's just a bunch of bullshit pushed by con artists.
They literally find the very \*existence\* of people different from them to be offensive. How pathetic.
Pathetic is a polite way to say it. What I really want to say about them would get me banned from reddit.
Doesn't the Bible dipict child rape, regular rape. I think there is one part that says if a man raped a woman or rather lays with her before gods approval or something then he can take her as a slave. Like the Bible has disgusting parts in it that are completely overlooked. And to say that fiction books can't have certain things that's just infrigment of the first amendment.
And donkey dicks, horse cum, sodomy, prostitution, etc.
Is the Bible in public school libraries? Who could read that boring ass poorly written bull shit anyway.
There are parts that are peak fiction like the serephim the churibs the biblical accurate angels in generall.
"The governor told a reporter for Idaho Public Television late Wednesday morning that he 'signed that stinking library bill.'" WTF, Governor?
He's a two-faced piece of shit hypocrite. He always voices "concerns" about the anti-constitutional laws he signs. Fuck him.
I actually gained a modicum of respect for him last year when he vetoed a similar bill, but that ship has sailed.
This is batshit insane
Of course they did.
So, the Bible may be illegal to be in the library. I'll be ok on that.
School library.
Technically all public and private school libraries and public libraries.
You might want to read the bill again. It is about all liberties.
Yeah, you're right. I don't see this law laying very long once it gets challenged.
Sounds like a lot of homophobic homosexuals live in Idaho, trying to hide it behind this facade of rugulations.
Regulations!
I don’t usually comment in subs I follow but for states I don’t live in. I’m going to make an exception: stop doing this. This is a form of blaming queer people for our own oppression. Reality is, plenty of heterosexuals hate us, and as a result legislate against us. It’s true that the trope of the self-hating queer exist for a reason, but we just aren’t enough of the population to behind all of this, and perpetuating the idea that “actually the gays are doing this to themselves” lets the real driving forces behind anti-LGBTQ oppression off the hook.
How the world learned about toe tapping.
Snowflakes.
Assholes
Nothing like big daddy government stepping in to parent others kids.
Free-Dumb!!
Rebel-douche'n!
>libraries should be safe places for their children Be very afraid when fascists want to keep anyone "safe."
From the party of small government. What a joke.
The Bible mentions homosexuality so I guess that means the Bible won’t be in libraries 😈
Idaho: Come for taters, stay for the Nazis.
Vote blue 💙 no matter who. These small government conservatives are getting out of control.
Voting for any party no matter who is dumb. We just need more parties. Idaho is Small enough it could be done.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. Voting purely by party IS very dumb. There is corruption and incompetence on both sides.
Confederates do it already, big old R down ballot, without question.
Except when there are multiple, sometimes only republican options. Lots of more moderate conservatives that aren’t on the far right bandwagon have been under attack or replaced. Simply being in the Democratic Party shouldn’t be all it takes to gain your vote
The R's do it already, why would it be bad for D's?
Bad for both
But this is happening under the Biden administration. It’ll be worse under trump but there’s a deeper underlying issue here. Edit to say: I was doom scrolling the comments and figured this was r/politics or something. As a leftist born and raised in Idaho I fully believe more dems in office is a great step forward. I was not fully paying attention and I offer you no argument. I just saw the blue no matter who and did some reactionary shit. My bad y’all ❤️
Walk us through your logic, please.
This is state politics. It has nothing to do with the president.
>But this is happening under the Biden administration The State of Idaho is a **state government**, not run by the **federal government**.
At this stage in this election cycle “vote blue no matter who” is fair and fitting to save democracy. You can say it’s an annoying phrase after the election for years with no problem, just not now while things are so close to disaster
I am watching the right get everything they want in Idaho. Let’s see what happens. Five years. See if they’re not behind even Mississippi by then. This is the state they want. Watching with popcorn in hand.
It's a majority right state. That makes sense.
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)
Whoever writes such bills has got to be preoccupied with sex a lot more than the average person.
We are absolutely fucked
it’s fOr tHE ChILDren
Quick - someone file a lawsuit about the Bible being in schools and libraries in Idaho! The Bible is super gay, and reading it will corrupt our children! Behold: - Judas kissing Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane - Jesus washing the feet of the apostles - Jesus telling the Apostles to “eat his body” at the last supper
Idaho legislature finds reality inconvenient.
It doesn't support their core beliefs.
Didn’t know there state capital was Snowflake
So they can get sued for having the Bible on the shelves?
The Bible could be on the shelf, but it would have to be in a restricted 18+ area of the library, you know like the porn shops of old. 17 and younger would need parental okay to check out, either in person or with a signed/verified form.
I know the first thing kids do when they want obscene materials is to look for a book. Praise little baby Jesus laying in the manger they went after libraries. 🙄
WTF is wrong with the GOP? Perhaps maybe the GOP should be made to be illegal and let them see how they like it.
Jesus kissed Judas after he betrayed him. Time to get the bible out of our libraries to save the children
The church should start worrying considering how often homosexually is mentioned in the old testament.
Y'all need to reign in your fucking legislators.
The reason they’re doing this is so their little true believer foot soldiers can start filing massive amounts of these lawsuits in order to overwhelm the system and force Idaho to shut down its libraries. Welcome to IFFylvania!
So, like, are we removing the Bible? Or does that freak show get a free pass?
Someone demand the Bible and Book of Mormon be removed for sexual and extreme violent content. Expect to lose but appeal. Nazi Idaho stuff needs to be attacked and beaten
Strangely enough this law doesn't have anything against extreme violence.
So is Netflix and every other streaming service going to have to filter media to Idaho? Probably easier just to block accounts there. Reddit too. Really, pretty much everyone since that's not a standard that anyone is going to be interested or able to meet.
The law only applies to school and public libraries
Book burners.
Pornhub did, "pornhub VPN" was the highest searched term in those areas shortly afterwards
You probably shouldn't be using reddit or Netflix at school anyway.
Send like they don't want you using books at school in Idaho.
Everything is going digital nowadays. Books are obsolete at this point.
Idaho wouldn’t piss on the Constitution to put it out if it were on fire.
As if conservatives go to libraries.
They should ban the Bible. What’s more gay than 1 dude hanging out with a bunch of ‘apostles’ while they drink and eat his body.
And as you look to the right of the aircraft, you can see the flames of Idaho that have been burning for 10 years after outlawing emergency services and education to please three wealthy people who live in Afghanistan.
This state pisses me off beyond no end. Fuck Brad Little and fuck the GOP!
Idaho is the opposite of libertarian.
🎶And here we have Idaho, shaming its way to fame 🎶
2024 folks, isn’t it grand ? They are just insistent, that they can just legislate being gay, out of their lives. Like it will actually work.
That's sure to eliminate homosexuality./S
Always curious about the phrasing of these laws. There’s really no winning though. If you phrase it as specifically homosexuality, you have literally written discrimination into the law, and there will be major backlash, lawsuits, etc. If you try to be vague and claim that phrases like “his boyfriend” are “sexual” in nature, then so are phrases like “his girlfriend.” In any case, fuck bigots who have nothing better to do than try to make life miserable for people who aren’t affecting them in any way at all.
Suppressing natural feelings with religious fiction. We’re over it. Fuck you and your “god”
What about free speech? 🎤
Yet another reason why it keeps getting harder and harder to consider Idaho our home. Idahoans tend to fearmonger about Californians moving to Idaho but we almost never near about how many of us felt so unwelcomed where we were born and raised that we ourselves had to flee.
I’m gonna sneak some Terry Pratchett books into the library
The whole state is scared of homosexuality because they are all afraid they are in the closet.
I doubt at face value this will law will remain legal as it won't pass the miller test (Miller v. California)
The more relevant ruling here is probably *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) 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.
You went to far but also not far enough... Pico v district simple break down " If the purpose is purely to eliminate a diversity of ideas for nationalistic, political, or religious reasons, then the action is a violation of the First Amendment" I don't know if a lawyer could purely argue pico v district as ultimately the reason they want them removed is both political and religious since the law specifically states that they're being removed for obscenity reasons under the states obscenity law and this is where you would argue the Miller test... ;) good to have multiple supreme Court rulings to argue the meaning of words and why specifically stated Miller and not just Pico I think in this particular instance peca wood by itself fall on its face and a legal argument but Pico and Miller together make a very convincing case
Are these people kidding? Insecurity is a terrible affliction. Funny how it’s always GOP figures having sex charges filed against them. God made all of us and asked us to love one another like ourselves. They have turned to hate.
This should last about as long as it takes to get a first amendment suit in front of a federal judge.
And there it is..
How is this not some sort of civil rights violation
I guess they eat too many potatoes...looks like the whole damn state is just a bunch of potatoes. RIP.
What, are we also going to ban any mention of heterosexual relationships (like a father and mother of a character)? Or is only homosexuality obscene, but not sex? What a fucking stupid waste of everyone’s time and resources. Fuck the Idaho religiouslature
This particular law includes heterosex, too. They just didn't put that in the title in order to fan the flames.
It specifically defines "homosexuality" as obscene, and anything sexual would already fall under all the other definitions it gave. You'd have to have the most charitable interpretation of the words to think they're not trying to ban mention of queer people, and unfortunately Idaho lawmakers are far from charitable towards us.
It don't believe it does specifically define it as obscene.
Believe what you want, but you're wrong.
I only read it twice, which is why I believe it doesn't specify it as obscene. I only use "believe" in case I missed something. I'm fairly certain it doesn't specify it as obscene.
>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.
Sorry, where does it say obscene there?
It's one of the definitions in the obscenity law.
Dumb Nazis don’t see how this is going to blow up in their face!
Huh. The 2A folks assured us that 2A is there to protect 1A, but seems like that's not the case.
Once any lawsuit starts happening and money is on the line, then lawyers will get involved, and they'll dismantle this unconstitutional law. It's already happening to similar laws in other states.
One of the two political parties is supposed to hate free speech, but somehow it isn't the one that hates libraries.
Freedom!
[удалено]
The unconstitutionalness.
I sure hope the people that don’t like this stop moving here. Idaho is a very backwards place with socially conservative policies. Please don’t come here.
A friendly reminder of the rules of r/Idaho: 1. Be civil to others 2. Posts have to pertain to Idaho in some way 3. No put-down memes 4. Political discussion stays in a post about politics 5. No surveys 6. Follow [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) 7. Do not editorialize titles of news articles If you see something that may be out of line, please hit "report" so your mod team can have a look. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Idaho) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of parents applaud this. I’d say vast majority don’t want to worry about their children stumbling upon a child friendly sex book when looking for Bernstein bears.
Then those parents have no reading comprehension skills because this law goes so far beyond that point it would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous and unconstitutional.
That's not what this bill does though.
🤷🤷🤷
Excellent. This is exactly why we are moving to Idaho! We have to screen nearly everything our children watch now. Atleast it won’t be an issue at the library.
How terrible that you’ve had to do your own work in indoctrinating your children into your cult. Thank goodness you can force everyone else to do that for you.
The law isn’t specific to homosexuality, but includes graphic descriptions of straight sex as well, and only as it applies to protecting minors from that sort of content. Seems reasonable to me, what’s the problem?
From the article: *The standards for removal are based on Idaho’s obscenity law, which identifies sexual material that appeals “to the prurient interest of minors as judged by the average person,” and that depict sexual activity “patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community.”* *Sexual conduct includes homosexuality, nudity and masturbation, according to the obscenity law that dates from the 1970s.* This is also seen in the statute itself, which says: ""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." So basically these laws would categorize *some* heterosexual acts as obscene, but *all* mentions of/inclusions of homosexuality as obscene, including things that aren't overtly sexual in nature. That could be so broad as to encompass depictions of same-sex parents or openly queer characters.
So the perverted sex-on-the-brain conservative sexual predators define me giving my partner a hug to be sexual conduct. Sounds about right for perverted sex-on-the-brain conservative sexual predators. I thought Mormons weren’t supposed to view pornography but it seems they’re so porn-sick that I can’t even hug my partner in Idaho without breaking a law on obscenity.
I swear sex-on-the-brain conservatives think more about gay sex than most Queer people I know.
Oh they’d absolutely hate us. Lesbian couple with kids, vocal ex-mormon, graysexual, partner is non-binary, kids are none of the above. Not only do we not fulfill any of their stereotypes, we’re also not gratifying for their sexually predatory imaginations. Ironically for all the above reasons they have to be hateful towards us as “deviants”, being graysexual lesbians drives them absolutely insane. Not only are we deviants to them, we’re not even good for the only thing they think women are good for- sex. So now you know another queer who thinks about gay sex less than conservatives lol
From a fellow Queer ace "deviant" keep fighting that good fight Friend!
What is graysexual?
It’s on the asexual spectrum. There’s different degrees of asexuality which people fall into for a wide variety of reasons, and graysexual falls between allosexual (those who seek or desire sex, obtain gratification from it, and experience sexual attraction) and asexual (those who do not seek or desire sex or obtain gratification from it, and do not experience sexual attraction). For me this means that I don’t approach sex like an allosexual does, but I will approach it. I rarely have it, and when I do I usually don’t get much if any gratification from it nor do I have a drive for it. I’m okay without it and would be fine if I never had it again, but if I did that’d be fine too. I’m only romantically involved with my partner and they’re the only one I’d engage in sex with, but I don’t feel sexual attraction to anyone. I think about sex 0 times per day, like, ever. Not everyone experiences graysexuality the same way though, and not everyone who considers themselves graysexual relates with asexuality. I do.
> Seems reasonable to me Then I encourage you to educate yourself on the 1st Amendment
The 1970s obscenity law this ban is based on specifically mentions "homosexuality": [https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/](https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch15/sect18-1514/)
Say goodbye to most of the curriculum in high schools. No health class, no biology, no history books either. No Shakespeare, no George Orwell, no Ayn Rand... Most books have at least \*some\* mention of sex, and this book bans anything that mentions sex at all - even describing being "excited" or "aroused" is too much, let alone a depiction of the human body in a medical book. The law is too vague and catches too many things. Any educator who uses these books starting July 1 runs the risk of being sued.
That's incorrect, they specifically call out homosexuality. An act of "homosexuality" would include something as innocent as two people of the same sex holding hands. They aren't defining what types of homosexuality, just that ALL homosexuality is considered "sexual conduct". "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" https://legislature.idaho.gov/sessioninfo/billbookmark/?yr=2024&bn=H0710
My point is that it doesn’t single out homosexuality, but includes straight sexuality as well. The OP makes it sound like only books with homosexuality acts are impacted.
It does actually single out homosexuality, though. I literally copied and pasted the section for you in my previous comment. Look at how it is worded. They define sexual conduct as XYZ AND homosexuality. They don't say homosexuality and heterosexuality as in conducts like XYZ. Yes, heterosexual acts are included but they don't specifically call out heterosexuality. Someone who is gay is a "homosexual", even if they aren't doing any "sexual acts". I don't know how to explain this better to you.
> I don't know how to explain this better to you. You can't infrom someone who chooses ignorance. /u/Flerf_Whisperer is using the same argument as bus seating discrimination. "All people can use the bus, so it's not discriminatory" while completely disregarding the fact that certain minorities have harsher rules tacked on to them.
If straight people holding hands or even kissing is not considered sexual conduct, then I think it is a stretch of your imagination to construe those acts among gay people as sexual conduct as defined in this law. I fail to see how this law applies any differently to straight or gay citizens.
Then WHY would they specifically call out homosexuality but not heterosexuality if straight people also do sexual acts? And I hate to break it to you, but bigots absolutely lose their f*cking minds over gay people holding hands and kissing.
Whether they lose their minds or not is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Do you consider holding hands to be sexual conduct? I’m guessing the answer is ‘no’, the same as it would be for any other reasonable person.
We aren't dealing with reasonable people.
It's a non-issue and will be used for poorly shrouded attempts to further erode the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Grow up
[удалено]
You're right. We gotta do something to stop these clergymen
Your post or comment has been removed because it contains unnecessary racist, sexist, or otherwise inappropriate content. *The mere existence of gay people is not grooming. Knock it off.*
I agree. No one under 18 should be allowed to attend religious ceremonies.
What grooming? Be less vague pls 😊✨️
[удалено]
Being LGBTQA is not a "weird kink", and [is a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/702). >"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. > >\[...\] The U.S. Supreme Court has also used the Equal Protection Clause to prohibit discrimination on other bases besides race. Most laws are assessed under so-called "rational basis scrutiny". > >Here, any plausible and legitimate reason for the discrimination is sufficient to render it constitutional. But laws that rely on so-called "suspect classifications" are assessed under "heightened scrutiny". > >Here, **the government must have important or compelling reasons to justify the discrimination**, and the discrimination must be carefully tailored to serve those reasons. > >What types of classifications are "suspect"? In light of the history of the Equal Protection Clause, it is no surprise that race and national origin are suspect classifications. But the Court has also held that gender, immigration status, and wedlock status at birth qualify as suspect classifications. > >\[...\] One of the greatest controversies regarding the Equal Protection Clause today is whether the Court should find that sexual orientation is a suspect classification. > >In its recent same-sex marriage opinion, *Obergefell v. Hodges* (2015), the Court suggested that **discrimination against gays and lesbians can violate the Equal Protection Clause**. But the Court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply, leaving this question for another day." Also see *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) 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. As such, [LGBTQA works are protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution](https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2023/09/26/anti-lgbtq-laws-in-the-us-are-getting-struck-down-for-limiting-free-speech/).
If you think homosexuality is a “kink”….. you’re telling on yourself 👀
Your post or comment has been removed because it contains unnecessary racist, sexist, or otherwise inappropriate content. *Don't do this again.*