gender queer – Techdirt (original) (raw)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone called the police last Friday.

About a book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed Under: 1st amendment, berkshire hills regional school district, book banning, books, gender queer, great barrington, libraries, massachusetts, miles wheat, obscenity, paul storti, peter dillon, police, school libraries, schools, w.e.b. du bois regional middle school

Virginia Politicians Are Suing Books They Don’t Like

from the book-burning-but-for-lawyers dept

Civil asset forfeiture has shown us the government has a weird way of instigating lawsuits. In rem forfeiture cases allow government agencies to file suits against objects, rather than the people they’ve been seized from. This leads to some very amusing case names (even if the underlying process verges on legalized theft), like South Dakota v. 15 Impounded Cats and, um… UNITED STATES of America v. AN ARTICLE of hazardous substance CONSISTING OF 50,000 cardboard BOXES more or less, each containing one pair OF CLACKER BALLS, labeled in part: (Box) “* * * Kbonger * * It’s Fun Test Your Skill It Bounces It Flips Count The Hits * * * Specialty Mfg. Co., Seattle, Wash. * *.

A state law in Virginia allows residents to sue things rather than people. That’s what a couple of ridiculous politicians (Delegate Timothy Anderson and congressional candidate Tommy Altman) have done. Their legal action targets two books — “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe and “A Court of Mist and Fury” by Sarah J. Mass — in hopes of securing a ruling declaring the books “legally obscene,” thereby prohibiting them from being distributed by the state’s public schools (either by instructors in classes or via school libraries).

“Gender Queer” offends these Republican politicians for reasons that can probably be inferred from the title. “A Court of Mist and Fury” is a bit trickier. For whatever reason, the pair of pols believe depictions of physical and sexual abuse are de facto obscene. And, for whatever reason, the two scored an early win in court, with a preliminary ruling stating enough evidence of potential obscenity had been alleged that the case could move forward.

Now, FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) has stepped in to ask the court to find the First Amendment far outweighs the overstated (and politically expedient) arguments of these two Virginia politicians.

In today’s brief, FIRE and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation argue that neither book comes close to constituting obscenity as defined for minors under longstanding state and federal precedent. The books “will not appeal to or have value to every audience,” we recognize, but the First Amendment only requires that the books have “value to an audience” — and both plainly do.

The brief [PDF] points out the best arbiters of individual taste are (duh) individuals. Long-recognized rights give parents and readers the option to read what they want. A broadly interpreted obscenity statute — especially when attached to a bizarre law that allows people to sue books — allows the government to decide what people should be allowed to read. That decision isn’t the government’s to make.

Some readers will choose not to purchase or read the books at issue in this case. Some retailers and some librarians will decline to place them on the shelves. Our Constitution reserves these choices for individuals and forbids them from the state. In our pluralist democracy, the First Amendment prescribes a remedy for audiences offended by protected speech: those who seek to avoid “bombardment of their sensibilities” may do so “simply by averting their eyes.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971). Declaring books obscene because they include discussions or depictions of sex would reprise a discredited era of censorship repudiated by decades of Supreme Court precedent.

If the court continues to entertain the bullshit arguments of easily offended politicians, it’s going to aid and abet all sorts of censorship — not just in Virginia, but anywhere else opportunists see an opportunity to use someone else’s ill-gotten courtroom gains as leverage to foist their mindset on the people they’re supposed to be serving.

Without clarity from this Court, petitioners like the politicians here may prohibit parents from deciding what their children may read. Nor is this authority limited to books. Broad authority to prohibit or criminalize the availability of materials containing references to sexual content would enable the state to incarcerate a parent who allows a teenager to view an R-rated movie or even to access the internet.

Nor would the effects of such an order be limited to this Court’s territorial jurisdiction. Instead, it would embolden and invite further calls for censorship in school districts, libraries, and bookstores across the country—not only of these books, but of any now targeted by ambitious politicians nationwide. The resulting chill will force libraries, bookstores, and publishers unable to bear the cost of litigation to choose the cheapest option: censorship. But state-enforced silence has a cost, too, and it will be borne by groups without the political power to defend speech of interest to their communities—those who most need the First Amendment and courts that will adhere to its narrow limitations.

Chilling effects can’t easily be contained. Slopes become slippery at a moment’s notice. What somehow worked in Virginia will become model legislation for would-be censors around the nation. The way to head this off is to shut down hyper-local efforts like this one with strong affirmations of constitutional rights. Hopefully, the court will come down on the right side of history when it dives deeper into the issues.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, a court of mist and fury, book burning, books, censorship, gender queer, obscenity, suing books, timothy anderson, virginia

Virginia Attorney, Congressional Hopeful File Doomed Lawsuit Against Barnes & Noble Over ‘Obscene’ Books

from the professional-moral-panicists dept

Two political figures determined to play to the base no matter what it costs them have filed lawsuits against book retailer Barnes & Noble, claiming (one specific Virginia Beach store, along with a Virginia Beach school) the company is marketing “obscene” books to kids.

It’s all incredibly stupid. Here’s Kelly Jensen with the details for Book Riot.

Last week, Virginia Beach (VA) schools voted to remove Gender Queer from shelves. It came after school board member Victoria Manning complained about it and several other books within the schools. After the initial review of the book and several others, Manning appealed the decision made to keep the book and after reconsideration, the book was pulled.

Now a Virginia lawyer is stepping in to take the decision further: he’s filing a suit against the school and against the Barnes & Noble store in Virginia Beach.

Virginia Beach attorney and State Delegate Tim Anderson, posted on Facebook that he and his client Tommy Altman–a right-wing republican running for Congress in the district housing Virginia Beach–saw the Virginia Beach Circuit Court find “probable cause that the books Gender Queer and A Court of Mist and Fury are obscene to unrestricted viewing by minors.”

Altman (the congressional hopeful) is apparently “directing” this litigation. Tim Anderson (who may have a serious conflict of interest problem given his position as a State Delegate [the state equivalent to a Congressperson]) seems more than willing to take the First Amendment for a ride through the state’s court system, apparently hoping to define “obscenity” in a way no court at any level has defined obscenity in the past.

Anderson, who should definitely know better, is presenting some standard procedural efforts as a “victory” for people like him and his client, who somehow believe they can be the final arbiters of published obscenity.

Anderson’s Facebook post prematurely declares victory.

I am pleased to announce a major legal victory.

Today, the Virginia Beach Circuit Court has found probable cause that the books Gender Queer and a Court of Mist and Fury are obscene to unrestricted viewing by minors.

My client, Tommy Altman, has now directed my office to seek a restraining order against Barnes and Noble and Virginia Beach Schools to enjoin them from selling or loaning these books to minors without parent consent.

But that’s not what the documents posted by Anderson show. Those documents [embedded below] are nothing more than the court inviting the sued parties to present their arguments against Anderson’s and Altman’s ridiculous “obscenity” accusations.

What Anderson has posted is two Orders to Show Cause. These direct the sued parties to respond within 21 days of notice. While the Orders state that the court has found “probable cause” that the books are “obscene for unrestricted viewing by minors,” this determination means very little until the court has reviewed the arguments of those being sued.

Literally anything can be called “probable cause” when it comes to court actions. That’s how prosecutors are able to get prosecutions initiated. They present one side of the case and the court determines whether those accusations — entirely divorced from any counterarguments or motions by the defense — is enough to proceed with fact-finding. That’s what is happening here and it very definitely isn’t the “victory” Anderson claims it is. Further fact finding may determine those initiating the action are full of shit. Declaring victory before the accused has even had a chance to respond is the height of disingenuousness.

As the Virginia Beach court dockets show (as of May 22, 2022 — see below), the only action happening right now has been generated by the agitators who seem to believe they’ll be able to sidestep the First Amendment to prevent a private company from offering certain books for sale. They seem to believe the same thing about the Virginia school targeted in this action, but that’s another set of standards completely — one that involves government-on-government action and is a bit more complicated than the virtually ensured loss heading their way in terms of what Barnes & Noble can stock in its stores.

The two Republican politicians are asking for a restraining order, which is the logical move to make. But most of this will remain on hold until the defendants have a chance to respond. Unless the judge is smoking the same partisan crack the plaintiffs are, the TRO requests will remain on ice until after the show cause orders are fulfilled.

It’s unclear whether this court was chosen for its unwillingness to respect the First Amendment or just because it was conveniently located. If this court rules in the plaintiffs’ favor and grants a restraining order, it will have to step over the still-cooling corpse of the First Amendment to do so. There’s nothing in these books that even approaches the standard for obscenity. And there’s a good chance these two agitators know it. Even if they lose, they win. They’ll be able to present their lawsuit dismissals as evidence the entire system is corrupt. It’s (almost) free advertising, especially when so many mainstream outlets are willing to present their allegations (while using the plaintiffs’ loaded language) without pointing out the extreme unlikelihood of their success.

Even if they win at this level, they’ll still lose. The First Amendment protects a vast amount of speech and nothing singled out by this pair of hatemongers even approaches the lowest of precedential bars erected by courts in this country.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, a court of mist and fury, book burning, books, culture war, free speech, gender queer, obscenity, tim anderson, tommy altman, virginia beach
Companies: barnes & noble