A GOP bill in North Dakota would throw librarians in prison if they don’t remove books about sexual or gender identity. Because “Chaucer destabilizes the notion of fixed gender difference but then privileges masculine identity by reconstructing the feminine in orthodox ways”, North Dakota’s state police may need to arrest servers not normally located in restaurants.
North Dakota lawmakers are considering legislation to ban books containing “sexually explicit” content from public libraries. Under the proposed law, librarians who refuse to remove books containing such content, which includes depictions of “sexual identity” and “gender identity” as well as “sexual preference,” “sexual intercourse,” and “sexual perversion,” would face 30 days in prison and a $1,500 fine.
The state’s Republican-dominated House Judiciary Committee heard arguments over the bill, introduced by House Majority Leader Mike Lefor (R), on Tuesday but did not take a vote.
Lefor claimed that public libraries contain books featuring “disturbing and disgusting” content and argued that a child’s exposure to such content has been associated with addiction, poor self-esteem, devalued intimacy, increasing divorce rates, unprotected sex among young people, and poor well-being without offering any evidence to support those claims, NBC News reports.
The North Dakota bill is just the latest move by Republican lawmakers across the country to ban books dealing with sexual and gender identity, which they characterize as “sexually explicit,” from libraries. As has been repeatedly noted by opponents of this type of legislation, although all people have sexual and gender identities, these bans often specifically target content dealing with LGBTQ+ characters and issues.
www.lgbtqnation.com/...
Well, in our current information world, what does it mean to challenge or ban a book? You can torrent the book or you can get it through Kindle — [banning] it doesn't actually remove the book.
The United States hasn't banned a book since “Ulysses” on the federal government level so you just cannot get it. It's much more about: “What do we value in our community? What values do we impart to future generations?” It’s also about,” I thought all my neighbors agreed with me about these values, and I see that they don't.”
It's not totally symbolic because, of course, there are kids who don't have money or a computer to be able to read these books. But [current censorship movements] don't actually ban the ideas in general, [and] it doesn't really say anything about the United States. It's super-localized. And to me, that's where it is symbolic. It's sort of like a dry county, right? That doesn't really do anything for people actually not drinking.
news.yahoo.com/...
It’s imperative that you understand the news value of this story is not to laugh at someone dressing in drag. No, the value is that George Santos campaigned as a Trump-loving, ultra-conservative candidate and continues to align himself with far right figures who cheer-lead violence at drag events and actively cause harm to a generous and beautiful community.
thehandbasket.substack.com/…
Santos (R-NY), who’s reportedly gone by a number of aliases in his truth-challenged past, appears to be depicted in a photo in a drag costume from 2008, according to an article from the Substack site “The Handbasket” by reporter Marisa Kabas.
The latest look into Santos’ younger years was revealed to Kabas by Eula Rochard, a drag queen in Brazil and former friend of Santos.
Santos and Rochard met when Rochard was already an established drag queen in a Brazilian city next to Rio de Janeiro, according to the report.
[...]
The freshman congressman became a national punch line after he was caught in a series of lies about his college education, employment history and ethnic heritage, among other tall tales that keep piling up.
nypost.com/...
at 4:20