First off, thank you for the debate. It's what I come to HN for.

Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people?

I find it interesting that parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory.

Should the Quran be available in libraries in Wyoming? Should the Bible be available in libraries in Pakistan?

> Out of interest, of the list in the first table, are there any books that you agree should not be accessible to young people?

I don't know about each individual book listed; but I would like to sidestep that and address the fact idea that "parental pressure, probably heavily influenced by political, cultural and religious leanings, can influence what a library can have in it's inventory."

This has always been true, and I believe, always will be true. Even the liberal free world has its limits beyond which you will experience outrage if you speak a certain thought. If Alex Jones wrote a book about Frog Biology, even the most astute "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately shout that has no place in the school. If David Duke wrote a book about understanding the Jewish race, once again, even the most "we must not ban books!" parent would immediately scream that should be purged from the shelves. I think many of the same individuals would be extremely opposed to a hypothetical book written by Trump entitled "Being a Good President and Fulfilling Your Civic Duties." Heck, what about "Andrew Tate's Guide to Being a Cool Dude?" What about "James Damore's guide to Diversity in Action at Google?"

There is no disagreement, truly, that some books or ideas are beyond the pale. I think you would admit yourself that you would not want an Alex Jones Biology book to be where a child could find it even if it had no sexually explicit or otherwise harmful content other than the ideas inside of it. If you are opposed to any of my above hypotheticals (David Duke's Guide to Jews), you are admitting that sharing some ideas is harmful and should be stopped, like it or not. The only question is what content and what ideas is considered harmful. And of course, what standards determine what content should not be permitted.

Florida has picked their standards - it's traditional religious opposition to LGBTQ+ content. Note that it's not even Christian opposition - There was an incident just last week with Islamic people in Canada burning the Rainbow flag (because there is only one religion on earth that still actively stones gays). They've chosen general religious values, as they generally apply across many religions' teachings. Like it? Don't like it? Don't pretend like either side doesn't have things they don't want to censor. It's what to censor, not whether we censor.

> It's what to censor, not whether we censor.

Are you not going to try and draw any line at all to protect free speech rights in this scenario? I mean, if we're going to one extreme and talking about David Duke, we should also talk about the other extreme as well. If a school board decided that any book by a black author would not be allowed in the library, would you view that as an unreasonable exercise of government power? If a school board decided that any books that criticized a specific political party (either Republican or Democrat, pick whichever you'd like) should be banned, would that be an abuse of government power? What if they banned any text that referred positively to a religion, are we allowed to call that government overreach?

Is there even such a thing as an unreasonable exercise of government power over school library content? Or should we just throw up our hands and say everything is fine and anybody can censor anything they want for school kids?

Remember that the 1st Amendment does still apply to minors. We typically allow more government intervention into their lives than we do into the lives of adults, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that children have constitutional rights.

So the question is not whether or not it's always wrong to censor material from a school library. Like you've said, there are types of content that pretty much everyone agrees should be censored from a school library. But that's not what we're asking; we're asking if it's crossing a line for the government to censor this content. Is it acceptable for a government to censor material based on (what you yourself describe as) explicitly religious criteria? That doesn't ring any 1st Amendment-related alarms for you?

It's very common for people to attempt to sidestep questions about government censorship by (correctly) pointing out that all governments censor. But falling back on the commonly cited Popehat article (https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...):

> The observation "not all speech is protected" adds nothing to a discussion because it offers no mechanism for determining whether the speech at issue falls into a traditional exception or not.

> Are you not going to try and draw any line at all to protect free speech rights in this scenario? [...] Remember that the 1st Amendment does still apply to minors. We typically allow more government intervention into their lives than we do into the lives of adults, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that children have constitutional rights.

Yes, children have constitutional rights. Also, ironically, the US Government has ruled that these rights can be reasonably curtailed at public schools even though they are US Government funded. An example just a day ago, a judge ruled that a student could be disciplined for wearing a "There are two genders" T-Shirt. I'm not saying that's right or wrong - but that statement was just ruled to be not free expression on school grounds. First Amendment need not apply on school grounds, that's already established.

> What if they banned any text that referred positively to a religion, are we allowed to call that government overreach?

Do we arguably not do that now? I am sure that any books endorsing Osama Bin Laden's extremist interpretation of Islam is not welcome on shelves.

> So the question is not whether or not it's always wrong to censor material from a school library. Like you've said, there are types of content that pretty much everyone agrees should be censored from a school library. But that's not what we're asking; we're asking if its crossing a line for the government to censor this content.

There is, I believe, a major distinction you are forgetting. The First Amendment protects the student's right to speak - but does it actually protect the school's right to say whatever they wish to the students? Where do you assume that it works vice-versa? Schools can, and do, implement restrictions on vice-versa speech all the time. If a teacher starts, or attempts to start, a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old female student, he will almost certainly be fired and often legally investigated even if it was technically legal. If a teacher makes sexist jokes in class, the First Amendment won't protect him even if he was employed by the government, literally working on publicly-owned ground.

> Is it acceptable for a government to censor material based on (what you yourself describe as) explicitly religious criteria? That doesn't ring any 1st Amendment-related alarms for you?

To be fair, the First Amendment has always legally had an exception for obscenity from a judicial perspective. There was also the "Miller Test," which is still technically legally binding, declaring obscenity to not be legally protected. Nowadays, what is considered obscenity is very narrow - but it used to be far more broad and our earlier presidents and Founding Fathers saw no problem with that. Free Speech was intended by them to promote progress and intelligent discussion, not to promote what they would have viewed as debauchery, so they saw no conflict. This is also why laws making it a misdemeanor (at a minimum) to knowingly distribute pornography to a minor are still legal and binding right now.

> Also, ironically, the US Government has ruled that these rights can be reasonably curtailed at public schools even though they are US Government funded.

"Reasonably" being the key word here. Does a specifically religiously based restriction of speech fall into that category -- is that "reasonable"? Probably not; after all we call that category of discrimination out specifically in the constitution as being not OK.

> An example just a day ago, a judge ruled that a student could be disciplined for wearing a "There are two genders" T-Shirt. I'm not saying that's right or wrong.

Why aren't you saying if that's right or wrong? Like, seriously, does that seem to you like a reasonable use of government power? And do you think if that case was escalated up to the Supreme Court they would agree?

You're still making the same argument: "some speech is restricted." Well, yeah, but the why matters. The categories are not arbitrary. Some speech is allowed to be restricted, but some speech is not allowed to be restricted. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of student expression before.

So it's not useful to say "some speech is restricted." Some is, some isn't. Which of those two categories does this restriction of speech fall into?

> The First Amendment protects the student's right to speak - but does it actually protect the school's right to say whatever they wish to the students?

Yes, teachers are also covered by the 1st Amendment. And government restriction of viewpoint and restriction of access to a viewpoint can fall foul of the 1st Amendment. As just one example, if a student asks a teacher what religion they are, and the teacher answers that they're a Christian -- if they're not directly proselytizing, that is protected speech. We had a court case about this recently before the Supreme Court, and while the details of that expression were contested and court members disagreed about whether that expression was protected -- the basic idea that teachers have freedom of speech was not contested. The whole court was in agreement on that point; and ultimately the majority of the court ruled that banning or retaliating against that specific expression of religious speech was unconstitutional.

Not only did the entire court agree that teachers have 1st Amendment rights, the majority of the court ultimately argued that specific instance of expression was protected speech.

Viewpoint suppression by the government can be a 1st Amendment issue. To reiterate the above point, you keep saying that not all censorship is unconstitutional. But some censorship in schools is unconstitutional. We don't give the government unlimited power to suppress viewpoint in public school settings.

> if a teacher starts, or attempts to start, a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old female student

What? What on earth does this have to do with speech or censorship? Or are you implying this is a vice-versa restriction? It's not. If a teacher is in a sexual relationship with a student, it doesn't matter who started it, it's still grossly inappropriate.

> It's a matter of which books.

Right, but what I'm saying is that this argument is complete nonsense. "We censor some things but not other things" -- yeah, that's how the 1st Amendment works. It has limitations and they're established in law, and it is useful to try and figure out when something is still stepping over a line because it is possible to step over the line.

Of course, both Democrats and Republicans are often hypocritical about free speech issues. That is to be expected. But it adds nothing to the conversation to say "some censorship is allowed." Okay, some censorship is allowed. So? Sometimes Democrats are hypocritical about speech, and that means... what we're all going to be hypocritical now? We're just going to have a field day with it, everybody ban anything they want?

Is censorship that is (by your description) specifically designed to enforce religious adherence constitutional? That question doesn't go away just because we don't allow porn in the kids section of a library.

This just seems so silly to me. Who looks at someone being hypocritical and says, "the answer to this is to have fewer objective standards so that it's even easier for hypocrites to abuse power?"

> And yet, if they were to say an optional non-denominational prayer before the beginning of class, they would often risk be fired. SCOTUS has ruled that's OK. I think that's wrong but that's how that stands now.

If you're referring to Abington v. Schempp, SCOTUS protections for retaliation in that area have never been weaker. But okay, let's talk about those boundaries. The Supreme Court has clearly ruled (recently) that it is illegal to fire a teacher over some religious speech, including specifically optional public prayers. So there does appear to be a boundary here between what the Supreme Court views as government censorship vs government compelled speech. I guarantee you the Supreme Court does not see that boundary as arbitrary.

So we're back to the start. Some speech is protected, some isn't. But you can't act like this is arbitrary; pointing out that some speech is banned adds nothing to the conversation. And if your argument is that the Supreme Court believes that state-endorsement of Deism isn't protected, that's not really an argument in favor of religiously motivated book bans.

> My point was, is a teacher permitted to perform speech that would attempt to solicit such a relationship

Entering into a sexual relationship with a student is not speech.