> On the right today is Idaho with their new book banning law prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not).
This is misleading. It's against anything pornographic being made accessible in schools / to people under 18 years old, LGBT or otherwise. "Homosexuality" is mentioned only once:
> 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.
In a section that's 11 points long. Besides which, this whole section already existed, it was just amended recently and this part I quoted wasn't changed.
There is nothing that in the law that allows the libraries to defend whether a book is harmful to minors once the challenge is made. So any challenged books have to go into the adults-only section.
26% of books challenged in 2023 had no sexual content. Since the library has their hands tied, those books must go into the adults only section. Including the books on Rosa Parks.
I see you are not even trying to defend your previous assertion that Idaho is "prohibiting minors from accessing books with LGBTQ+ themes (regardless of whether there was any sex or not)". Instead you have sent a couple of new soldiers into the fight.
This is misleading. It's against anything pornographic being made accessible in schools / to people under 18 years old, LGBT or otherwise. "Homosexuality" is mentioned only once:
> 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.
In a section that's 11 points long. Besides which, this whole section already existed, it was just amended recently and this part I quoted wasn't changed.