zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
So if I donate a pornographic novel to an elementary school in Illinois, besides being an asshole, have I put them in a position of having to circulate it or lose funding?

>>aidenn+7f
No library system is under any particular obligation to stock what you give them, much less accept donations to begin with. It's unclear why they would be, much less why this would be a "gotcha" in this context.

>>woodru+hf
If they are under no obligation to stock any particular book, then what is the point of this law?

>>aidenn+Xg
Because they are under an obligation to not stock or not stock for doctrinal, partisan, etc. reasons.

In other words: there are plenty of reasons to not stock a book that are not partisan or doctrinal. We don't expect public schools to pay for expensive medieval manuscripts, for example, or to stock books in languages that aren't represented in their district.

>>woodru+eh
Ah, I found the doctrinal/partisan language after following some links.

I don't see how pornographic bans wouldn't qualify as "doctrinal" though they are not particularly partisan.

>>aidenn+Ik
> I don't see how pornographic bans wouldn't qualify as "doctrinal" though they are not particularly partisan.

You're leading with the assumption that you and I (or anyone else, really) agrees on what "pornography" is, much less that we agree in a non-partisan context.

The context here is that there's been a significant effort in the last ~18 months to reclassify LGBTQ fiction and non-fiction as pornographic and have it removed from school libraries on that ground. Justifications for that vary, from the more staid pearl-clutching ones, to rehashes of old and dangerous stereotypes about gays predating on children. That is absolutely a doctrinal concern, even if the nominal topic ("don't show children porn") is one that appears reasonable and uncontroversial on face value.