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
"Doctrinal" isn't defined in the bill so far as I can see, which means it has its ordinary definition, something along the lines of relating to the message of the text. Pornography bans are justified by obscenity, which has a specific test given by SCOTUS, of which the third prong is that it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," which is effectively tantamount to saying that it has no message that can be disagreed with.

So if you're attempting to ban it because it's obscene, that's okay. But if you're trying to call it pornographic because the lead characters are in a romantic relationship and happen to be of the same sex... well, that's not obscene, and your attempt to call it pornographic is doctrinal disapproval.