zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
I don't know if it's literally the same people, but it's pretty amusing watching conservatives be hardcore no compromises first amendment absolutists when it comes to speech they agree with, while simultaneously being willing to define it as narrowly as necessary when it comes to silencing speech they don't agree with.

>>p1neco+OE
The central premise is always centered around the teaching to kids. Show me powerful conservatives who want trans/LGBT books banned from Amazon, or pressuring major book publishers, or outright actual bans in which parents aren't allowed to teach their children from these books. It starts and ends at the classroom/children.

>>TheCap+iF
One quick example: two Virginia Republicans tried to stop Barnes & Noble from selling two LGBT books to kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/05/20/gender-q...

>>Timon3+FW
so again, erotica to kids...

>>vxNsr+Qx1
It's always "about the children", until it suddenly isn't. It was "about the children" when conservatives were attacking gender-affirming care, until suddenly laws were introduced to ban it for everyone. It was "about the children" when conservatives attacked drag shows, until suddenly laws were introduced to ban it in public for everyone. Why is it going to be different this time?

>>Timon3+zI1
Please point to the laws that target adults?

I’d prefer if you could point to the actual text in the law, not some sensationalized headline.

>>vxNsr+z53
One example is this Texas house bill: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88...

Axios puts it nicely: it "states that a health professional who provides gender-affirming care to a trans person under 26 — or even refers a patient to another provider — could be sentenced to jail and lose their medical license."

Is this sufficient, or do you need more?