zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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.

>>aidenn+(OP)
"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.

>>jcranm+Fi
Oh, so it's the doctrine of the text that matters, not the doctrine that is the reason behind the "censorship." That makes more sense. I mean the Miller Test is a doctrine after all. To clarify something; I think the ALA bill of rights is overall good. It's just the 2nd clause (which is the only part required to be adopted by this law) that I was struggling to find a way to interpret that wouldn't impair librarians' ability to meaningfully curate.

And to be clear: As a rule, I am in favor of librarians making this decision without interference. Librarians have repeatedly put their livelyhoods at stake in order to protect individuals access to information, and protect the privacy of those same individuals.