kansas wants to prosecute teachers who show "harmful materials"--whatever THAT means!
(sorry if this is a dupe. I don't always catch all the rampant stupidity running around loose)
Kansas Wants to Prosecute Teachers Who Show “Harmful” Materials – Whatever That Means
. . . .
Late last week, the Kansas Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would make it easier to prosecute teachers, librarians and school principals for materials that are “harmful to minors.” The move was in response to an incident involving a sex ed poster hung on a middle school classroom door.
Hmm… A kneejerk reaction to teaching preteens about sex? What could possibly go wrong?!
You may be thinking at this point, “What, exactly, is meant by ‘harmful to minors’?” The bill basically takes an “I know it when I see it” approach to figuring out if something is inappropriate for minors. It requires the imposition of “contemporary community standards.” Specifically, the bill defines “harmful to minors” to mean materials that:
(A) The average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors;
(B) the average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors
. . . . .
I’m not sure about that, but it is serious. Remember, this all came about because of a sex ed poster hung in a middle school. That poster didn’t have graphic images of naked bodies. It was merely a list of ways people can show sexual intimacy. According to the Wichita Eagle:
The poster was titled “How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?” and featured a list of 17 behaviors or sex acts, including cuddling, holding hands, massage, kissing, oral sex and anal sex. It was removed after a parent complained, and Shawnee Mission district officials later said in a letter to parents that the curriculum had been suspended “pending a detailed review of the material.”
. . . . .
And we Kansans seriously need to talk about sex more. Specifically, we need to talk about safe sex more. In 2011, Kansas had the seventeenth highest teen birth rate in the country.
As potentially harmful as this bill is, it gets worse. You’ll notice that the bill prohibits material that depicts “sexual conduct.” This, too, has a definition. It means, among other things, “acts
of. . . homosexuality." Whoa. Wait. Acts of homosexuality? What does that mean? Hand-holding? Hugging? Raising kids together? You only have to live in the world to know that gay couples are held to a different standard than hetero couples. Hand-holding might go unnoticed if it was between people of different genders, but become glaringly obvious when two men or two women do it. Will it suddenly be illegal for teachers to expose students to positive depictions of homosexual couples? I think the bill gives cover to people who want to erase gay people from public knowledge.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/kansas-wants-to-prosecute-teachers-who-show-harmful-materials-whatever-that-means.html#ixzz2vWVArbDl
= new reply since forum marked as read
