The left censors free expression once again

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: nickyw

a real socialist, liberal or lefty would never praise, demand or rely on the corporate world to impose their ideology on everyone else..

I would have to disagree with that statement. The Biden administration has done exactly that, because the COTUS prevents government from doing it themselves (or by the backdoor), and this administration is as left as you can get. Marxist left.

District court grants injunction preventing the Biden administration and other federal agencies from censoring speech it disagrees with on social media platforms.

it still look corporatists, Mussolini was a communist indeed most fascists gave up on socialism and communism as they delivered zero change after hundreds of years trying**..

when the British fascists set up one stream w glorified scouts after the uniforms the others where disenfranchised communists, socialists and liberals who thought corporatism aka fascism was the answer..

for english speakers the debates between the fascists and marxists in britain offer valuable insight lost to wishful thinking the fascists were right wing most admit to come to fascism from a feeling socialism had failed.. the Italian version of fascism the corporatism came second while in the anglosphere the coportaism comes first.. and to understand fascist economic policy is to know keynesianism.. what we are seeing is not lefty.. on the arc the real lefties like sanders or corbyn have already been jettisoned what we are left with in bidenomics is neo-keynesianism.

eta **the hundreds of years refers to the period from the true levellers onwards..

I get what you're saying (I think), but Keynes and Bidenomics aside, the tactics this administration is using are still Nazi-esque and Neo-Marxist.

a reply to: network dude

I see this song as the long version of "play stupid games, win stupid praises." Whether it be by being arrested or by other means is not the point. It is a warning. It saves lives by telling what will happen when someone tries some big city things in a small town. A few will now not try that who previously might have. Lives saved.

I have said this a few times on ATS...

You can loot and burn all the cities that you want....but when you decide to head out to the small towns, it will be a much different story.

It has nothing to do with "good ole boys"... it has to do with neighbors who have been helping out other neighbors all their life.


Blacks, Whites, Hispanics etc. will all band together to defend what they perceive as a threat.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: Timber13

It's called being a vigilante and it's illegal, last I checked. Kind of goes hand in hand with the riots over the past years but worse because you're actually going after people instead of buildings.

Can you explain how supporting the police on someone attacking your community is vigilantism?

Also you are saying our police should arrest the building the attackers are from? Or perhaps the attacked should go and attack the building the attackers are from?

You missed something really big there. Buildings very, very, very seldom go to other communities and attack them.

Supporting police?

The song is about people taking the law into their own hands.

I'm confused by your confusion.

What are you on about buildings attacking people? That makes no sense at all.

Clear up your confusion and ask again? I can't connect your dots.

To be honest, I think you missed something "big" in my response. Comprehension?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

originally posted by: RickinVa
I have said this a few times on ATS...

You can loot and burn all the cities that you want....but when you decide to head out to the small towns, it will be a much different story.

It has nothing to do with "good ole boys"... it has to do with neighbors who have been helping out other neighbors all their life.


Blacks, Whites, Hispanics etc. will all band together to defend what they perceive as a threat.

That's not what I got out of it at all.

Are you sure we're hearing the same song?



It's funny because this is now all over FB.

a reply to: Timber13

They defunded the police.

Who else is going to stop looters and arsonists?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

Nope, just showing how little you know about what parents don't want their children exposed to.



Thanks for illustrating my point.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

Nope, just showing how little you know about what parents don't want their children exposed to.

Are you a parent?

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

Nope, just showing how little you know about what parents don't want their children exposed to.

Are you a parent?

Why yes, a father of 2 sons.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

Nope, just showing how little you know about what parents don't want their children exposed to.

Are you a parent?

Why yes, a father of 2 sons.

Nice. So if your sons are at the public library and you tell them not to check out any material with nudity in it, will they listen?

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

Nope, just showing how little you know about what parents don't want their children exposed to.

Are you a parent?

Why yes, a father of 2 sons.

Nice. So if your sons are at the public library and you tell them not to check out any material with nudity in it, will they listen?

If I was in a children's library or school and they had sexually explicit materials, then I would take my children and leave because there are probably pedophiles there.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

Nope, just showing how little you know about what parents don't want their children exposed to.

Are you a parent?

Why yes, a father of 2 sons.

Nice. So if your sons are at the public library and you tell them not to check out any material with nudity in it, will they listen?

If I was in a children's library or school and they had sexually explicit materials, then I would take my children and leave because there are probably pedophiles there.

That's not what I asked you, but let's go with that response anyway.


1. Define sexually explicit materials. Does the material merely contain the word "sex"? (Some books in the young adult sections of libraries do, and people want those books banned because they think that's pornographic.)

2. Have you ever been to a children's library or school library where sexually explicit materials (e.g. graphic nudity, etc.) were available to children?
I haven't.

3. It's absolutely your right and your business to tell your children what they should or shouldn't read. It's absolutely NOT your business to tell others what their children should or shouldn't read.

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

Nope, just showing how little you know about what parents don't want their children exposed to.

Are you a parent?

Why yes, a father of 2 sons.

Nice. So if your sons are at the public library and you tell them not to check out any material with nudity in it, will they listen?

If I was in a children's library or school and they had sexually explicit materials, then I would take my children and leave because there are probably pedophiles there.

That's not what I asked you, but let's go with that response anyway.


1. Define sexually explicit materials. Does the material merely contain the word "sex"? (Some books in the young adult sections of libraries do, and people want those books banned because they think that's pornographic.)

Books with pictures and instructions how to engage in sexual intercourse.

2. Have you ever been to a children's library or school library where sexually explicit materials (e.g. graphic nudity, etc.) were available to children?
I haven't.

That's what much of "ado" is about. Many new books are graphic in nature.

3. It's absolutely your right and your business to tell your children what they should or shouldn't read. It's absolutely NOT your business to tell others what their children should or shouldn't read.

I've always said that.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Only the penthouse forums....rest of it was trash. I read some seriously funny stuff on those things back in the day.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Gandalf77
I don't care for censorship, period. And I think it works both ways. That is, if we're going to be up in arms about a country music song being "censored," then shouldn't we have the same reaction to people trying to ban books in public and school libraries? Or is censorship a good thing when we don't like the content? (Thinking of both the left and the right here.)

I think removing the DERP is key here. When you say "book banning", but you are referring to people taking sexualized books out of small children's school libraries, it makes me think you don't really understand the word at all.

Book banning is censorship, regardless of how you choose to characterize the books.
Just like banning a song (video) is censorship, regardless of how one chooses to interpret that song.

Or are you really going to argue that there's a good kind of censorship?

We ban children from smoking, is that banning tobacco?
We ban children from drinking, is that banning alcohol?
We ban children from driving, is that banning cars?
We ban children from voting, is that denying them their Constitutional right?
We ban children from having sex with adults, is that banning sex?


Now you have a song that the left got butthurt about. So they tried to censor it.

You see that as the same as making pedophilia illegal?

That's a stupid argument, and you know it. All of those things are illegal for what should be obvious reasons.
None of those things remotely add up to a justification for banning books.

Should Penthouse magazine be available in children's libraries?

Doubling down on the stupidity?

Nope, just showing how little you know about what parents don't want their children exposed to.

Are you a parent?

Why yes, a father of 2 sons.

Nice. So if your sons are at the public library and you tell them not to check out any material with nudity in it, will they listen?

If I was in a children's library or school and they had sexually explicit materials, then I would take my children and leave because there are probably pedophiles there.

That's not what I asked you, but let's go with that response anyway.


1. Define sexually explicit materials. Does the material merely contain the word "sex"? (Some books in the young adult sections of libraries do, and people want those books banned because they think that's pornographic.)

Books with pictures and instructions how to engage in sexual intercourse.

2. Have you ever been to a children's library or school library where sexually explicit materials (e.g. graphic nudity, etc.) were available to children?
I haven't.

That's what much of "ado" is about. Many new books are graphic in nature.

Would you care to name the specific books that contain pictures and instructions for engaging in sexual intercourse?
Also, can you name a school library or children's section of a public library where those same books have been made readily available to children?

I've been taking my children to the public library for years, and I have yet to encounter that. If I did, I wouldn't let my kids check them out.
But there are people in my community who think our public libraries should be defunded because there are books in the adult section that they don't like.

There are also people in my community who think books that feature a gay character, or God forbid, a gay black character shouldn't be allowed in the junior high and high school libraries. Even when the library has a policy that requires parental permission to check those books out, they want them removed because they think they know what's good for everyone else's children. They have a list of books that they think should be banned in school libraries. And it's not because those books are teaching sexual intercourse. It's almost always due to their own biases and beliefs and a will to subject the rest of us to them.