Once again the Republican Party is trying to protect our state’s children’s moral standers and clamping down on scrupulous pornography promoting teachers. They want to put these evil teachers in their place. Teach something in a way that offends one or more of the parents of students in a class room and these teachers are in deep doo doo.
The way the bill is written, it would appear that teachers providing pornography to minors is a major problem in the Kansas schools today.
The new law states;
The way the bill is written, it would appear that teachers providing pornography to minors is a major problem in the Kansas schools today.
The new law states;
“Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1. K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-6402 is hereby amended to read as
follows: 21-6402. (a) No person having custody, control or supervision
of any commercial or public establishment shall knowingly recklessly:
1.) That minors, as a part of the invited general public, will be exposed to view
such material or device;”
Section 1. K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-6402 is hereby amended to read as
follows: 21-6402. (a) No person having custody, control or supervision
of any commercial or public establishment shall knowingly recklessly:
1.) That minors, as a part of the invited general public, will be exposed to view
such material or device;”
It goes on to list places and people who are affected by this new law. It also tells us all the types of media it covers, such as newspapers, film clips, photos or pamphlets. And what horrible things are we protecting our children from? This new bill spells it out:
"sadomasochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon (7)
a person clad in undergarments, in a mask or bizarre costume or in the
condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on
the part of one so clothed;
"sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, (8)
sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed
genitals or pubic area or buttocks or with a human female's breast; and
"sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female (9)
genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal. “
a person clad in undergarments, in a mask or bizarre costume or in the
condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on
the part of one so clothed;
"sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, (8)
sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed
genitals or pubic area or buttocks or with a human female's breast; and
"sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female (9)
genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal. “
Wow! I didn’t realize our schools were just busting at the seams with all this pornography in the class room. It’s just got to be an epidemic. People are spending all their money and years of their lives in scholastic research so they can get into our schools and corrupt our youth with all these explicit porn images. So I decided to Google “Kansas, teachers, pornography” and I expected to find loads and loads of past articles about all these pornographic teachers in Kansas. I found very few cases, maybe one or two, of Kansas teachers distributing pornography.
So why would the astute leaders of our Kansas’ Legislative body want to attack this serious problem if it really didn’t really exist? Being puzzled I read on and the new bill went on to say;
So why would the astute leaders of our Kansas’ Legislative body want to attack this serious problem if it really didn’t really exist? Being puzzled I read on and the new bill went on to say;
the average adult person applying contemporary community “(B)
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
a reasonable person would find that the material or performance (C)
lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors.”
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
a reasonable person would find that the material or performance (C)
lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors.”
So now I have to wonder if this is about more than pornography. Are there cases of teachers in trouble for breaching this part of the bill?...That is cases that fit“a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors”
That last clause does not specify that it has to be sexual. It seems to imply there could be other things that a parent can object to. Then I remembered a story I read about David W. Guth, a tenured journalism professor on indefinite leave for a controversial tweet he posted in which he criticized the National Rifle Association (NRA). He was not in middle or high school. But he was censored for a tweet that criticized a cherished Republican organization. And this incident took place in the recent past.
Then I did another Google search and found teachers across the country under attack for presenting material that was not pornographic. An example is Michigan Substitute Teacher Jason Glicker, in trouble after a student filmed him discussing 9/11 Truth, MKultra, and other controversial topics in a classroom. He was in a lot of trouble for controversial films, but they were not pornographic.
So now I have to wonder if this is really about pornography at all. This bill could get a teacher in legal trouble as well as costing them their job and reputation. As an editorial in The Wichita Eagle pointed out;
Then I did another Google search and found teachers across the country under attack for presenting material that was not pornographic. An example is Michigan Substitute Teacher Jason Glicker, in trouble after a student filmed him discussing 9/11 Truth, MKultra, and other controversial topics in a classroom. He was in a lot of trouble for controversial films, but they were not pornographic.
So now I have to wonder if this is really about pornography at all. This bill could get a teacher in legal trouble as well as costing them their job and reputation. As an editorial in The Wichita Eagle pointed out;
“In addition to being insulting, the bill is written so broadly that many teachers might self-censor what they teach in order to protect themselves from potential prosecution. The Kansas National Education Association warned that the bill would “purge literature from our schools, censor art classes and stop field trips.”
So it would seem that our legislative leaders are actually trying to control the content of what a teacher can present to the class. There are stiff penalties for those who don’t go along. It always amazes me how much time our leaders spend telling us how bad it is in such countries as North Korea, because people there can’t speak freely. Then they try to imitate that kind of life right here in the US. How can this country criticize others for censorship when they keep trying to do it right here at home?
Root Boy Slim - I'm Not Too Old For You
)