Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Howard reports, distorts.
"Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker": This article appears today in The Birmingham News. ok, that was the title.
More From The Birmingham News | Subscribe To The Birmingham News
Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as
an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
This article gets it wrong. Howard's blurb tracks the article.
To "fail to subsidize" is not the same thing as "to ban."
Dumb idea? Sure? Constitutionally problematical? Maybe. But not a ban.
Writing as a queer lawyer who is something of a first amendment purist,
I do not think ban is the right word here, and is defamatory, if an alabama legislator has any reputation capital in the first place.
The Soloman case is about the nuances of the line between these two areas.
But I am adamant that failing to fund is not a ban, for the same reasons the Censorship Project isn't about censorship.
"Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker": This article appears today in The Birmingham News. ok, that was the title.
More From The Birmingham News | Subscribe To The Birmingham News
Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER
News staff writer
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as
an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
This article gets it wrong. Howard's blurb tracks the article.
To "fail to subsidize" is not the same thing as "to ban."
Dumb idea? Sure? Constitutionally problematical? Maybe. But not a ban.
Writing as a queer lawyer who is something of a first amendment purist,
I do not think ban is the right word here, and is defamatory, if an alabama legislator has any reputation capital in the first place.
The Soloman case is about the nuances of the line between these two areas.
But I am adamant that failing to fund is not a ban, for the same reasons the Censorship Project isn't about censorship.
Comments:
Post a Comment
