Gavin Newsom is running for President in part on the basis that pornography should be in the schools.
“CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RESTRICT BANNING PORNOGRAPHY
The State first makes the point in its June 1 letter that “freedom of speech may include controversial, unpopular or offensive content.” It goes on to articulate what we all know: “that local educational agencies have broad discretion in the management of school affairs but it may not ban books because one dislikes the ideas in them.” The State cites to Board of Education v. Pico a 1969 United States Supreme Court case among other cases. This first point exemplifies how out of touch the State is as to what is happening in our schools that concerns parents.
What local educational agencies cannot do is push porn or a religion/ideology or pedophilia on our children. The same case cited by the State stands for this exact proposition. Book removal or banning does not violate the constitution, and more precisely the first amendment, and educators are perfectly within their rights to remove or ban them when they are unsuitable. Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871(“respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar.”)”
This is sick—why do Democrats hate children?
RE: GOVERNOR NEWSOM’S THREAT LETTER RE: BANNING BOOKS
California Parents Union, 6/3/23 californiaparentsunion.com
Dear California Superintendents and Administrators,
It appears our California state government is once again attempting to mislead and bully educators in the state of California as they did during COVID relating to masks and testing of our youth. As you recall California Department of Public Health’s (“CDPH”) director sent a letter out August 23, 2021 which threatened educators with legally untenable consequences into believing they had to force mask and test children – or schools could be sued, the school insurance would be canceled, teacher credentials were allegedly at risk, crimes could be charged – when those measures were only ever mere health recommendations. Educators tragically believed CDPH’s lies and unspeakable things happened to our children for years as a result. Instead, I write to provide you with reasoned legal information to help you see through this blatant intimidation tactic to prevent a similar travesty from happening again.
On June 1, 2023, Governor Newsom, Attorney General Bonta, and Superintendent Thurman (Collectively the “State”) wrote a letter relating to the removal of books from libraries. The letter hit a few key points that I will address in turn. However, as usual, the State is pushing propaganda and misses the entire point of what actually concerns parents. What parents do not want in their schools is any curriculum that is developmentally inappropriate or aimed at oversexualizing our children. This is not about “banning books that reflects diverse experiences and perspectives of Californians.” Its about PORN in our school libraries.
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RESTRICT BANNING PORNOGRAPHY
The State first makes the point in its June 1 letter that “freedom of speech may include controversial, unpopular or offensive content.” It goes on to articulate what we all know: “that local educational agencies have broad discretion in the management of school affairs but it may not ban books because one dislikes the ideas in them.” The State cites to Board of Education v. Pico a 1969 United States Supreme Court case among other cases. This first point exemplifies how out of touch the State is as to what is happening in our schools that concerns parents.
What local educational agencies cannot do is push porn or a religion/ideology or pedophilia on our children. The same case cited by the State stands for this exact proposition. Book removal or banning does not violate the constitution, and more precisely the first amendment, and educators are perfectly within their rights to remove or ban them when they are unsuitable. Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871(“respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar.”) The Pico Court goes on to make a very important counter point that the State neglected to mention in its letter:
“And again, respondents concede that if it were demonstrated that the removal decision was based solely upon the “educational suitability” of the books in question, then their removal would be “perfectly permissible.” Id at 871.
Obscenity is not within the area of protected speech or press. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 485 as cited in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 635.
“There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene . . . . It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . .” Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 485 citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568.
We The Parents want all references to obscene material, hidden under the guise of “social studies” or whatever doublespeak the State is using, out of our schools.
CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE DOES NOT SUPERCEDE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE WHICH MAKES DISTRIBUTION OF PORNOGRAPHY TO MINORS A CRIME
The State next pushes the idea that California educators must provide a representative social sciences curriculum, cannot present discriminatory content, and then takes the illogical leap to contend that removing books could amount to discrimination. The State then has the audacity to threaten local education agencies with the office of the attorney general and encourage people to file discrimination complaints with their local education agencies and even appeal to the CDE. This is a bastardization of the laws explaining what rises to the level of discrimination, a patent abuse of power, and a blatant intimidation tactic.
Parents have every right to inquire what their children are being taught and raise objections as to what is not appropriate from their perspective.
Let me be clear. All that has happened in the law in relation to “gender identity[1]” is that another protected class has been added to the already in place laws against discrimination. Like the other protected classes enumerated in California statutes, such as religion or race, in order for one to act in a manner that rises to the level of actionable discrimination, certain facts must exist. For example, to prevail on a claim under Ed Code §220 for peer sexual orientation harassment, a plaintiff must show (1) he or she suffered “severe, pervasive and offensive harassment that effectively deprived the plaintiff of the right of equal access to educational benefits and opportunities; (2) the school district had “actual knowledge” of that harassment; and (3) the school district acted with “deliberate indifference” in the face of such knowledge. Donovan v. Poway Unified School Dist., 167 Cal. App. 4th 567, 579. “Whether gender-oriented conduct rises to the level of actionable “harassment” thus “depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships,” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 82 (1998), including, but not limited to, the ages of the harasser and the victim and the number of individuals involved, see OCR Title IX Guidelines 12041-12042. Id at 651. “Damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children… even where these comments target differences in gender. Rather, in the context of student-on-student harassment, damages are available only where the behavior is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it denies its victims the equal access to education that Title IX is designed to protect.” Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 652. Emphasis added.
This means one must engage in behavior that actually rises to the level of discrimination. This does not mean removing or banning porn from libraries equates to discrimination. No where in the State’s letter to all educators or in the CDE’s recent publication on Removal of Instructional Materials does it address the fact that porn is in our school libraries which is against the law.
Our Penal Code carries very stiff penalties for the use of lewd materials when it comes to minors. “Obscene matter” means matter, taken as a whole, that to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, that, taken as a whole, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Cal Pen Code § 311. Material that is “obscene or incites pupils as to create a clear and present danger” is prohibited. Cal Ed Code § 48907. Every person who publishes, possesses, or prints material knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or personally simulating sexual conduct violates Cal Pen Code § 311.1. A person is guilty of sexual exploitation of a child if he or she knowingly… duplicates, prints, or exchanges any representation of information that depicts a person under the age of 18 years engaged in an act of sexual conduct. Cal Pen Code § 311.3. And if you commit criminal violations and used obscene or harmful matter to induce, persuade, or encourage the minor to engage in a lewd or lascivious act your penalties can be more serious. These are just some of the California laws against obscenity.
Is porn in our libraries? Absolutely. The following excerpt is taken from a book called “The Bluest Eye” which the Roseville area school district English Director recently tried to justify by comparing it to Romeo and Juliet because of the “suicide” scene:
What the State should be encouraging is parents to file complaints with licensing agencies against anyone who violates the law by serving obscene material to minors. This includes not only the lewd books in our libraries but everything else that is aimed at normalizing sexual acts in our schools involving minors.
In sum, the State’s clear threat and intimidation tactic under the guise of a demand for information regarding book removals or banning is unfounded if you as a local educational agency act constitutionally. You know inappropriate material when you see it and if you cannot tell then ask the parents what they find appropriate and stop participating in the most recent political fads. Get back to basics. Whatever you decide to do, understand that the State’s letter is aimed at doing their best to confuse, mislead, and threaten and intimidate you into believing you have no choice; however, I am here to tell you, you do. Please make the right choice one for our kids – Get The Porn Out.
[1] This is simply a concept that a person can “identify” on a broad spectrum. Sex is not the same as gender; sex is based on what physical characteristics one is borne with at birth.
