Emotions ran high during a Nov. 8 book challenge hearing for Wasilla Public Library. The contentious public meeting featured concerned Mat-Su resident Jackie Goforth who formally challenged the suitability of a sexually explicit book that the library considers suitable for its teen section.
The title in question, “Red Hood,” has stirred controversy around the nation due to its violent content and explicitly graphic descriptions of sex acts between teenagers.
Approximately 25 people turned out for the public hearing, most of whom supported removing the book from the library’s teen section.
The meeting included three review board members, Laura Anderson, Jeanne Troshynski and former Mat-Su School Board member Sarah Welton, who is well known for her left-leaning views.
Troshynski, a member of Friends of Wasilla Library, chaired the meeting.
In a Nov. 9 letter sent to Wasilla Mayor Glenda Ledford, Goforth complained that the meeting was conducted in such a manner that her First Amendment rights were violated.
“This committee attempted to usurp my constitutionally protected rights as well those of the citizens I had asked to assist me,” Goforth wrote in describing the Nov. 8 hearing.
Goforth explained that her decision to challenge the book was motivated over concerns that the novel was placed in an area designated for teens, while containing obscene material. This, she argued, “provides a clear path to committing a Class C Felony as specified in Alaska Statute AS 11.61.128 – distributing obscene material to persons under 16 years of age. My request was – and is – to have ‘Red Hood’ moved from the young adult section to the adult section.”
According to a notice issued prior to the hearing, Goforth was allotted seven minutes at the start of the meeting to make her case against the book, followed by a five-minute final presentation.
“I don’t believe glowing reviews, genre wins, bestseller status or publisher promotion back blurbs are adequate defenses for violating the statute,” Goforth stated.
Once the meeting began, Goforth began by offering evidence that the American Library Association (ALA), of which Wasilla Public Library is a member, should not be used as an authoritative guide when it comes to relocating books.
Goforth argued that while the ALA is “supposedly non-profit and non-partisan,” it led by an avowed “lesbian Marxist,” and many states are now cancelling their memberships due to the organization’s increasingly controversial stances.
In her letter to the mayor, Goforth noted that her presentation before the committee questioned how books for young adults (teens) are vetted for suitability.
“There appears to be absolutely no criteria for content of a Young Adult work,” Goforth maintained. “There is no limit as to what can be inserted into these books. This includes violence, profanity, drug and/or alcohol abuse, graphic and/or lewd sexual content, rape, sodomy, incest, and more.”
She added that libraries do not appear to be following Alaska law.
“I don’t believe glowing reviews, genre wins, bestseller status or publisher promotion back blurbs are adequate defenses for violating the statute,” Goforth stated. “And any book that if turned into a movie would receive an X rating should NOT be in the Young Adult area. ‘Red Hood’ hits two criteria of the Alaska Statute right off the bat: ‘sexual penetration’ and ‘lewd touching of a person’s genitals.’ It also has a lot of violence and a political agenda called ‘Toxic Masculinity’ threaded through it. This is a paranormal fantasy about girls who turn into werewolf hunters at the onset of their menstruation. Blood is the main theme. Graphic sex. Violence. And murder of males before they even commit a crime.”
Goforth said she told the committee that the book “lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political or scientific value to persons younger than 16” and is “patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for persons under 16 years of age.”
After Goforth’s presentation, Wasilla Library Director Zane Treesh proceeded to defend the library’s book selection process. This was followed by a question-and-answer session initiated by the three committee members – Sarah Welton, Laura Anderson, and Jeanne Troshynski.
I informed the committee that there was a segment of the community in the room, and that I would be calling on some of them to demonstrate the prevailing standards of the adult community,” Goforth recalled.
Throughout the Q&A exchange, Goforth said she “repeatedly stated” that distributing “Red Hood” to anyone under 16 is a clear “violation of Alaska state statute.”
Goforth’s letter to the mayor noted that controversy broke out during her final five-minute final presentation.
She began by reading Alaska’s statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material to minors.
“I read it verbatim and then I informed the committee that there was a segment of the community in the room, and that I would be calling on some of them to demonstrate the prevailing standards of the adult community,” Goforth recalled.
She first asked Mat-Su resident Mike Coons to share his views for 30 seconds.
“I utilized this format since I’ve seen it demonstrated, time and again, during congressional proceedings and there was no avenue available for me to play a recording,” Goforth explained of her decision to have community members offer evidence regarding prevailing community decency standards.
“Mike Coons stood and before he could say two words, Chairperson Troshynski loudly interrupted and stopped him – proclaiming that this was against the rules and turning to me, she said that I knew it,” Goforth wrote. “I replied that this was my presentation, and this was how I was utilizing my time. She immediately responded by telling me I was finished. The hearing was over, and demanded that I leave.”
Goforth refused to forfeit her presentation time. At this point, most of the attendees stood and expressed frustration over Troshynski’s actions.
“This was met with more audience outbursts and comments, at which time Chairperson Troshynski loudly called out to ‘call 9-1-1!’”
“Chairperson Troshynski then loudly stated that this was against the rules, the hearing was over and that everyone was to leave,” Goforth recounted. “Mike Coons asked her, ‘What rules? Show me the rules.’”
According to Goforth, Chairperson Troshynski proceeded to “shuffle through paperwork” but was “unable to find anything about allowing someone else to speak during my time because it doesn’t exist in the rule sheet.”
Coons claimed there were no such rules, and therefore they couldn’t be enforced, Goforth noted.
“This was met with more audience outbursts and comments, at which time Chairperson Troshynski loudly called out to ‘call 9-1-1!’”
The meeting, however, did not end, and order was quickly restored.
Goforth said she was then allowed to utilize the rest of her time, but was warned that she could not invite anyone else to share their views.
“I had about four minutes left,” Goforth noted. “I turned back to Librarian Treesh, first telling him that the Wasilla library is his responsibility and that not every public library in the country carries every book. It’s up to him if he carries a book and where he shelves it. I informed him that only Wasilla and Willow have this particular book and I was in the process of gaining a reconsideration hearing with the borough to see it moved from Young Adult to the Adult section in the Willow public library also. It’s the librarian’s choice on where a book is placed. He doesn’t have to follow anyone else. Be a leader. Be an example.”
At this point, Goforth said she turned to the audience and asked the people in the room if they found the book to be “patently offensive.”
“All but two hands were raised,” she said. “At that point Chairperson Troshynski again tried to rebuke me, interrupting me with comments.”
After informing Troshynski that this was her time to speak, Goforth was allowed to finish. She concluded by describing what “grooming” actually means.
In a now deleted Facebook post, reconsideration committee member Sarah Welton gave her own account of the hearing, claiming that those opposed to the sexualized book were closed minded.
“The act of grooming is to normalize and trivialize sex and all that it entails, in order to influence a child to more readily accept and be available for predation by pedophiles,” she said. “That is the description of what grooming is, and that is exactly what ‘Red Hood’ and many other books are – child grooming tools.”
The meeting then concluded, and the committee proceeded to meet in private to discuss the book and decide its fate.
According to Goforth, two Wasilla police officers were in the hallway as the crowd exited.
“Both were smiling, congenial, and waved,” she noted. “They informed us that they were just doing their rounds.”
In a now deleted Facebook post, reconsideration committee member Sarah Welton gave her own account of the hearing, claiming that those opposed to the sexualized book were closed minded.
“The audience called me names as they left the room,” Welton lamented. “I said I would pray for those who persecute me. I stated that God loves them.”
Her words were not well received.
“It was for me to not respond in kind by calling them names. But I guess it was taken as an attack,” she wrote. “I am sorry that minds are so closed and that one faction of a community, not the entire community, feels they know what is best for everyone. If you do not want your child to read the book, monitor it.”
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Welton later posted a derogatory comment on Facebook, which appeared directed at those who oppose the book. Welton’s Nov. 9 Facebook entry included a meme defining the word “Agnorant” as “people who are extremely ignorant, yet are simultaneously extremely arrogant.” She personally added: “Witnessing this in the book debates.”
According to Wasilla Library Director Zane Treesh, a final decision from the reconsideration board has not yet been released.
“When the decision is made by the reconsideration committee, it gets mailed or sent to the patron that asked for the reconsideration and also to me,” he said in a Nov. 10 phone interview. “I haven’t received it yet.”
Treesh said he’s not sure how long it will take for a final decision, but expects it will be “timely.”
The committee’s decision is final, he said.
“The next step after that would be if the patron wanted to take it to court,” Treesh said.
TAKING ACTION
— Click here to contact Wasilla Mayor Glenda Ledford.
— Click here to contact Wasilla Library Director Zane Treesh.
Click here to support Alaska Watchman reporting.
103 Comments
Monday, 13 November at 6 PM is the Wasilla City Council meeting. I encourage all that were at the above meeting to show up and testify, you got 3 minutes, use them wisely!
Mr Treesh’s comments at the end of this article is concerning. It sounds as if this is only going to be decided by the library, with no decision by the City Council. Since the Mayor appointed this panel, it makes sense the final decision is the City Council! This must be an issue at the City Council meeting!
Folks, this is about porn that is readily accessible to children and with the actions on Wednesday, a clear violation of our Civil Rights!
Your own words “ this is pornography accessible to your children “!
Conclusion question for you Mike: where is your friendly governor and his AG? Isn’t this against the law? Do laws mean anything anymore? Me showing up won’t do a damn thing if our government breaks the law when they want to!
That’s the whole point. It is a class C felony to distribute obscene materials to persons under the age of 16 in Alaska. If this book were made into a movie, it would get an X-rating. That’s the basis for requesting it be moved to the adult section.
Slight disagreement: the laws are being broken and our governor/ AG could give a sh*t!
I don’t know, I haven’t asked. Based on past history, Governor Dunleavy has shown he does not get into the middle of local government. I do believe Wasilla is “Home Rule”, like Anchorage.
I would think any arrests by law enforcement in this would be Wasilla PD, not State Troopers.
I haven’t asked the Governor, I may do so this week before I leave for vacation.
Mike, based on Jackie Ivie Goforth’s letter to the mayor and the summary of the meeting published here, your civil rights were not violated during the reconsideration meeting. Nowhere in your First Amendment rights are there rights for audience members and guests who are not members of the body who was meeting, to disrupt a meeting. You–and apparently Jackie–failed to follow Robert’s Rules of Order or other formal meeting protocol by insisting on speaking when the meeting’s chair declined to recognize you. In fact, under Robert’s Rules, the public never has an unfettered right to speak, and even members of the body must be recognized by the chair before they may speak. I get that you were pissed off that you were not allowed to pontificate, but your civil rights were in no way violated just because the chair followed Robert’s Rules. Now, if there had been a public comment period, and if the meeting agenda clearly provided adequate notice of such a period, and you had not been allowed to speak, that would have been a different story altogether.
Man, your read of the 1st is way off! 1. Government meeting. 2. I and others were part of her presentation. These were prepared statements to be part of her total presentation. 3. We did not disrupt the meeting Jeanne’s actions caused the audience to react in a very foreseeable way, for our liberties! BTW, Jeanne was seen and overheard talking to the police prior to the meeting about potential problems. So, one could make the assumption that she knew she was going to get us angry and cause a reaction)
Jackie followed Roberts Rules of Order to the letter. In spite of the questions from Jeanne and Sarah trying to cause a emotional reaction)
So since when does the government have the over-riding right to silence American citizens? I missed that one in courses on the Constitution?
For someone who was not there, you sure have a lot of assumptions and opinions!
lastly, you left out that the Chair told Jackie she had to leave and was ending the meeting. Hmmm, wonder why that was? Didn’t fit in your assumptions.
Definition of PRESENTATION:
1. The action of presenting something.
2. The style or manner with which something is offered for consideration or display.
3. A theatrical performance or display.
definition of #3 – theatrical performance.
from WIKIPEDIA:
the act or process of staging, or presenting a play, concert , or other form of entertainment. It is also defined as the action or process of carrying out or accomplishing an action, task, or function.
I believe this may fall under First Amendment Rights as codified under the SULLIVAN VS NYT 1964 Supreme Court decision. i believe the words vitriolic or caustic language are specified in that decision to describe protected speech even if used with officials in a government meeting.
Vitriol as defined by a grooming leftist receiving it is biased and worthless.
Everyone is waiting for the dictator because the system is completely broken! Laws are broken and the two policemen smile saying “we’re just doing our rounds “!
Anarchy has arrived!!!
I’m deeply disappointed in Wasilla library and it’s what I thought was a wonderful group of librarians committed to helping their community members. We moved to the valley to escape the trash of Anchorage and the Anchorage library systems, only to find that it’s here now too. I know our family has never had any luck in attempting to get a book moved out of the children or youth sections into other more appropriate adult or educators areas. None.
I wonder if Weldon or Troshynski have any kids? Are their consciences so seared by wallowing in darkness they cannot recognize evil. Seems such a meeting should also be attended by he mayor and even the city attorney as those supposedly in charge just make up rules and behave only to suit their own agendas.
Excellent idea! Maybe we can all write Dunleavy as well requesting his attendance.
M, the Governors Office and AG are looking at this. All I can say.
What a joke! Illogical! Yesterday I broke the law, today you informed me I broke the law, therefore I will not be prosecuted because you didn’t tell me before I broke the law! Fire the growing list of incompetents!
Censoring me?
Elizabeth, formal meetings like the one described usually follow a formal meeting protocol called Robert’s Rules of Order. The persons “supposedly in charge” do not “make up rules” as you falsely claim. Robert’s Rules are a very old and widely accepted set of protocols that structure meetings and maintain order. Key to Robert’s Rules is the fact that the chair of the meeting must recognize speakers before they are allowed to speak. Members of the group have the right to challenge the chair’s decision about whether they recognize another member, but in no case do non-members–audience members and invited guests who are NOT members of the body–have the right to challenge the chair’s decision or to speak even though they are not recognized. You can read more about Robert’s Rules here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order
Funny that you posted this three minutes after Mike Coons spoke about it. Are you using AI to create your answers?
Sadly jeanne the abusive obese whale found a roach that actually reproduced with it and predictably, it produced an abused, mentally-unwell tranny! Shocker! Too many reasons demonrats should never be allowed to reproduce or be around any child. Shame they didnt use their “reproductive rights” and abort! Disgusting.
God forbid your little darlings should get a hold of “The Catcher in the Rye.” You want certain books banned from the “teen section.” Where do they go, to the “adults only” section? You keep screaming bloody murder about “parental rights.” How about parental responsibilities? What are you doing to police your own kids? Not all parents are so prudish. Why are your interfering with THEIR rights?
Most parents with avid readers do police what their children read for this very reason. We are not asking for it to be removed. Just moved to a different location – in the adult section where it belongs.
In my opinion, no one except an individual teen’s parent has the right to control what teens can read or have free access to in public libraries. I get that some conservative parents want their children to be prohibited from accessing certain books, but the job of policing their children’s reading choices is THEIR responsibility, not the responsibility of a public library. Public libraries–unlike school libraries–are designed to serve an entire community, not just one particular politically-oriented subgroup. Red Hood was written for young adults, features a teen protagonist, and therefore should remain in the young adult section.
Anyone who believes Red Hood is suitable for 14-16 year olds most likely has never read it. If the contents of that book were turned into a movie, it would have an x-rating and kids of that age wouldn’t be able to view it without a parent in a theater. Why? Because of obscenity. Why should this same standard not apply to a library when Alaska statute prohibits distributing obscene materials to persons under 16? That’s the point here. The commenter named “SA” needs to re-read the book, and take a look at statute.
So, by the letter of the law, a parent(s) give a minor a letter saying the parent gives permission to the minor to buy a six pack of beer. Say the store clerk then sells that six pack. The Police pull over the minor for traffic infraction, find the beer and not that the minor is 16. See’s the receipt from the store and the letter from the parents. Who goes to jail? Who gets charged? The minor can be charged for minor in possession of alcohol, juvenile court, maybe some time in juvenile hall, maybe. The clerk knowing the minor is a minor, age 16 charged with selling the alcohol to a minor, not sure the law on sentencing but for conversation sake, say he gets 6 months in prison, $10,000 fine and the store gets fined as well. The parent(s) could be charged with child abuse by allowing the child the beer, in violation of the law of distributing alcohol to a minor, That could be like the clerk, for conservation sake, however that would be doubtful. So the poor clerk gets the hammer down on him/her.
What if the parents are OK with LGBCDQ, make available at home pornographic magazines and books, and the minor is allowed to check out pornographic library books from the adult section. If that is reported to the Police, who gets the consequences? The parents? Nope. The minor? Nope, The Librarian because she/he knows it is pornographic because it has been identified as such.
See, we are only asking this book and others as bad and worse be only allowed in the adult section, to only be checked out by adults. If an adult then shows that book to a minor under 16 and that is reported, the person arrested, then could and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
So, Chuck, are you OK with a Porn section in the public libraries? How would that be run? Who is responsible for checking out as to age?
Lastly, let’s talk Parent Responsibility, sure, let’s do that. It is against the law to supply minors alcohol, drugs (grass, coke, crank, meth, etc.), and porn, either through computers or mags. In the latter, that means any minor under 16. Now, are police going to be aware of what’s happening in the home? Most likely not. However, if actions by the minor outside of the home give the police probable cause that the parents are supplying, then that can be investigated. Warrants are issued and the search, confiscation of evidence and arrests may be made. There are laws and consequences for child abuse. That is what the above is, make no mistake about it. As a 22 year Paramedic, I have seen too many parents who were irresponsible to the point of being arrested for child abuse on a range is issues, mostly drug and beatings. IMHO, the grooming by parents who encourage these sexual deviancies is child abuse. Thus, those parents are irresponsible and police may even have the minor removed from the home. We haven’t gotten to that point, yet.
Mike, I get why you are upset that the chair would not allow you to speak. But even though you are pissed off, your civil rights were NOT VIOLATED in the incident described in Ms. Goforth’s letter to the mayor and in the summary of the meeting provided here by the Alaska Watchman. Ms. Goforth can claim that she planned to use your testimony as part of her presentation to the committee, but as an invited guest, she did not have the right to force the committee chair to recognize you or any other speaker besides herself. The chair granted her 7 minutes to testify about the book, and five minutes to conclude her testimony. Like it or not, under Robert’s Rules of Order, (aka parliamentary procedure) the chair of a meeting like this one holds all of the power to determine who is allowed to speak. There was no public comment period on the agenda, which was properly noticed. Although the chair initially disallowed Ms. Goforth to finish her testimony, the fact that she relented and did allow her to speak her five minutes documents the fact that Ms. Goforth’s First Amendment rights were upheld. If the chair had totally refused to let Ms. Goforth speak for her final five minutes, that would likely have been a violation. So the chair was wise to let her finish out her final five minutes.
Mike, with all due respect, I do not follow your logic about the minor buying beer being at all related to the potential removal of a library book from the young adult section of a public library. Mike–it’s just a book. It’s not meth, or cocaine, or alcohol, or other prohibited and illegal substance. There is really nothing to be afraid of here.
To the poster “SA”: your continually posting in defense of this obscenity is very telling. It doesn’t matter HOW much (obscene, illucit, poisonous, or illegal) content is in a product. What matters is that it IS in the product. Let’s use common sense here. Rat poison products are usually 95% rat food and only 5% poison. Please check online for verification. Can you relate that analogy to this situation?
To the person ir persons posting as SA: Please direct attention to Where in the rule sheet you see the word TESTIMONY? I have checked and re-chrcked. I clearly see “Presentation.” Thank you.
SA, I’m amazed! You actually got one aspect right! We are calling for removal from 14-18 year old to Adult, 18 and above! Wow, that is an improvement!
Except for the part about how giving porn to children is a State crime. Except for that part. Whether you like it or not, and apparently you don’t, Judeo-Christian ethics are still the law of land when it comes to protecting innocence. Feel free to purchase any kind of smut you want to show to your own kids, but public libraries are just as culpable as the creep in the van when it comes to providing porn to kids. Might as well invite the creep in the raincoat into the stacks if that’s your plan. You want your kids scarred for life? Go right ahead. You reap what you sow. But the rest of us would prefer to be able to use the libraries, for which we pay taxes, and not have to worry about the content of materials available to kids.
Religion is not law, and there are more religions in this country than Judeo and Christian.
You have just formally announce yourself as a bigot
Nygaard. Your holier-than-everyone attitude is why Christians are mocked.
Gillian you sound like a communist lunatic! Back to San Francisco! Your family misses you!
Wow, the ignorance of our trolls is astounding. Completely unaware of the roots of American jurisprudence (that’s laws, for those who can only handle small words). I guess it has to be so, since they continue to spout a bunch of ad-hominem garbage to cover for their depravity. Shame, really. They could learn a thing or two here, but they’d rather bathe in their own spiteful ignorance while benefitting from thousands of years of Judeo-Christian influence.
Gillian, where do you thing the vast majority of our laws came from? The Bible.
This is not Catcher in the Rye level of writing. This is a distributing obscenity as defined in Alaska Statute 11.61.128.
Simple.
Not to mention Welton herself stated on Facebook she doesn’t believe Red Hood has any literary value. Not sure why she would fight so hard to keep it in the young adult section. Other than to spite “the patron” as she called you on Facebook, Ms. Goforth.
Jackie–Red Hood does not meet the criteria for obscenity under state law. The fact that the book has received so many awards and so many positive reviews indicates that it has significant literary and educational value. Therefore, although you may personally object to the book’s content, because it has been demonstrated to have literary and educational value, it does not fall under the legal definition of obscenity. Parents can certainly prohibit their own teen from reading the book, but you, as a concerned member of the community, do not have the right to prohibit other people’s teens from freely accessing the book. To attempt to do so is to attempt to rob other parents of their parental rights to determine what their teens are allowed to read.
Jackie, the statute that you keep citing does not apply to Red Hood. The statute covers only electronic material, not print material. It was designed to prevent adults from sending unwanted sexual content through email and text messages to minors. The statute simply does not apply to Red Hood being in the Wasilla Public Library YA section. The two teen sex scenes in the book are tender coming-of-age events, and take up only a very minor number of paragraphs in the book. The two teens are deeply in love, and demonstrate their affection and tenderness throughout the two scenes. The vast majority of the book is about love, friendship, overcoming trauma, and working together to exact revenge on rapists and batterers. You make it sound like it’s an X-rated book drenched in sex, and it simply is not. I get that you are squeamish about blood, menstrual blood in particular, but your distaste for this genre does not permit you to ban the book from the young adult section of a public library. I think the book is a valuable antidote to menstrual shaming and fits well in the current #MeToo movement that outs male rapists, batterers, sexual harassers, and mass murderers like Elliott Rodger.
Oddly, I knew that once the books became known by the public as obscene and illegal under AS 11.61.128, someone would bring up the digital aspects written into the Alaska Statute. Perhaps I should start quoting United States law for clarification.
Distributing obscenity to minors is illegal under Title 18 USC 1470. the legal definition of obscenity is covered under US Supreme Court decision MILLER VS CALIFORNIA 1973. That decision is also the basis for the Miller-Ginsburg test contained in AS 11.61.128.
Thank you for bringing that up.
SA, “demonstrated to have literary and educational value” by whom?
Someone made a great analogy the other day. Rat Poison is made up of 95% food that rats and mice like. 5% poison. This book is IMHO well over 5% poison. Thus in violation of the law, period, full stop!
Hahahaha chuck are you mad that you’ll never be a man and real women will never want you?? Quit hating those better than you and forgive your dad that abused you so badly, little buddy! How many kids have you diddled, proud demonrat?? Keep crying over Dr Seuss and syrup too, dont want you lunatics triggered again!!! What a waste of a male. Loser
9-1-1?! While I was not there, this call to emergency personnel sure seems an unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars. All because educated, articulate people are standing up to the library dictators- oops I mean directors- and telling them they need to do their actual jobs?! Can someone else who was there please comment on why the call to emergency services was even necessary or was this a decisive, knee-jerk reaction on Troshnyski’s part?
Wasn’t, pure and simple
Troshynski Must be related to the guy who pulled the fire alarm in Congress:
Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York has been charged by the DC attorney general with triggering a fire alarm in a House office building when there was not an emergency.
Is Troshynski being charged with requesting emergency services when there was no emergency? The People wanted proof of her conveniently made up rules. That does not require police to respond.
I find it amusing that Jackie Ivie Goforth, who proclaims in her letter to the Wasilla mayor that she is an acclaimed romance novelist, confused the act of cunnilingus with the act of fellatio. One would think that if she was going to complain about sex acts in a young adult book, that she would at least know the proper names of the sex acts to which she is objecting.
Good to know you are up on your porn terms. Good to know. Please stay away from my kids.
I would so love to be perfect. Alas. that has not happened, nor will it. The scene was of the protagonist (female) receiving oral sex while on her menses, leaving her male partner’s face (and mouth) covered in menstrual blood. Please explain why that scene would not be considered a violation of Alaska Statute 11.61.128, regardless of what it is called.
Thank you for drawing attention to that scene. it’s not easy to get people to focus on written scenes that violate Alaska Statute 11.61.128 with regard minors.
I believe that scene is particularly egregious. If you believe differently, please explain.
Jackie–my point was that in your letter to the mayor, you misidentified the particular sex act that you found so upsetting. Fellatio is not the same as cunnilingus. What was happening in the book was the later, not the former.
Really SA?! You’re throwing Goforth under the bus for her use of sex acts terms?! You were clearly a misguided child, too busy hanging out in the Young Adult section without parental supervision, having your mind corrupted.
S. SA seems quite mentally even, factual and respectful; hardly a corrupted mind.
Not very bright are ya, SA and every demonrat? Is that child porn? 2+2=potato to all of you bottom-dwelling losers, huh?? Why do you vermin always go for the kids, try sugarcoating your disgusting disease and falling victim all while projecting and deflecting in that sick delusional reality you roaches all choose to stay in? Get your empty heads fixed, psycho and LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE!!!
Eh.
fellatio
cunnilingus.
that’s what good copy editors are for. thank you for the correction. Cunnilingus is so much worse.
…still waiting to hear how that is not a violation of Alaska Statute 11.61.128.
Jackie–As I stated earlier in a response to you, the statute that you keep citing does not apply to Red Hood. The statute covers only ELECTRONIC MATERIAL, not print material. It was designed to prevent adults from sending unwanted sexual content through email and text messages to minors. The statute simply does not apply to Red Hood being in the Wasilla Public Library YA section. Secondly, for a work to fall under obscenity laws, the work must fulfill all three prongs of the (federal) obscenity test:
The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Any material that satisfies this three-pronged test may be found obscene.
It is important to note that ALL THREE PRONGS MUST BE FULFILLED FOR THE WORK TO BE CONSIDERED OBSCENE. In the case of Red Hood, the work AS A WHOLE must be considered, not just the several paragraphs that you found objectionable. Further, the work must be considered to have NO LITERARY VALUE to be considered obscene. Red Hood is widely recognized as having literary value, and has received many glowing reviews and awards. Moreover, the three prong test requires that the work describe sex in a patently offensive way. Red Hood’s descriptions of teen sex are soaked with love, tenderness, respect, and care for each other’s well being. There is nothing patently offensive to be seen in Red Hood. I get that you are personally disgusted by the book, but you have no grounds to successfully challenge it as legally obscene under Alaska state statute or federal obscenity laws.
This post EXACTLY explains why my presentation before the reconsideration committee on Wed. Nov 8th was slated to include actual community members. I am very cognizant of the criteria for proving obscenity. The book RED HOOD (and many others) are legally obscene material. Distributing them to persons under 16 is therefore a Class C Felony . Why? Because the majority of average adults applying contemporary community standards for Wasilla (and, by extension, the Mat-Su Valley) finds that – AS A WHOLE – the book is patently obscene, that it creates prurient interest in sex, and that it lacks serious educational, political, scientific, artistic, or literary value for persons under 16. i believe the recent Borough elections should clearly demonstrate that point.
And I really must point out that Committee Member Sarah Rith Welton, PhD, actually stated that RED HOOD lacks literary value in one of her deleted fb posts (all of which I have saved, if anyone would like to view that information).
For information to all interested parties:
Books in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley have already been removed from YOUNG ADULT and are now shelved in the ADULT section in two separate libraries.
The book LET’S TALK ABOUT IT (by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan) was moved in the Willow Library by order of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Community Development Director after my Reconsideration Hearing appeal. The series of books that have “A COURT OF…” in their titles (by author Sarah Maas) were moved from YOUNG ADULT to ADULT in the Big Lake Library by the authority of the Librarian Director at the first stage of my my reconsideration request on one of those “A COURT OF…” books.
And my original form did not say to remove and destroy RED HOOD (by Elana K
Arnold) from the Wasilla library. I have a copy of my official form. I specifically asked for the book to be moved to the ADULT section OR removed.
SA Your comment “You complain that the American Library Association (ALA) is headed by a “Marxist lesbian.” Hmm that head of ALA is a proudly proclaimed by her a Marxist Lesbian.
Dear “SA: We all know what your point is. you seek to belittle, deride, chide, mock, demean, and shame. You are demonstrating what to expect if anyone has the audacity to challenge or question the WOKE ideological agenda of LGBTQ++ that so many of pur previously-esteemed librarians, educators, politicians, leaders are pushing. I do not care what you think of me, or how much you mock me. What I do care about is what this agenda does to child innocence and the sanctity of parental rights (both father and mother) to raise their child without having legally obscene content inculcated into the child’s life, usually without the parent’s knowledge. I invite you to pull up any video from the New York Pride parade from June of 2023 where the chant is clear n concise. “We’re here! We’re queer! We’re coming for your children!” Over and over. That doesn’t need an explanation. Nor does your post.
But I do thank you for posting about my failure to identify the correct sex term. Perhaps you’ve heard of the “Streisand Effect?”. It means putting light on something (a particularly obscene scene in a book) when you would rather deflect attention to something else.
thank you.
Jackie–you keep bringing up totally unrelated events in your attempt to justify your attack on the book, Red Hood. You complain that the American Library Association (ALA) is headed by a “Marxist lesbian.” You fret that the book promotes the LGBTQ “woke agenda” when there are only two sentences in the entire book about same-sex couples at a school homecoming dance. ONLY TWO SENTENCES out of an entire novel!!! Now you complain that the NY Pride parade goers chanted a phrase that upset you. You falsely claim that an Alaskan statute prohibiting adults from sending minors explicit sex messages by email applies to this book. You worry about “parental rights” being violated just because the book is in a public library, without any recognition of parental responsibilities to guide their children’s reading. You make false claims about “toxic masculinity” being a “political agenda” in the book without any recognition about what this terms means. None of these have any bearing at all on the issue at hand: your complaint about the young adult novel, Red Hood being in the young adult section of the Wasilla Public Library has no legitimacy.
Dear SA, there are so many instances of obscenity in that book. I was only able to highlight a few at the Reconsideration Hearing due to time constraints. Or…perhaps you weren’t aware of the masturbation-esque scene featuring the protagonist while inserting a tampon?
Or how about the part discussing a character named Stumpp, who’d had sex (committed incest) with his daughter? They were both executed/murdered for ‘knowledge of his crimes’.
And here is the exact dialogue:
“His daughter had sex with him?”
“Not willingly. Maybe no one cared if it was rape or consensual. Either way, she was guilty.”
There are numerous examples of sections that fall within the pervue of legal obscene and patently offensive for persons under the age of 16 as determined by the prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole in the Mat-Su Valley. The passages are scattered throughout the book. I have only touched on a few thus far.
Once again. I thank you for providing a reason to post these sections publicly so people can read and be informed.
Dear SA, You claim I bring up totally unrelated events in an attempt to justify an attack on a book. Please. Attack is such a contentious word. Can we simply stick to the facts? The book is legally obscene for distribution to readers beneath the age of 16. Young Adult sections in libraries are for readers of ages 14 – 17. 14 (fourteen) is an age that is younger than 16 (sixteen). Can we agree on at least some of these facts? My request was – and is – to relocate the book to the Adult section. In my presentation I brought out that the book is what is called “GROOMING.” I also described what that means. And I stand by it. As for the LGBTQ++ movement, and the ALA lesbian/Marxist president? May I bring up that your points appear to be woefully uninformed, for lack of a better phrase. For some time now there has been an effort underway to include pedophilia under the auspices of LGBTQ++. The political terminology being used for this effort is called “MINOR ATTRACTED PERSON”. The acronym is M.A.P. There is a flag already designed and in use for this effort. It is the trans-flag (baby blue and baby pink stripes on white) with the addition of baby yellow. Make no mistake. A person claiming to be M.A.P. is a pedophile. I advise checking here: https://mapcommunity.org/. Or here: https://prostasia.org/project/map-support-club. Or you can check NAMBLA for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association. As for bringing up the American Library Association, surely you have knowledge of the August 26th, 2023 article on the matter, featuring direct quotes from the ALA President Emily Dabrinski, available here: https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/26/report-library-associations-president-wants-to-stock-kids-shelves-with-lgbt-propaganda-and-porn/. Thank you (once again) for the privilege of responding to your post.
I made a response at the beginning of this garbage that unfortunately got sensored by the editors! Effectively I said I refuse to participate in the public forum at the library because I will not be drug into the trashy content as that is exactly what the derelict’s want! The answer is dunleavy doing his damn job.
The Wasilla Public Library does not allow children to be in the library without adult supervision. The statement about this appears at the very top of their webpage. That means that no child should be able to access a book anywhere in the library without their adult supervisor’s approval. Parents/guardians who are concerned that their child would try to sneak a glance at a book the parent/guardian does not like while in the library should make it clear to the adult supervisor they allow to accompany their child that certain books are to be off limits to their child. Better still: accompany your child to the library to help them choose books to read. There is no legitimate reason to limit accessibility to books to other parents’ children just because a small minority of adults object to the content based on their own personal biases against the subject matter. In this case, Jackie Ivey Goforth and some of the commenters here have leveled specious, deceptive, and false claims against the book, Red Hood. You can read the policy about unattended minors and find a link to the Behavior Policy here: https://www.cityofwasilla.gov/services/departments/library
Dear SA, I am again gratified that you posted! This is such an old, worn-out point. The fact that a parent has signed off granting permission or that signs are posted does not nullify culpability with regard to violating federal and state laws. I offer this common sense analogy: If a minor person goes to purchase alcohol or cigarettes and has in their possession a parent permission slip, and the clerk sells the product to the minor, who would receive the citation? The parent or the clerk – and by extension – the establishment? Who will be charged and responsible for a defense? We can all see that the person actually distributing the illegal content would be cited. True? I would also like to point out that while it IS definitely parents’ responsibility and right to oversee what their child accesses, they have assistance with this when accessing other forms of media/entetainment. There are ratings systems and methods in place to alert parents if the media contains graphic violence, explicit sexual, or other questionable content. Movies have a ratings system to assist parents with deciding what is acceptable content for their child/children. Music has a content system. Video games have a rating system. What is the difference with books? Why is this so controversial? I truly do not understand. This is not a book ban. This is not censorship. This is a request to follow laws put in place to protect the innocence of children. Can anyone explain WHY so many formerly esteemed members of the public want to continue placing such material in the hands of children with this particular media method? Someone needs to address that. Thank you.
I really must add a postscript to my last post.
SA. Anyone using the words “specious” and “false” to describe the claims to the obscene level of contents contained between the covers of RED HOOD is being disingenuous, if not outright disputacious. The obscenity contained in RED HOOD is easily proven. Most of it is actual printed verbiage quoted directly from the pages. Thank you.
Jackie–some free advice for you. First, the next time you want to complain about a book, and you are asked to give a presentation, follow the meeting rules. In general, public meetings with government entities–like the Reconsideration Committee–use Robert’s Rules of Order to structure their meetings. Robert’s Rules allows the chair complete authority over who gets recognized to speak. Audience members who attempt to argue with the chair are disrupting the meeting and can be ejected, per Robert’s Rules. Second piece of advice: STAY ON TOPIC. Don’t veer off the path into the weeds like you did at the Reconsideration Committee meeting, your letter to the mayor, and the Wasilla City Council meeting this past week. If you want to challenge a book in the library, STICK SOLELY TO THAT TOPIC. Ranting about the ALA, the “Marxist lesbian” who is now its president, why Wasilla Public Library and other libraries in Alaska belong to the ALA–none of that is pertinent when your goal should only be to explain your concerns about the book. What happens is that people are confused about what you are talking about, and quickly lose interest in hearing your points because you come across as a raving lunatic jabbing in the air at windmills. Third: make sure you are citing statutes and laws that pertain to your complaint. The Alaska statute you keep referring to, for example, applies only to emails, texts, photos, etc. that are sexual in nature and are sent electronically by an adult to a minor. You even acknowledged that the AK statute does not apply to your case when you spoke to the Wasilla City Council. If the statute does not apply, then don’t cite it! Fourth: learn to modulate your voice so that you appear calm, polite, and articulate. At the Wasilla City Council meeting, you were so hostile and accusatory that I could see the Councilmembers freezing you out. And finally, fifth: remember that no one but you are in your head. At the Wasilla City Council meeting, you assumed that everyone present knew why you were ranting about the definition of “presentation.” Perhaps the Councilmembers knew why, but it is highly likely that few others knew why you were going on and on about the definition. Remember that in public meetings like that, you want to affect not just the people sitting on the dais; you want to influence everyone in the room and everyone who watches the video of the meeting. But to do that, you have to ensure that everyone knows why you are railing against something.
Dear SA, Did I truly just read your post that says I “…come across as a raving lunatic jabbing in the air at windmills.”? I believe you have just proved my previous contention in a post about this sort of behavior. I said – “…you seek to belittle, deride, chide, mock, demean, and shame. You are demonstrating what to expect if anyone has the audacity to challenge or question the WOKE ideological agenda of LGBTQ++ that so many of our previously esteemed librarians, educators, politicians, leaders are pushing.” How…revealing. Is this truly what happens when people can’t present factual evidence to defend distributing obscene material to persons under 16 as defined by law? I actually thought my contention of the shaming, deriding, etc. etc. was more than proved when Sarah Ruth Weston, PhD, decided to refer to me as “Agnorant” on a deleted post. (see article above). Her post also contained an absolute lie when she stated that my original complaint was to remove and destroy the book. I handed the Wasilla City Council a copy of the original complaint. It’s clear as day. My request states “Move to Adult section or remove”. Now that I’ve been lied about, my intelligence, ability, and comprehension maligned, accused of being “toxic” and not “equipped to properly evaluate the materials” –those words come from D.W. in a now-deleted fb post, my “…mentality is what educators have to deal with…” – from an L.K. now-deleted fb post, I “…don’t quite understand the process…” by M.R. at a council meeting, and there are too many more to list, I now have “raving lunatic”. All of this vitriol just evades the issue. It is an absolute fact that there are laws on the books about distributing obscenity to minors. Federal Law is Title 18 USC 1470 https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity . Alaska Statute 11.61.128 mirrors the Miller-Ginsburg test set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decision: Miller v. California that still stands today 50 years later. Basically stated: Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, reaffirmed. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/
Now. The prevailing standards of the average individuals applying contemporary community standards is one facet of how this law is decided. Another states: “the material depicts actual or simulated conduct in a way that is patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for persons under 16 years of age” The results of the November 7th School Board and Assembly election should leave no doubt as to what the community would decide/say if they were all informed about the content in these books – as well as the effort supporting it. Therefore, there are books in the Young Adult section of the Wasilla Library that fit the legal definition for distribution of obscene material to persons under 16. RED HOOD by Elana Arnold is one of them. This Reconsideration hearing has been called a book ban. First Amendment censorship. A violation of Right to Read. But nobody can justify that stance because the book will be available. The request is to move it to the ADULT section. Everything experienced about this procedure fits the textbook example of fascism. The definition of fascism is “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control”. MERRIAM-WEBSTER. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism . Let’s see how that works. The libraries/librarians control/dictate everything. The policy to purchase books is Library dictated/controlled. The procedure to object to material and/or placement of material is Library dictated/controlled. The original meeting is Library dictated/controlled. The required timeline is Library dictated/controlled. The reconsideration hearing is Library dictated/controlled. The rules of the hearing are Library dictated/controlled. Any ambiguity about rules is Library dictated/controlled. (As point of fact, not once during the hearing that took place on Wednesday, November 8th at the Menard Center was information offered about how the meeting would be conducted according to Robert’s Rules. They were never even mentioned. No minutes were taken. No recording was done. There was no gavel in use, etc.). To continue with fascism: the selection of committee hearing members is Library dictate/control. Access to the discussion and/or evaluation of the facts presented at a reconsideration hearing is Library dictated/controlled. The decision is Library dictated/controlled. There is nothing about the policy or procedure that is not controlled or dictated by the library or librarians. The public – whose tax dollars fund everything about the library – is not given any input into policy, procedure, or outcome. All they seem to receive is insults. Once again, SA, I thank you for posting.
Hey retard SA, define fascism and explain what makes a nazi a nazi or zip your ignorant lip.
For anyone interested, Jackie, Mike Coons, Karen Lewis, and a person named Linda something (didn’t catch her last name) testified at the Wasilla City Council meeting on Monday night. Jackie went first, and her testimony started at 17:54 here: https://cityofwasilla.civicweb.net/document/118637/?splitscreen=true&media=true. They were followed by a speaker who reminded the Council that the government-level censorship Jackie et al. are calling for violates our free speech and first amendment rights.
And Mary was wrong in that assertion.
Mary and others can, once this book and others are moved to the Adult Section, can go to the Library, check out any number of those books to their hearts delight. They can read them and enjoy them all they want. In the safety of of their homes they can pollute the minds of their children all they want too!
Under 18 are NOT adults and thus per SCOTUS Do NOT have the same rights as adults
I’m sure SA you were not happy at Mr Graham’s comments then. For he did a good job of showing Jeanne to be lying to the council. See, words matter, not just themselves but in context. Jeanne’s proudly proclaiming they had a book reading time of the classics, Huckfinn, Sam Magee, and many others may as Mr Graham said at one time been “banned”, but are classics today and not banned. What was funny was that Red Hood and the other porn smack books were not listed in her testimony. Interesting.
Mike–The Legal Information Institute (LII) , in its statement about children’s rights, notes that “Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution.” This contradicts your claim that SCOTUS has ruled that children “Do NOT have the same rights as adults.” The only right that adults have and children do not have is the right to vote. LII states:
“The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is said to apply to children, but excludes those not yet born. There are both state and federal sources of children’s-rights law. In other words, a child has many of the same constitutional rights as an adult has; however, if a child is under 18 years old, they do not have the right to vote.”
Nowhere in the US constitution or in the Alaska constitution is there any mention of a prohibition of children’s rights to read. Your claims to the contrary are simply wrong.
Both Alaska and Federal are clear; It’s a class C felony to distribute obscene materials to minors. Go to Booklooks.org and look up the following titles and read the excerpts from Red Hood, Identical, Fun Home, Red, white & Royal Blue, Deal with it, Damsel, The Bluest Eye, and anything written by Sarah J. Maas.
All these & more are shelved in the Wasilla Public Library, which are tax payer funded. The objectionable writings are not only obscene, they are evil.
Ephesians 6:12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. And those evil forces are out to destroy our children! And they are also out to destroy us! Obscene books and materials steal childrens’ innocence and erodes their moral fiber. All who believe children should have access to obscene materials, are standing side by side with the forces of darkness.
Under administrations like we are existing under presently law is meaningless! Dunleavy is irrelevant!
Karen. How does the concept of and the love within sexuality erode anyone’s moral fiber.
Karen–Under the US constitution, you are generally free to practice your own religious beliefs, free from governmental constraints. However, government entities–such as the Wasilla Public Library–may not constrain patrons’ rights to access books and other materials based on some people’s religious beliefs. The solution to your problem is simple: do not check out books that you don’t want to read. Do not allow your minor child to check out books you don’t want them to read. But you have NO RIGHT to prevent other people’s children from freely accessing books in the Wasilla Public Library. By claiming that you do have such a right violates parental rights, e.g. the rights of parents to help their children to freely access books in the public library. Not your child? Not your decision about what they read.
SA, I really hope you’re Sarah Welton… you are all HILARIOUS, you poor lost confused things!!! Get some dignity and a brain cell, sweetheart, and stay away from all children.
Yeah, the people who knew what they’re talking about and actually care about children were followed by an embarrassing, misinformed, bottom-dwelling demonrat psycho that spewed the same incorrect projecting garbage that all of you do.
Baby-murdering racist Demonrats are always so gravely-misinformed on the very wrong side of history, it’s AMAZING.
Obviously removing CHILD PORN from the hands of children is not banning books like your fellow Nazis did and have done, genius. Cry harder with your fellow Cancel Culture rejects about Dr Seuss, syrup, etc. Can you define Fascism and explain what specifically makes a Nazi a Nazi?? Then tell me if that sounds like Conservatives.
It’s about time you vermin finally learn what you really are and quit projecting, always pointing your ignorant fingers in the very wrong direction.
And you want to talk about censorship?? How about Big Tech doing it for its pathetic minions? AND NONE OF YOU CAN OR WANT TO DEBATE SO YOU ALL JUST RUN FROM THE TRUTH, TRYING TO SILENCE YOUR OPPOSITION THAT ISNT WRONG. Start with the health and science from the experts/your tv that would never lie to you geniuses— Tell me that any of you understand ANYTHING about health or science! You and your fellow misinformed Nazis silenced us, per usual, when we tried telling you about real health and science.
And dont worry, you can still order your child porn books (that shouldnt be in books in the first place, psycho!!!) online for the children that you shouldnt be allowed to have or ever be around! They’ll still unfortunately follow in your sad footsteps and become mentally-ill like you.
Peggy. I’m the voice of evidence-based conclusions using the unassailable technique of the scientific method ( you use it 95% of your day). Science produces facts. Humans respond to facts, some with maturity and reason and the assurance of truth.
Others* rely on insult, fabrication, falsehoods derived from lies, rhetoric meant to misinform, emotional persuasion, and supernatural nonsense to promote a position.
* You
Lucinda proving me right yet again hahaha Shocker!!! Like I said, you can NEVER address facts and instead choose to project, deflect and run from the truth. Again, you have never been on the right side of history and you never will be no matter how hard you try to avoid the simplest, most basic facts in actual reality. Give me facts, not from CNN and not your unstable emotions. Start by defining Fascism and explaining what makes a Nazi a Nazi. AGAIN, Lucinda, SA and the other misinformed, address facts and quit projecting. Thanks
Dear SA (JT), all your arguments – whether proferred as obfuscations, insults, claims of victimization, etc, that you’ve deployed in this comment thread – to defend this book’s PLACEMENT IN A PUBLIC LIBRARY (which is really the issue) are tired, worn-out, redundant, and easily disproven. Shelving the book RED HOOD in the Young Adult section of the Wasilla Library is a violation of United States Federal Law Title 18 U.S.C. 1470 (Transfer of Obscene Material to Minors), and – according to the directive from Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor issued to all public librarians on Thrusday, November 16th, , RED HOOD also violates Alaska Statutes AS 11.61.128 (Distribution of Indecent Materials to Minors), AS 11.41.152 (Enticement of a Minor), and AS 11.51.130 (Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor). For reference, I invite you to check out . once again however, I do thank you for posting.
I invite everyone to check out news reports about Alaska AG Treg Taylor’s directive regarding making obscene material available to kids and teens, issued to public librarians on Thursday, Nov 16th.
And Treg Taylor please take a bow for one of the stupidest actions I have seen by the executive branch! Tell them it’s against the law after they committed the crime! Because you told them during and after the crime there will be no prosecutions! Government gets very creative in order to escape its actions and is never held accountable!
You repeatedly earn my disrespect!
73 comments later, what has been accomplished? You all have been drug into a frenzy of hyper sexualized content that has been allowed by our governing bodies and no one has been held accountable for laws that were and are being broken! This cannot be what our founders designed and if we keep this crap up we will not be here to regret it!
My last lengthy post did not get posted, but it was rendered basically meaningless with the issuance of Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor’s directive to all public and school librarians about this very issue. His letter states (*paraphrasing here) thsr, by having questionable content books in the Young Adult sections of libraries, violations may be occurring of not only AS 11.61.128 (Distribution of Indecent Material to Minors, but two more Statutes, as well. They are AS 11.41.452 (Enticement of a Minor) and AS 11.51.130 (Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor). The letter also says that librarians and educators are not above law. I invite anyone interested to search for this document and read it.
Goforth. Not to pry, but do you teach your children about reproduction including semen and menstruation and ejaculation? That’s just the biology part. The rest is much more nuanced and diverse. Boy girl attraction is a fun and life expanding dance. Why get in the way? Just how harmful is it for your young adult to learn about oral sex? Is oral sex wrong? Do you think that they will never explore that?
So many facts, lucinda. You can watch all the child porn and befriend all of the pedos that you want, but leave normal people out of it. Sex should be in wedlock – only FOR ADULTS. Too simple, I know. Do you wonder why you’re all so unstable and live such miserable lives? Why you’re all mentally-ill?? Look at your all the easily-preventable abuse, mental disease and disturbing lies that you have to twist to make sound somewhat reasonable. It’s a disease that needs a cure immediately!
Dear Lucinda et al. How and when and what a parent chooses to teach their child about *alternative sexual matters (and life, in general) is a PARENT’S right and responsibility. It is NOT to be usurped by anyone without the parent’s knowledge and permission.
Taking children’s education (and the ability to influence) away from parents is a large part of the Marxist agenda. I would think most people are aware of that. It is not for the entertainment industry – which includes movies, games, music, theater, BOOKS, etc – to decide what is acceptable for a child and at what age. It is a parent’s right and responsibility. Why do you want children inculcated in *alternative sexual lifestyles anyway? Nobody seems to answer that. Are you really stating giving oral sex to a menstruating female is something to be desired? Is that something you and the others pushing the LGBTQ++ agenda engage in? And please, don’t refer to my bringing that scene up as a “menstrual shaming”. That is just stupid. I’m not alone is saying scenes like that one in RED HOOD certainly qualify as “depicted conduct that is patently offensive to the prevailing standards in the adult community (of Wasilla and Matanuska-Susitna Valley) as a whole with regard to what is suitable for persons under 16”. The recent election results are proof. It’s not that hard to comprehend. And it’s the LAW. This is a request to move a book to where destributing it would not be a violation of the law. Please read and comprehend all my posts and – while you’re at it – take them “as a whole” before posting again. Would you do that? It should be edifying. PS – I do the same with yours. *perverse
It’s past time to just shut the hell up!!!
Awww davey, you must be a proud demonrat… the worst, most unwanted and disliked option in the world… poor thing. When were you neutered, Special Ed??
Peggy: your Christian arrogance is why people are abandoning the mythology. Plus the patent absurdity of Christianity. Plus your name calling and unsupportable accusations diminish whatever point you are trying to make. Look to science for answers Peggy not faith.
Hahahaha who abused you so badly, Lucinda? How many meds do you take? You poor subhuman! Are you really this braindead like every single demonrat? When did I claim to be Christian, psycho? Just because all of you lunatics pray to Satan and good people who are fed up with you mental patients and those who actually care about children , dont feed them porn, dont murder them etc under some illogical, insane guise?? Special Edna, answer me and quit projecting. Youre all embarrassing, clueless and gravely-misinformed so lets help you bottom-dwelling vermin ok?? DEFINE FASCIMS AND EXPLAIN WHAT MAKES A NAZI A NAZI. Start there then we’ll proceed on to how racist you maggots always have been and still are, okkk, dingbat? Your pitiful drivel on christianity is old and very sad but as always, predictable. Again, quit projecting and go scrape up a brain cell and shred of integrity, lunatic!
I am unable to define FASCIMS.
Got me.
And lunatic lucinda, please tell me whose bought-and-paid-for scientific advice I should take? Those who dont know their gender? Or Psycho sarah welton who died a long time ago on the inside and out (poor thing!!) or Jeanne Troshynski the soulles obese whale that abused her kid so badly it turned into a tranny or how about mark kelsey the proud misinformed waste of a male and demonrat, all of whom belong in mental wards far from all children at best?? Health comes in a needle right, nutjob?? Teach me!! I want to be as smart as you obese, mentally-ill lunatics that pray to Satan who no one of quality has ever liked or wanted to be around!!! There is nothing worse in this world than you demonrats. Get your facts straight and do not ever speak to good, normal people like you repulsive perverts more than deserve. Youre lucky Joel keeps deleting most of my comments— dont want you unstable lunatics running to your safe space with so much truth, psycho!! Waaaaa!!! #liberalismisamentaldisorder
Lucinda, please keep that thinking up! Your “strainge” remarks are what makes Revelation more believable and prophetic! Continue to spread your filth to (and for) the filthy! I’m sure there are entities out there that appreciate it!!
Mr Peggy. You only detract from the good of our community. No wonder Joel can’t find value in what you spew. I on the other hand, provide the cool refreshing water of evidence and reason to the thirsty pilgrims here, but it is almost always AGAINST religion and conservatism yet Joel allows me to post, and to be honest, I don’t know why. But thanks Joel, it’s fun to squabble.
Grow a pair, Joel. My gawd youre as pathetic as these diseased demonrats, neutered beta
Aaahahaha why wasnt that one cut down to two words, Joel?! Claim liberalism, we dont want you phonies, Joel
You STILL cant answer any of my easy questions and STILL project, deflect and make more unstable, illogical claims. Why do you parasites destroy everything you touch? Go to portland or venezuela where you belong. Tell me after your liquid brains finally define Fascism and explain what makes a Nazi a Nazi! Or just keep giving me more typical projection and deflection.
Just for the record Mr Peggy, my partner and I love your posts. They give us a sense of the fringe and the intensity of hate you have for the Other. We appreciate how you don’t rely on political correctness (whatever that is exactly) and reveal your raw emotions and your raw truth. Your candor makes it easy for us to react with the same level of emotional enthusiasm.
More pathetic projection and deflection?! I am SO SHOCKED!!! Do you ever question why no one of any quality has ever liked any of you? Why is that, “lucinda?” And tell me, at what point do you believe any of you deserve a shred of respect? For abusing children and stealing their innocence? DEFINE FASCISM AND EXPLAIN WHAT MAKES A NAZI A NAZI or shut your ignorant mouth.
I’m curious when and where Jackie Ivie Goforth went to law school? She seems so certain that a statute is being broken, yet her arguments do not stand up to logic. SA has made plenty of detailed rebuttals to prove that Jackie is bananas. Just sayin’.