Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is already beginning to implement the law.


A city in Tennessee is using a recently passed ordinance essentially prohibiting homosexuality in public to try to ban library books that might violate the new rules.

Murfreesboro passed an ordinance in June banning “indecent behavior,” including “indecent exposure, public indecency, lewd behavior, nudity or sexual conduct.” As journalist Erin Reed first reported, this ordinance specifically mentions Section 21-72 of the city code. The city code states that sexual conduct includes homosexuality.

Anyone who violates the new ordinance is barred from hosting public events or selling goods and services at public events for two years. Anyone who violates the ordinance “in the presence of minors” is barred for five years.

An ACLU-backed challenge to the ordinance has already been launched, but that hasn’t stopped city officials from implementing the measure. Last Monday, the Rutherford County steering committee met to discuss removing all books that might potentially violate the ordinance from the public library. The resolution was met with widespread outcry from city residents.

“When have the people who ban books ever been the good guys?” local activist Keri Lambert demanded during the Monday county meeting.

Murfreesboro city officials have already used the ordinance to ban four books that discuss LGBTQ themes. In August, the county library board pulled the books Flamer, Let’s Talk About It, Queerfully and Wonderfully Made, and This Book Is Gay.

The board also implemented a new library card system that categorizes books into certain age groups. When it takes effect next year, children and teenagers will only be able to check out books that correspond to their age group; they will need permission from a parent or guardian to check out “adult” books.

Library director Rita Shacklett worried in August that the new rules would prevent students from accessing books they need for a class. She explained that many classic high school books, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, are now classified as “adult.”

It’s unclear if the county steering committee plans to pull books such as the A Song of Ice and Fire series, which includes multiple depictions of heterosexual sexual conduct.

Murfreesboro’s new ordinance is part of a much larger wave of attacks on LGBTQ rights in Tennessee and the rest of the country. In the past year, the so-called Volunteer State became the first state to try to ban drag performances. That law was overturned in court.

In March, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow people to refuse to perform a marriage if they disagree with it, essentially gutting marriage equality. The bill was introduced in the Senate but deferred until next year.

link: https://newrepublic.com/post/176915/tennessee-town-ban-public-homosexuality

archive link: https://archive.ph/LFMMK

  • Tammo-Korsai@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    ·
    1 year ago

    When it takes effect next year, children and teenagers will only be able to check out books that correspond to their age group; they will need permission from a parent or guardian to check out “adult” books.

    Will the bible be in the adult section? It’s full of every kind of smut and crime you can think of.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nah, it just needs to be in fiction where it and the quran belong.

        At least until people stop treating it like truth and start treating it strictly anthropologically. It’s a fascinating book to analyze secularly.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s a fascinating book to analyze secularly.

          Is it though? I’ve seen atheists say this to theists to make them feel like they got some kind of win or something.

          But let’s be real, it’s shit. The stories are shit. The characters are shit. It isn’t even internally consistent. It’s an objectively shitty book.

          • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, it’s fascinating to ANALYZE secularly, not to read secularly. It’s fascinaing anthropologically. It is NOT good literature.

            I’m not going to call cave paintings high art, but they are fascinating to study for some.

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The Song of Solomon was deadass my first exposure to erotic writing

      “And their emissions were kin to that of donkeys” or some shit

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ezekiel 23:20

        There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

        Looks like smut that should be kept out of the hands of children to me.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s your point? Does putting smut in context make it any less smutty and appropriate for children? It’s okay for children to hear about men blasting out semen with their giant dicks if it’s in the proper context?

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                If I had a book that showed graphic pictures of people having sex with “do not do this, children” at the bottom, would that be appropriate for children?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I see, so giant donkey dicks spewing out cum is not unacceptable for children as long as there isn’t a picture of it and it’s a long book. Well, a lot of those books being made unaccessible to children are long books with far less graphic depictions of anything sexual, so you should be against them making them adult only.

                  • prole@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You should take a look at the types of books these people are banning, because if you think they’re all books with graphics pictures of “sexual behavior,” you are very mistaken.

                    If you were to actually do some research into what is actually being banned, it becomes clear pretty quickly what this is about. And it’s not “graphic pictures of sexual behavior.”

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                How about a third option: one that mentions it at all. Isn’t that what this is all about after all?

                According to Republicans, this is about not exposing children to things like that. You can’t change the criteria for this one book, especially when that book is a religious holy book. That would violate the First Amendment by creating laws that specifically and overtly target anything based on religion.

                Additionally, it’s fucking stupid.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            after the all, the city is only banning the distribution of these materials to minors

            And kicking anyone who shows affection to their same-gender partner in public out of the city. You left that part out for some reason.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                I see, so as long as it isn’t limited to homosexuality, it doesn’t say that gay people will get kicked out of town if they kiss each other in public. Gotcha.

                  • prole@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Nothing says “freedom loving patriot” like *checks notes* disallowing people from participating in society because they were born a certain way.

                    How can you even form a coherent thought up there through that massive cloud of cognitive dissonance? I guess it’s like a muscle, and if you work it out enough, even the most extreme dissonance can be brushed off.

                    Kind of interesting to watch.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Where does it say that is what “barred for five years” means? Or is that just your personal interpretation?

              • acceptable_pumpkin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                So if a man and woman are holding hands, they’ll get the same punishment? Somehow I don’t think this backwater town will enforce the laws equally since they have such a dumb ordinance to begin with.

      • voxel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        yes, that’s the point of the whole book.
        technically still falls under the law tho