It is one thing to depict a nude body and quite another to depict performance of sexual acts. That is where I draw a clear line of distinction between content that promotes instructional or neutral or artistic healthy education of a sexual nature (as in the case of beautiful nude sculptures, paintings, or photographs), as opposed to content intended to sexually stimulate. There is even a difference between sexually explicit and descriptive language, and then coupling it with illustrations. Although I've not read it, the images from this book are enough to indicate it is not appropriate for school libraries. Save it for book stores and maybe community libraries.
How is this not being treated as criminal dissemination of child pornography? RI General Law makes it very clear what is, and is not child pornography (as defined in section (c) below), and this definitely IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY... This is the applicable law - can anyone read this law and refute the assertion that this is child pornography??
§ 11-9-1.3. Child pornography prohibited.
(a) Violations. It is a violation of this section for any person to:
(1) Knowingly produce any child pornography;
(2) Knowingly mail, transport, deliver or transfer by any means, including by computer, any child pornography;
(3) Knowingly reproduce any child pornography by any means, including the computer; or
(4) Knowingly possess any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, computer file or any other material that contains an image of child pornography.
(b) Penalties.
(1) Whoever violates or attempts or conspires to violate subdivisions (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or imprisoned for not more than fifteen (15) years, or both.
(2) Whoever violates or attempts or conspires to violate subdivision (a)(4) of this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or imprisoned not more than five (5) years, or both.
(c) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
(1) "Child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct where:
(i) The production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(ii) Such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(iii) Such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to display an identifiable minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(2) "Computer" has the meaning given to that term in section 11-52-1;
(3) "Minor" means any person not having reached eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) "Identifiable minor."
(i) Means a person:
(A)(I) Who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) Whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) Who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) Shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(5) "Producing" means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing or advertising;
(6) "Sexually explicit conduct" means actual:
(i) Graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, or lascivious sexual intercourse where the genitals, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) Bestiality;
(iii) Masturbation;
(iv) Sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) Graphic or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(7) "Visual depiction" includes undeveloped film and videotape and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means, which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(8) "Graphic," when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.
(d) Affirmative defenses.
(1) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section that:
(i) The alleged child pornography was produced using an actual person or persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(ii) Each such person was an adult at the time the material was produced; and
(iii) The defendant did not advertise, promote, present, describe or distribute the material in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subdivision (a)(4) of this section that the defendant:
(i) Possessed less than three (3) images of child pornography; and
(ii) Promptly and in good faith and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or copy of it:
(A) Took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
(B) Reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such image.
(e) Severability. If any provision or provisions of this section, or the application of this section to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent authority, that invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this section which can be given effect without that invalid provision or provisions or application of the provision or provisions, and to this end the provisions of this section are declared to be separable and severable.
This is grooming, plain and simple. Utterly disgusting and only a depraved mind would find this appropriate for children! The librarian conflating the f word and sexual illustrations was dumbfounding. I don't know what ride I am on but I want off, and now.
This is obviously not pornography, it’s just sexual content. There’s a difference. There is no reason to hide sexual content from your children if you’re having open and honest discussions with them about sex and sexuality, which is part of a parent’s job.
It is not only shocking to see the return of racial segregation being promoted in the USA via Critical Race Theory but extremely worrying that this ideology is being exported to the UK. We have obviously had problems with racial discrimination but we have never had state-sanctioned racial segregation.
The UK Government has been fighting back against both CRT and gender identity indoctrination in schools but, as in the USA, it will be up to parents to hold schools to stay within the law.
In the UK, our institutions have been infiltrated and indoctrinated under the RADAR as in the USA. However, there is always a time-lag before things get quite as bad here and we have a (moderately) conservative government pushing back.
Rep Chippendale -- how about asking RIDE how many LEAs failed to submit annual wellness plans and learning strategies (both required reports). Hint - North Kingstown failed to do both but the Supt can spend time to attend useless "DEI" subcommittee meetings...
Maybe you can poke RIDE and DOH when a LEA *fails* to submit required reports what they actually do about it!! What's the point of the GA mandating reporting if the agencies don't enforce the reporting??
It is one thing to depict a nude body and quite another to depict performance of sexual acts. That is where I draw a clear line of distinction between content that promotes instructional or neutral or artistic healthy education of a sexual nature (as in the case of beautiful nude sculptures, paintings, or photographs), as opposed to content intended to sexually stimulate. There is even a difference between sexually explicit and descriptive language, and then coupling it with illustrations. Although I've not read it, the images from this book are enough to indicate it is not appropriate for school libraries. Save it for book stores and maybe community libraries.
How is this not being treated as criminal dissemination of child pornography? RI General Law makes it very clear what is, and is not child pornography (as defined in section (c) below), and this definitely IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY... This is the applicable law - can anyone read this law and refute the assertion that this is child pornography??
§ 11-9-1.3. Child pornography prohibited.
(a) Violations. It is a violation of this section for any person to:
(1) Knowingly produce any child pornography;
(2) Knowingly mail, transport, deliver or transfer by any means, including by computer, any child pornography;
(3) Knowingly reproduce any child pornography by any means, including the computer; or
(4) Knowingly possess any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, computer file or any other material that contains an image of child pornography.
(b) Penalties.
(1) Whoever violates or attempts or conspires to violate subdivisions (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or imprisoned for not more than fifteen (15) years, or both.
(2) Whoever violates or attempts or conspires to violate subdivision (a)(4) of this section shall be subject to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or imprisoned not more than five (5) years, or both.
(c) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
(1) "Child pornography" means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct where:
(i) The production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(ii) Such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(iii) Such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to display an identifiable minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(2) "Computer" has the meaning given to that term in section 11-52-1;
(3) "Minor" means any person not having reached eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) "Identifiable minor."
(i) Means a person:
(A)(I) Who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) Whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) Who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) Shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(5) "Producing" means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing or advertising;
(6) "Sexually explicit conduct" means actual:
(i) Graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, or lascivious sexual intercourse where the genitals, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) Bestiality;
(iii) Masturbation;
(iv) Sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) Graphic or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(7) "Visual depiction" includes undeveloped film and videotape and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means, which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(8) "Graphic," when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.
(d) Affirmative defenses.
(1) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section that:
(i) The alleged child pornography was produced using an actual person or persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(ii) Each such person was an adult at the time the material was produced; and
(iii) The defendant did not advertise, promote, present, describe or distribute the material in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subdivision (a)(4) of this section that the defendant:
(i) Possessed less than three (3) images of child pornography; and
(ii) Promptly and in good faith and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or copy of it:
(A) Took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
(B) Reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such image.
(e) Severability. If any provision or provisions of this section, or the application of this section to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent authority, that invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this section which can be given effect without that invalid provision or provisions or application of the provision or provisions, and to this end the provisions of this section are declared to be separable and severable.
History of Section.
(P.L. 2001, ch. 143, § 1; P.L. 2004, ch. 586, § 2; P.L. 2004, ch. 612, § 2.)
This is grooming, plain and simple. Utterly disgusting and only a depraved mind would find this appropriate for children! The librarian conflating the f word and sexual illustrations was dumbfounding. I don't know what ride I am on but I want off, and now.
This is obviously not pornography, it’s just sexual content. There’s a difference. There is no reason to hide sexual content from your children if you’re having open and honest discussions with them about sex and sexuality, which is part of a parent’s job.
Looks like the National Education Association succeeded in getting Nicole Solas kicked off Twitter:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/ri-teachers-union-is-trying-to-get-me-kicked-off-twitter-after-suing-me-for-seeking-crt-records/
It is not only shocking to see the return of racial segregation being promoted in the USA via Critical Race Theory but extremely worrying that this ideology is being exported to the UK. We have obviously had problems with racial discrimination but we have never had state-sanctioned racial segregation.
The UK Government has been fighting back against both CRT and gender identity indoctrination in schools but, as in the USA, it will be up to parents to hold schools to stay within the law.
In the UK, our institutions have been infiltrated and indoctrinated under the RADAR as in the USA. However, there is always a time-lag before things get quite as bad here and we have a (moderately) conservative government pushing back.
In case these references are of any help to you:
Guidance
Political impartiality in schools
Published 17 February 2022
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/political-impartiality-in-schools/political-impartiality-in-schools
Guidance
Plan your relationships, sex and health curriculum
Published 24 September 2020
Last updated 17 February 2022
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/plan-your-relationships-sex-and-health-curriculum
UK Parliament - House of Commons
Black History Month
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts
Tuesday 20th October 2020
https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/kemi-badenoch/debate/2020-10-20/commons/commons-chamber/black-history-month
https://youtu.be/3vf7yX9ESRc
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts
Thursday 17th March 2022
https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/kemi-badenoch/debate/2022-03-17/commons/commons-chamber/commission-on-race-and-ethnic-disparities
House of Commons - Westminster Hall Debate (Back Bench Business)
Thursday 30th June 2022
That this House has considered relationship and sex education materials in schools.
https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/debate/2022-06-30/commons/westminster-hall/backbench-business
Building Regulations: Public Toilet Provision
Kemi Badenoch Excerpts
Monday 4th July 2022
https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/mp/kemi-badenoch/debate/2022-07-04/commons/written-statements/building-regulations-public-toilet-provision
---------
In terms of individual action within institutions, or dealing with institutions, this is a useful resource if you have not come across it:
https://wokedissident.substack.com/
Rep Chippendale -- how about asking RIDE how many LEAs failed to submit annual wellness plans and learning strategies (both required reports). Hint - North Kingstown failed to do both but the Supt can spend time to attend useless "DEI" subcommittee meetings...
Maybe you can poke RIDE and DOH when a LEA *fails* to submit required reports what they actually do about it!! What's the point of the GA mandating reporting if the agencies don't enforce the reporting??