Latest news with #NealJackson
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC Republicans say their new bill is not about banning books. Yes, it sure is
North Carolina House Republicans passed a bill this week that would ban books. So why are they insisting that it is not a book banning bill? The bill, which passed the House on Wednesday, purports to be about promoting 'wholesome' content for students. It would create processes to review and remove books and other media with sexual content from school libraries — and allow the public to sue schools for having library books that they believe to be harmful to minors. If the bill becomes law, each school district would have to review all of its existing media to ensure its compliance with the law. Each district also would be required to form a 'community library advisory committee,' composed of five parents and five school district employees, to make recommendations for future books and review letters of objection for existing ones. The bill is problematic for a number of reasons. It's far too vague — while the bill's sponsors claim they only want to remove 'pornographic' material from school libraries, they don't attempt to define exactly what that is. The bill bans books that are 'pervasively vulgar' — a term with no precise definition. But it also goes so far as to place a blanket prohibition on books that contain descriptions or depictions of sexual activity. Such books, the bill says, are not appropriate for any age level. That could have broad implications. If any description of sexual activity isn't allowed, that could affect some books with true literary and artistic value that are often taught in schools, such as 'The Color Purple.' The authors of the bill may not intend for that to happen, but without clear, objective parameters to define what is and isn't acceptable, how can they be sure it won't? At a news conference Tuesday, legislators displayed some of the books they consider to be 'filth' and 'pornographic.' It included books with LGBTQ+ and social justice themes as well as books that discuss physical and emotional abuse. It even included 'The Handmaid's Tale' — a critically acclaimed, wildly popular novel that spawned an award-winning TV show of the same name. While some might point out that those books contain 'vulgar' references to sex, others would argue those references are outweighed by the educational or artistic value. That's why the bill is a misguided attempt to apply objectivity to something that's inherently subjective. Republican lawmakers say that since the bill does not contain the words 'ban' or 'censor,' it cannot be characterized as book banning or censorship. Such characterizations, they say, are 'personally offensive.' They had no problem accusing Democrats of wanting to expose children to pornography, however. 'If you want children to look at pornography or inappropriate stuff, order it off of Amazon or go to the public library,' Rep. Neal Jackson, the bill's sponsor, told Democrats during a floor debate Wednesday. That's disingenuous. To suggest that anyone, whether it be a parent, school employee or lawmaker, has a vested interest in subjecting children to pornographic content is a ridiculous and tawdry argument that deliberately ignores the very real concerns people have with this bill. Because the biggest problem with the bill is this: it should be up to parents to decide what is or isn't appropriate for their children. Yet the bill doesn't just allow parents to seek relief for potential violations. Anyone living in the school district would be able to sue schools over content they have in their libraries, regardless if they have a child attending public school or not. It sounds like a recipe for disaster. Shielding children from discussions of sexuality and gender identity does not make them less likely to be gay. Keeping them away from books that discuss rape and abuse does not, sadly, make them less susceptible to being raped and abused. It does, however, prevent them from feeling seen by stories about people like them, or learning something new from stories about people who aren't. Censoring those things only makes kids feel like they need to censor parts of themselves. That's more harmful than any of these books could ever be.
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC House Education panel advances bill removing school library books with sexual content
(Photo:) The North Carolina House Education Committee approved a bill aimed at barring books and other media with sexual content from school libraries, opening up schools that do not comply with the requirements to lawsuits. The proposal, House Bill 636, drew concerns from Democratic representatives over the subjectivity of which books are 'harmful to minors' or 'pervasively vulgar,' the standard for removal set by the bill, as well as protests from members of the public, some of whom were ejected by the sergeant-at-arms for vocal disruptions. The bill requires each of the state's 116 school districts to establish a committee made up of five parents or guardians and five educators tasked with reviewing all school library material for sexual content to determine if it is in violation of the state guidelines, as well as new additions and any book fair offerings. The bill declares any media containing 'descriptions or visual depictions of sexual activity' to be inappropriate for all ages and grade levels. The State Board of Education would be required to maintain a database of all banned media across the state and update it annually. In addition, objections from 10 parents, residents, or teachers would be sufficient to require the review of specific library materials. While the bill leaves final say over what materials should be included in libraries with school governing bodies, it also opens up a private right of action for parents, guardians, and residents to sue over noncompliance with the law by any school. The bill comes amid a wave of book bans around the country as Republican-controlled legislatures have sought to give parents a veto over the material their children can access at school. In the 2023-24 school year, more than 10,000 instances of book banning took place around the country, PEN America found. Critics of the bans say books on LGBTQ+ and racial topics are disproportionately subject to removal, alleging ideological rather than educational motives for the restrictions. Rep. Neal Jackson (R-Moore), one of the bill's primary sponsors, contended that the removal process is 'absolutely not book banning,' pointing to Supreme Court precedent that schools may bar any content that are 'pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable.' He said controlling available library media is critical for parental rights. 'It's not about fiction books. It's not about nonfiction books. It's not about novels,' Jackson said. 'Very simply, it's about pornography and not allowing pornography in our public school libraries.' But that argument left opponents of the bill unconvinced. Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) said she feared books like Alice Walker's 'The Color Purple,' which depicts a young girl experiencing and overcoming rape, would likely be subject to bans despite their literary and educational value. 'That's book banning, that's censorship, that's one of the all-time great books that kids learn to read with, that they get an interest in,' Morey said, comparing moves to ban controversial media to George Orwell's '1984.' 'I don't see the line, I see subjectivity, and I'm really, really worried about that. I have very serious concerns that this is total censorship.' Rep. David Willis (R-Union), another primary sponsor, said books like 'The Color Purple' are not the target of the legislation, calling characterization of the bill as a book banning measure 'personally offensive.' He said there is a clear legal definition of 'what is vulgar, what is obscene, and what is pornography' that does not encompass books with educational merit. 'That is not what this is designed to do and the folks in this committee understand that clearly,' Willis said. 'If I were to take one of these books and walk across the mall and sit down with one of the tour groups of kids that come through there every single day and start reading aloud — and start exposing the book and the pictures in these books — it wouldn't take very long for me to get arrested.' Rep. Laura Budd (D-Mecklenburg) said that despite the lawmakers' assertion that the bill seeks to protect parental rights, it instead infringes upon them by allowing other parents to block her children's reading material. She recalled a teacher contacting her because her son, then a fourth grader, was reading 'The Boy in the Striped Pajamas,' a book that depicts the horrors of the Holocaust. 'It's my job as the parent, not the school's and not the government's, to determine what is appropriate,' Budd said. 'This is in fact book banning and a very slippery slope, because what you define as wholesome may not be the same for me.' HB 636 was also approved the House Rules Committee Tuesday afternoon and is scheduled for a vote before the full House on Wednesday.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC House advances bill to restrict cellphone use in schools
North Carolina House lawmakers advanced a bill on Tuesday that would require local school boards to establish policies restricting cellphone use in schools. The House judiciary committee passed House Bill 87, mandating each school district to adopt a policy either banning cellphones or restricting their use during class time. A similar bill has already passed in the state Senate, but the House bill has yet to be voted on in the full chamber. Accoridng to WRAL, Rep. Neal Jackson, R-Moore, the lead sponsor of the bill, emphasized the importance of allowing local school boards to determine the specifics of the policy. 'Our thought is these school boards are smart people that are elected,' Jackson said. 'They can flesh out the policy. They don't need someone from Raleigh telling them all the specifics of how this needs to work.' ALSO READ: School districts crack down on cellphone usage in classrooms About two-thirds of North Carolina's school districts already have policies regarding cellphone use. Some schools require students to keep phones in locked pouches throughout the day, while others have bins at the front of each classroom but permit phone use between classes. Supporters of the bill argue that stricter rules are necessary to ensure effective enforcement. Mary Anne Tierney from Buncombe County advocated for more comprehensive regulations, suggesting that bans should apply during the entire school day, not just class time. Karl Johnson, a public health professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, highlighted the need for technologies like lockable pouches and storage lockers to aid in enforcement. If enacted, the cellphone restriction policies would take effect next school year, with bipartisan support increasing the likelihood of the bill becoming law. Gov. Josh Stein has expressed support, citing cellphones as a 'major distraction' for students and a 'disruption' for teachers. VIDEO: School districts crack down on cellphone usage in classrooms
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Carolina bill aims to reduce early voting to 6 days for primary elections
RALEIGH, N.C. (WGHP) — A new North Carolina bill could cut down the number of days that residents can vote during primaries and special elections. , which was filed on Monday morning, aims to shorten the early voting period for primaries and special elections from 17 days to six. It is sponsored by state Reps. Neal Jackson (R-Moore,) Steve Tyson (R-Craven,) Wyatt Gable (R-Onslow,) Brian Biggs (R-Randolph) and Paul Scott (R-Rutherford.) Bill to raise North Carolina minimum wage filed by House Democrats If the bill passes, early voting could start no earlier than the second Monday before a primary election, second primary or runoff election and end no later than 3 p.m. on the last Saturday before that election. Municipal elections that have early or absentee voting would also be limited to six days of early voting. The bill would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2026, impacting the 2026 primary elections. The full text of the bill can be read here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Children could be banned from social media entirely if NC House bill passes
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — Children in North Carolina could soon be banned from all social media if a bill in the House becomes law. Sponsors say House Bill 301 is all about helping kids avoid the negative impacts of social media. 'The mental issues that kids are having, the anxiety, the suicide rates,' Representative Neal Jackson said. 'We have all kinds of things that we prevent our kids from doing, they can't drink until they're 21, they can't drive until they're 16, why do we do that? We do that to protect them. We're looking out for their best interest, this is looking out for their best interest,' Representative Jeff Zenger said. The bill filed this week would ban anyone under the age of 14 from having any social media account and force the platforms to permanently delete existing accounts. Sponsors say platforms are generally compliant with laws like this and have followed similar laws in other states. 'Platforms are good about abiding to the law,' Representative Jackson said. For teenagers 14 and 15 years old, the bill would require parental consent to have a social media account. Advocates of the bill say not only do they think social media free kids will have better social and mental health, but also better academic lives. 'These algorithms are harming attention spans for children, they are losing the ability to focus, they are losing the ability to do deep work, because their brains are literally being rewired,' Joseph Blackholm with the NC Values Coalition said. Sponsors say they're already getting not only wide bipartisan support but strong support from parents too. 'Parents are just bombarded with things they have to watch out for and navigate with their kids and so what you hear from parents is this is such a hard battle,' Representative Zenger said. 'Kids under 14 would be so much better off if they were out in the woods hunting rabbits and on the ball field playing softball and baseball and in the creek catching salamanders than playing on their phones on social media,' Representative Jackson said. The bill was referred to another committee on Thursday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
