GLBTQ content in comics/graphic novels for teens

Purpose – This paper aims to provide an historical perspective and current guidance for youth librarians collecting graphic novels for teens. Design/methodology/approach – The paper provides a brief review of the historical issues involved with censorship/intellectual freedom and comics and of current teen-oriented graphic novels with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning of sexual orientation (GLBTQ) content in Canada and the USA. It also provides a context for negotiating intellectual freedom and collection management policy issues, and suggestions for targeted acquisitions of teen graphic novels with GLTBQ content. Findings – The paper provides a brief overview of US and Canadian censorship of comics, including how this legacy affects today’s market. It recognizes the difficulty of obtaining information and recommendations for teen-appropriate graphic novels containing GLBTQ content, and makes suggestions for core collection items. Research limitations/implications – Only English sources from the USA and Canada are reviewed. Francophone Canadian literature is relevant but outside of the scope of this paper. Practical implications – The paper is a useful source of information for the librarian looking for collection development suggestions, and/or for the librarian dealing with or preparing against intellectual freedom challenges to graphic novels or GLBTQ material for teens. Originality/value – This paper furthers discussion of censorship of graphic novels and of GLBTQ material, and provides concrete suggestions to librarians developing a teen graphic novel collection. The issue is timely, as the graphic novel industry is booming and the ALA has documented an increasing number of challenges to graphic novels in libraries. Few previous papers on graphic novels or comics have included Canadian content, although the Canada-American library worlds, publishing industries and legal codes are historically and currently intertwined. Paper type General revie

Military Commissions Revived: Persisting Problems of Perception

[Excerpt] “When the first military commission proceedings began in July 2004, the Bush Administration identified fifteen Guantanamo Bay detainees subject to the military commissions. Subsequently, Bush Administration officials asserted that they had evidence to move forward with between sixty and eighty cases within the commission system. But, by the time President George W. Bush left office in early 2009, the commissions had resolved only three cases. Upon taking office, President Barack Obama initially suspended the military commission proceedings in the thirteen cases in which charges were pending, but, in May 2009, he announced his intention to move forward with some commission trials at Guantanamo Bay. In January 2009, the Obama Administration’s Guantanamo Review Task Force reported that it had identified thirty-six cases slated for prosecution. On November 13, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the government would pursue civilian court prosecutions of the five defendants accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks and military commissions for five other detainees. Over a year later, military commissions have resolved only three additional cases, all resulting in plea deals, and there have been only sporadic proceedings in any pending cases.

An Alcohol Mindset in a Drug-Crazed World: A Review of Birchfield v. North Dakota

Birchfield v. North Dakota involved the ability of legislatures to criminalize a driver’s refusal to submit to a chemical test after a law enforcement officer arrested the individual for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The driver’s argued this criminalized their constitutional right to refuse a warrantless search, while the governments’ argued they needed this power in order to effectively address drunk driving in their jurisdictions. The Court decided that refusing a breath test could be criminalized because requiring the test did not violate the driver’s constitutional rights, however the Court also ruled that because of the invasive nature of blood tests, driver’s did have the right to refuse them, and that right could not be punished through criminal penalties. This paper argues that this may have been the correct decision as a constitutional matter, but the reasoning the Court uses to arrive at that opinion is flawed in a few key ways

Licensed To Kill: A Defense of Vicarious Liability Under the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) makes it illegal to take an endangered and threatened species by killing, harming, or harassing the animal. Although the classic example of a take is an individual poacher shooting an endangered species, these protected species are also harmed by larger–scale policies and programs. In several court cases, local and state governments have been held vicariously liable for the take of endangered species when their policies or actions caused third parties to commit a take. The vicarious liability theory, as applied to the ESA, is controversial and has been criticized by numerous scholars. This Note argues that a limited version of the vicarious liability theory is consistent with the text of the ESA and plays an essential role in fulfilling the promise of the ESA\u27s take prohibition. As a case study, this Note examines how the vicarious liability theory could be used to hold the state of Louisiana liable for licensing shrimping gear that causes the take of endangered and threatened sea turtles. As illustrated by the Louisiana example, the acceptance of a narrowly construed vicarious liability theory would protect endangered species without placing an unreasonable or unconstitutional burden on state and local governments

Between Wind and Water: Experiences of Mothers of Adolescents with Autism During the Post-High School Transition

Research Question: How do mothers of adolescents with autism experience and prepare for their child\u27s post- high school transition