Site icon JONATHAN TURLEY

Expelliarmus: Pro-Transgender Author Judy Blume is Denounced for Expressing Support for J.K. Rowling

jonathanturley

One of the most prominent tactics in the modern anti-free speech movement is to “hoist the wretch” — to make examples of those with opposing views to deter others from risking cancel campaigns. The idea is to immediately pile on any prominent person who breaks from the narrative on issues ranging from systemic racism to transgender rights to the pandemic. Few would want the label “controversial” that an enabling media immediately assigns to such targets. The latest example is children’s book author Judy Blume, who has publicly supported transgender rights. Blume had the audacity to say that she supports fellow author J.K. Rowling. The result was immediate and scathing. One liberal site declared “Judy Blume, seemingly incapable of just ‘enjoying her money,’ comes out as TERF.”  The term trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF is used for feminists like Rowling who have expressed concerns over how transgender policies are undermining the gains of women in the last few decades. In this case, simply supporting a fellow author’s right to speak has earned Blume the label of a TERF and the deadly notation of now being officially “controversial.”

In her interview with The Times, Blume expressed her respect for Rowling: “I love her. I am behind her 100 per cent as I watch from afar.”

Those words sent some into an utter hyperventilated frenzy. You are not allowed to admire Rowling, who has been designated a persona non grata by the pundits and the press.

Rowling is now the living embodiment of someone “who must not be named” except as the object of ridicule and disgust. Even showing a Harry Potter game at a bar is enough to unleash a cancel campaign against the business.

Liberals have turned to blacklisting and even book burning — all in the name of tolerance.

The usual flash mob formed to show others that there is no mercy for anyone who even glances kindly in the direction of J.K. Rowling. As one site stated:

“Yes, we are talking of none other than author Judy Blume – who used to be widely loved and admired until she is believed to have joined the coterie of public figures famous for attracting an enormous amount of media attention for their overtly non-inclusive opinions.”

Blume went into panic mode and immediately issued a pleading statement that her words were taken out of context and that she stands with transgender rights. It did not help with some who said that she picked a side.

Blume has continued to cite her liberal bona fides, including opposing laws by Ron DeSantis. However, she misses the point. People like Rowling are being used as warnings to others.

That is the case even in institutions of higher learning, which were once bastions of free speech. As shown in the recent assault on Riley Gaines, university officials today find it difficult to even condemn the disruption of events and the alleged assault on those tagged as TERFs.

Just last week, a trans protester at the University of Washington was shown turning over a table of conservatives:

The activist is shown clearly heading into one of the school buildings. However, the university declined requests for comments. If this was a pro-choice or anti-gun or BLM table, would the university be so circumspect in announcing an investigation or pledging action?

At schools like Yale, students are denouncing even the notion of civility toward those with opposing views on issues like abortion and are questioning why universities allow such views to be tolerated on campuses.

These incidents obviously add to the environment of intolerance and danger for those with opposing views. But that is the point. It is the effort to create a chilling effect on others.

That is why the treatment of Judy Blume is so notable. She is useful as a “teachable moment” for those who may have errant thoughts precisely because her statement was so mild. It is a warning that any quarter or consideration given to blacklisted artists or writers will put you on the same list.

We have seen the same McCarthy-like tactics used by members of Congress in seeking to deter anyone from looking into government-supported censorship. Witnesses who testified about the dangers of such censorship efforts were denounced as “Putin lovers” and apologists for insurrectionists and racists by leading Democrats.

Blume is now on the list. As noted by writer Jayasmita Dutta Roy, “her name is now irrevocably etched in the list of ‘controversial’ figures.” She is now the subject of a liberal version of the disarming charm, Expelliarmus.

Exit mobile version