In an interview with The Verge Editor-in-Chief Nilay Patel, former President Barack Obama once again claimed that he is virtually a “First Amendment absolutist” despite supporting censorship for years, including United Nations efforts to criminalize criticism of religion on a global scale. There are aspects of the Obama terms that I have praised, but his record on free speech is not one of them.
Obama declared in the interview that “I’m close to a First Amendment absolutist in the sense that I generally don’t believe that even offensive speech, mean speech, etcetera, it should be certainly not regulated by the government.”
That is virtually identical to prior statements that “I’m pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist” as he was arguing for social media censorship. Notably, Obama avoids calling himself a “near free speech absolutist.” The distinction is key for Obama and others in supporting massive censorship while virtue signaling that they are tolerant of opposing views.
The First Amendment is not synonymous with free speech. It is only a restriction on government action. As emphasized by groups like the ACLU, censorship by private companies is also an attack on free speech. As I discuss in my new book, The Indispensable Right, the greatest threat today to free speech is the alliance of government, academic, and business interests in censoring speech.
Obama is fully aware of the distinction and has often stressed that you can support both the First Amendment and censorship. In prior events, after claiming his absolutist position, Obama has stressed that:
“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter, any more than it applies to editorial decisions made by the New York Times or Fox News. Never has. Social media companies already make choices about what is or is not allowed on their platforms and how that content appears. Both explicitly through content moderation and implicitly through algorithms.”
He analogized corporate censors to meat inspectors protecting the health of the nation.
Even under the First Amendment, Obama has stressed that there are exceptions since “we have laws against certain kinds of speech that we deem to be really harmful to the public health and welfare.”
As someone often called a free speech absolutist, I find Obama’s self-characterization maddening. He has been no friend to the free speech community.
The effort to evade or obfuscate on the issue is common in the current anti-free speech period. However, as I testified before Congress, the level of government involvement and support for these corporate censorship programs could well violate even the First Amendment by creating a “censorship by surrogate” approach.
Later, that is precisely what a federal court found in issuing an injunction against the Administration. Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty found that the evidence overwhelmingly shows systematic violation of the First Amendment by the Biden administration. According to Judge Doughty, the government used layers of coordination and consultation to “assume a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’” The court found that “the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech.”
While claiming to be a First Amendment [near] absolutist, Obama has supported massive censorship on social media and called for the media to frame news to better educate citizens and shape public opinion.
For those of us in the free speech community, those positions make Obama’s recurring claim nothing short of absolute nonsense.
Obama has always been a con man looking for his next con…all the way to the POTUS. And now you are surprised, Mr. Turley? And you have to put window dressing on your disappointment with his adolescent freedom of speech remark by prefacing it with “There are aspects of the Obama terms that I have praised”?
Anyone that has followed Barack’s career knows this is typical Barack speak. He was famous for it in the Illinois legislature and it carried him through his presidency that had “aspects of the Obama terms that I have praised”. Indeed!
Barack Obama is emblematic of the disease afflicting Western Civilization, all the way around, and people are starting to see it..
@C.X.
What’s sad to me is he really did have the opportunity to be one of our greatest presidents. He not only completely blew it, but had the opposite intention from the start. People hear what they want to hear.
Obama’s place in history was to mark a turning point when Western civilization initiated a reset which will last until 2081
@C.X.
I don’t disagree. I don’t know how we undo the entropy of even Biden’s term. This. Is. insanity. Anyone that doubted the USSR or CCP was wrong in relation to being a free human being – I don’t even know what to say anymore. This. Is. Madness. And it is global.
People are starting to push back, especially in Europe, but it will not be pleasant. Obama is the man behind the curtain.
@C.X.
You aren’t wrong, and I myself would have not believed it back then. Thanks for your honesty and incisiveness. Even Bill Maher is coming around. Hopefully all of the rest of what is true follows, but I just dunno in 2023.
C.X. and James,
I felt the same about Obama at the very beginning of his first term.
It was only in hindsight did we see exactly the kind of damage he did.
The fact most of Biden’s admin is made up of former Obama apparatchiks explains the additional damage done to America.
Upstate, I think it was clear from the beginning who Obama was. Americans wished to feel good about themselves. They disregarded everything that told us who he was, warning us of the unlikeliness he would change. For me, like apparently it was for Estovir, I read his book before voting, then I added up his short history and decided he was dangerous.
@Upstate
Yup. And that this is not obvious tells me that most of us just don’t care. Ennui and indifference killing our country will be the saddest thing ever recorded in history. Maybe we need the Vikings to invade again. 😂 I am well and truly flummoxed. I sure appreciate your perspective, thank you.
There is a Freedom from Religion Foundation. Maybe Obama can start a “Freedom from Free Speech” foundation.
Barack Obama has believed his own “press releases” from the very beginning of his career in Illinois and the mainstream media continue to fawn over his every word. He is no more a First Amendment Absolutist than I am the Tooth Fairy.
Bathhouse Barry is a despotic con man (and I use the term ‘man’ VERY loosely).
I’m just so entertained when Turley takes it upon himself to talk of free speech because of his sheer hypocrisy on the issue. He clearly censors here, this being his social media influencing Fox talking point workshop…, so he’s down with censorship in the private sphere. That’s his right. But to play himself off as a free speech absolutist, or to criticize anyone for their own nuanced position, well, that’s just hilarious.
Typed this from my phone because my lap top is banned here.
I’d be surprised to find out that Professor Turley ever reads this crap.
+100
obamma makes NBC look trustworthy, plus NBC isn’t nearly as racist.
F obamma, POS
If you call yourself a near absolutist, maybe you should lay out the no go zones. Calling for Social Media censors is not near absolutist. Using the First Amendment as the justification is a neat dodge. To me it is justifying bad behavior. I just love when censorship is used as a method to prevent “misinformation”, “disinformation”, “malinformation”, or”conspiracy theory”. It is great in theory, but whose truth?
This cuts both ways.
Either you believe in free speech or not.
“Either you believe in free speech or not.”
That is the problem. The professor and other like-minded colleagues, supporters, etc. are staunch believers in free speech. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. However it seems they are heavily dependent on asserting that there’s only one way or none. What distinguishes a free speech absolutist from everyone else is the fact that they deem free speech in absolute terms, clear black and white lines of definition. The professor does not call himself a free speech absolutist, but he sure follows and adheres to the same views. Ironically he does not claim to be an absolutist because it constrains him to one particular view. He’s in the same boat as Barak Obama. The distinction lies in the hypocrisy of Turley’s criticism. He’s allowed to have a nuanced view, but not Obama?
Elon Musk is an avowed free speech absolutist, but even he engaged in censorship when he blocks critics on “X”.
Free speech is not a simple black and white ideal. It’s complicated and highly subjective when context and nuance are involved. The professor really hasn’t delved into the complexity of it. Instead he writes criticisms based on black and white views, his black and white views.
“Free speech is not a simple black and white ideal.”
It’s not?
Then how do you know the gray?
Generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the state or federal government must do on your behalf. Obama
While the DoI specifically said the purpose for government is to secure rights, this PoS believes the constitution doesn’t tell them they have to do that. This is great example of the “want to’s.”
People elected to government should explicitly “want to” secure the rights of the people. Obama explicitly doesn’t “want to” do any such thing. Instead, his focus is on the “can’t do.” And when the focus is on the can’t, what comes next for an NPD is to find a way that they can.
“But [the Constitution] doesn’t say what the state or federal government must do on your behalf.” (Obama)
Actually, it does. Government “must do” only that which is expressly *permitted* by the Constitution.
Sam, I understand they “shall” have powers limited to what is stated. I don’t see where it says they “must” do anything. Perhaps the preamble? Anyway, Obama laments the limits of shall or must.
O: I should have made it clear that my comment was not directed at you, but rather at the Left’s attempt to rationalize unlimited government. Your point is well taken, which is why I put “must do” in scare quotes.
“The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter, any more than it applies to editorial decisions made by the New York Times or Fox News. Never has. Social media companies already make choices about what is or is not allowed on their platforms and how that content appears. Both explicitly through content moderation and implicitly through algorithms.”—Barak Obama.
He’s right. This is something even Turley is wishy washy about. The first amendment does not apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter. Right now Twitter or “X” has turned into a smorgasbord of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic food fight. Turley has been really quiet about that and the constant complaints that “X” has become a mess.
The claims of “massive censorship” programs is an over exaggeration. There’s literally no constitutional prohibition against government suggesting or pointing out to social media that certain things may be in violation their terms and conditions. Claims of coercion and “wink-wink” censorship are simply distractions meant to demonize the fact that it’s social media who ultimately decides.
Former president Obama is not claiming to be a free speech absolutist. He’s stating that he’s sort of one with certain exceptions and that is ok. Everyone is allowed to have a nuanced position. The professor seems to want a clear bright line, a black and white position where there is no room for grey areas or nuances. That’s not how it is in reality. Even the professor’s blog has a good record of engaging in censorship. He does not allow openly racist comments despite the fact that such comments are protected speech under the first amendment and being part of the “free speech community” its quite hypocritical to criticize others for having on opinion that some censorship is ok. Turley engages in ‘some censorship’ too.
Turley is critical of corporations exercising their free speech rights. He doesn’t believe they should be engaging in choosing an issue to advocate for because there are a corporation despite the fact that they are not bound by the restrictions of the 1st amendment.
If Obama wants to claim that he is “virtually a free speech absolutist” he can certainly make that claim. His views clearly are more nuanced, and he emphasizes the reality that some censorship is warranted in certain circumstances.
Turley doesn’t claim to be a free speech absolutist, but he certainly has views and positions like one.
+100
Yeah, nuanced, that’s the ticket. Nuanced like when obamma was using his disposition matrix to extra-judicially capture, or kill, or subject suspects to extraordinary rendition and told us he was not putting “innocent men, women and children in danger”, that kind of nuance?
We all know the left must censor, must omit their true intentions, and must lie about its corruptions and (nuanced usages forthcoming) “persuades” social media to “help” to do those things is not “censorship”, oh no.
No nuance: Of course you and the old twitter lemmings don’t like new X, because its no longer just a bunch of Bay Area morons and far-left government employee losers with the biggest megaphone on the planet bleating their nonsense 24/7 like what they were saying was honest, productive, real, popular, proven, democratic…really anything other than what it was – a party line full of the worst people on the planet (Bay area, Portland, and DC lefties and the idiots who believe them).
The fact that the current flavor of propaganda is to your taste should only be a warning that it likely may not always be that way, but lefties need the lies, so they then lie to themselves themselves like fentanyl addicts that what is happening is AOK.
Rot. Seriously, go rot.
That’s a lot of words just to say, “I’m ignorant”, but we get your point.
Fine, you’re ignorant. Rot.
Neil,
Well said.
Svelaz reminds me of The Grinch shouting to himself in his cave.
The Grinch (Svelaz) – “You’re an idiot!”
Echo (Neil) – “You’re an idiot!”
The Grinch (Svelaz) – “I’m an idiot!”
Echo (Neil) – “You’re an idiot!”
LMAO
The economic model of the social platforms requires that they be immune from liability for content placed by others on the platforms. Congress granted this, on the theory that the platforms were not publishers and thus had no opinions of their own. Congress also allowed them some scope to limit what appeared on their platforms, such as child pornography, without forfeiting their protection. This exception has now swallowed up the neutrality rule and must be scaled back, so that immunity is conditioned on not censoring speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
Because the platforms have accepted immunity, and in fact require it to maintain their business models, they have in effect forfeited their right to First Amendment freedom, in that they may not become publishers, who are subject to liability for what they publish, subject to limitations such as those set out in NY Times v Sullivan.
The common carrier law in Texas, which the 5th Circuit upheld and which the Supreme Court will hear this term, will air these issues.
OBAMA hates the first amendment- he is for censorship-100%-his staff and former staff works for Biden admin. they are for censorship. Obama along with Boden will go down as the worse or one of the worse Presidents.
It’s interesting to see so many suddenly finding distaste with Obama. More interesting to me is why it’s taken this long, as it was clear who he was before his first term had ended. The man is 100% about eliminating dissidence and control rather than governance. Always has been, and this is far from the first, second, or tenth time he has lied right to our faces.
I voted for him the first time and have regretted it ever since. It’s been disappointing watching people fall over themselves to glorify this arrogant tool; I think he’d have been very happy being emperor rather than a term-limited and duly elected politician. For me his ascendance was the final death knell for the democratic party.
There is an interesting book called “The Communist” written by Paul Kengor, Ph.D. About Obama’s mentor Frank Marshall Davis. He wrote admiringly about him in “Dreams of my Father” but never mentions his full name.
“Frank was a pro-Soviet, pro-RedChina card carrying member of Communist Party USA (CPUSA). His communist Party card was 47544.”
The book is well researched and written. Much of the data the author sought had been removed from internet access but was found in smaller university libraries and in paper documents.
Obama is slick and clever, just the kind of person one must approach with caution. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that there is something deeper behind his eloquent words.
I saw through him from the beginning, and could not understand why nobody else could see it. Lost friends even.
Behind every problem this nation has is an Obacala appointee.
Today’s Democrats are just Machiavellian Fascists in control of DC
The Rule of Law is dead
Free Speech is dead
Why do Republicans in Congress support Democrat Criminals?
I hate to say it but when it comes to 21st century Democrats and free speech, in general they have a hypocritical track record. It seems to me that many Democrats think that free speech is fine when it agrees with them and it should be censored when it disagrees with them. This is a pattern I’ve seen so many times from 21st century Democrats that it really is signature significant*. “Rights for me but not for thee” seems to be an unspoken driving factor in leftist ideology driving their hypocritical actions. Any “free speech” that disagrees with leftist narratives is automatically tarred a misinformation – these people really are acting like Orwellian totalitarians.
Claiming to have moral standards to which one’s actions do not conform is hypocrisy. Here’s a good example of what I’m talking about; What Would You Call It?
*Signature Significance: Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.
I disagree, you’re projecting what republicans have been doing. Not democrats. Republicans are the first to call for censorship on issues they don’t like. Book bans, banning discussion on subjects like CRT, Transgender issues in schools, systemic racism, even inconvenient truths about our history. Now we have republicans demanding severe punishment of those supporting Palestinians and demanding deportation of students on visas because the dared express their views in public. There’s enough to keep professor Turley busy, but he chooses to ignore it because the backlash from his readers and “fan base” would be too much to bear.
To be clear I’m not saying Democrats are innocent this. They do deserve criticism as well. But if you’re going to ignore the problem on the republican side because it’s unappealing and inconvenient then you’re just as much a hypocrite as the democrats you accuse.
Well said. They much be giving out free blinders at all the Repo rallies.
Svelaz wrote, “I disagree…”
I’m shocked, shocked I say!!!!
Of course you disagree, I’m not parroting the political left’s approved narrative.
If it one thing all Moderates, Independents and Conservatives equally understand, it’s the 21st century extreme political left four tenets of “truth”…
…that’s the dead end of the 21st century political left’s critical thinking.
Svelaz wrote, “…you’re projecting what republicans have been doing.”
Hogwash!
I’m not projecting a thing, I’m Mr. Obvious stating the obvious about the the modern political left.
I do think it’s interesting how idiots, like Svelaz, continue to parrot that book banning narrative nonsense as if it’s absolute fact when the actual facts prove them to be immoral hacks spreading propaganda lies. Ignorant people, like Svelaz, ignore the phrase “age appropriate” for their anti-Republican propaganda that’s spread to manipulate gullible sheeple. What Happened To Common Decency When It Comes To Exposing Minors To Sexually Explicit Materials?
Svalez wrote, “Now we have republicans demanding severe punishment of those supporting Palestinians and demanding deportation of students on visas because the dared express their views in public.”
This is a legitimate reactionary problem for Republicans, Democrats and our society in general right now, but it’s not just Republicans. To be completely fair, some students are doing more than just voicing their opinion and protesting they are actually supporting HAMAS a terrorist organization, plus they are resorting to intimidation, persecution and violence. Actively supporting a criminal terrorist organization can be a crime depending on the type of support.
Svalez wrote, “To be clear I’m not saying Democrats are innocent this. They do deserve criticism as well.”
You’re a fool talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Svalez wrote, “But if you’re going to ignore the problem on the republican side because it’s unappealing and inconvenient then you’re just as much a hypocrite as the democrats you accuse.”
I’m ignoring nothing, I’m stating what is obvious about the political left and that is not being hypocritical. Claiming to have moral standards to which one’s actions do not conform is hypocrisy, what you are implying is that I have a double standard and that is simply not true of me.
If you can’t show me how I’m a hypocrite then your resorting to pure ad hominem lies. Put up or shut up, fool.
Steve,
A excellent take down of Sleezvez.
Only a sick and twisted evil person like Sleezvez would justify exposing children to pornography, mutilation and chemical castration of children, grooming children for sex. These kind of people must be called out for what they are: Evil.
UpstateFarmer, it would appear to a reasonable person that this evil is intended to alter the publics perception of “contemporary community standards” as a “workaround” of the federal statutes. It’s certainly captured the imagination of our resident groomer, Svelaz.
The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and
Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Any material that satisfies this three-pronged test may be found obscene.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity
OLLY,
Thank you for posting that.
Very interesting.
It does in fact seem there are those who are trying to normalize what any rational, reasonable, logical, and moral person would find obscene or age inappropriate material.
Those people are evil.
UpstateFarmer, I believe I might have discovered Svelaz’s true identity…or at least alter ego: Pink.
This is the scam. This is the hustle. The Left wants you to equate “book banning” with classic works of literature. Ironically enough, works of literature the Left has wanted to be banned over the years.
They want you to think this is about Holden Caulfield being a foul-mouthed prick or Huckleberry Finn’s friend Jim. And not “award-winning stories” that go into graphic detail about dudes passing around a soda bottle, ejaculating in it, and then the person who doesn’t ejaculate gets to drink from the bottle filled with everyone else’s… this is pushed on kids under the guise of teaching “tolerance.”
P!nk is either a liar or a nincompoop who needs to stop watching MSNBC. It’s either one or the other.
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/pink-book-banning-florida-concerts
I wonder if Pink reads those books to her own kids?? I bet she doesn’t!
That would be a great question to ask her.
Steve Whiterspoon, you just showed us hypocrisy and projection I was talking about. Your responses always involve emotionally charged and degraded rationales. You don’t think with your head, you think with your feelings. It’s pretty obvious.
“1. The modern political left is right.
2. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.
3. Wrong is evil.
4. Evil must be destroyed.”
That’s patently not true. As is customary on the right, demonizing another to avoid reality and inconvenient truths is much easier than having a rational discussion. Not to mention throwing the occasional insult.
“This is a legitimate reactionary problem for Republicans, Democrats and our society in general right now, but it’s not just Republicans.”
I agree here. So if you do acknowledge that it is a problem emblematic of both parties why do you focus only on democrats? Because clearly it’s not a little bit of republicans and a lot of democrats as you or others like to portray it when you have to admit republicans and conservatives are guilty of the same accusations you level at democrats.
The book banning is real. It is not about “age appropriate” literature. It’s’ about who determines what is “age appropriate”. Conservatives are extremely….conservative on what is age appropriate and determine that for everyone else. School libraries or book fairs are not forcing children to read these books. They are not being coerced into reading them either. The books being banned ARE age appropriate and are focused on the realities of our society. They are not putting pornography on the shelves or allowing the kind of explicit sexual descriptions on book shelves as being described by parents who have been convinced that such books are being given to their children. They are being told by organizations such as “Moms for LIberty” what their children are being exposed to without ever being in the library or confirming that the books they claim are indeed in their libraries. It’s a scare tactic used to rile up parents and ban books that are mainly LGBTQ oriented. They want to BAN those views by claiming it’s pornography. Or that young children are reading them. BS.
Did you know parents can tell their own children what not to read in the library? They can scare their children into not reading the books they don’t like. Banning them because THEY don’t want it doesn’t allow for parents who are ok with the books to have a say in it. The purpose of a library is for anyone to choose what they want to read, not what some group or other parent doesn’t want anyone else to read. That’s censorship. That’s denying someone else’s right to choose at that library.
Libraries already have measures to ensure there are age appropriate books out of from kids and young adults. They can simply mark a section, cordon it off as just for younger adults and such. Conservatives don’t want that simple solution because they WANT to ban the books entirely from everyone in the school regardless. That’s the issue. The censorship by banning, rather that figuring out a solution to segregate age appropriate books.
“Svalez wrote, “To be clear I’m not saying Democrats are innocent this. They do deserve criticism as well.”
You’re a fool talking out of both sides of your mouth.”
Here you demonstrate to all the level of ignorance that leads your thinking. You don’t believe they not innocent of the same? That they don’t deserve criticism?
Clearly you base the majority of your arguments on emotional reactions rather than thinking.
As for the students protesting the Israeli government and expressing solidarity with the Palestinians. They have an absolute right to do that. They have a constitutional right to do that. Conservatives and republicans are constantly conflating Palestinians with Hamas and demonizing the entire population and demanding those expressing support be punished and kicked out of the country because they had the audacity to express opposition and criticism. Republican’s first reaction is to punish and deport those who are not citizens because they chose to express their views in a very public way. That is anti-free speech. There’s no way around that characterization as anything else.
Svalez wrote, “Libraries already have measures to ensure there are age appropriate books out of from kids and young adults. They can simply mark a section, cordon it off as just for younger adults and such. Conservatives don’t want that simple solution because they WANT to ban the books entirely from everyone in the school regardless. That’s the issue. The censorship by banning, rather that figuring out a solution to segregate age appropriate books.”
You must be as stupid as the logic you’re presenting, I can’t think of any other reasonable explanation for what you wrote.
You seem to think that putting the non-age appropriate books in the K-6 grade library and cordon them off that way it somehow prevents the K-6 graders from getting access to them and doesn’t keep the books from the 7-12 graders and that’s your solution?
Guess what Einstein; 7-12 graders aren’t using K-6 libraries, they have their own libraries in Junior High and High Schools.
Quick question: Do you think Playboy and similar publications should be in these K-12 libraries and just “cordon them off”? Be honest.
Steve,
As I mentioned previously, people like Sleezvez either are regressive as their logic is completely retarded or they are just plain evil.
If the former, then they need to see a team of psychotherapists, heavily medicated, not allowed to operate heavy machinery, reproduce, own real estate, or vote.
If the latter, well, I just lump them in with child abusers, groomers, anti-semites, pro-Hamas terrorists supporters, Nazis and people who talk in the theater. They are going to a special hell. 🙂
Steve, your issue lies in thinking that k-6 graders are being shown pornographic literature or anything like that. These groups claim it’s true just to enrage parents without ever finding out if it’s actually true.
They make accusations that poke on the emotions of the parents and obviously yours. You’re easily manipulated and gullible. That’s why you’’re so convinced it’s as bad as they tell you to is.
Kids are not being forced to read the books. Or are being encouraged to read them.
This is why parent’s voted out “moms for liberty” board members en masse in the last election. Because they saw through their BS.
Hurling insults won’t change the fact that you’re just as gullible and emotionally manipulated by their claims.
Kids are not being forced to read the books. Or are being encouraged to read them.
🤔 Hmm. If the kids are not being forced or encouraged to read these books, then for what purpose are they being put into school libraries? For the staff?
Olly, “If the kids are not being forced or encouraged to read these books, then for what purpose are they being put into school libraries? For the staff?”
Because there are students who want to read the books on their own accord. If they have an Interest or want to understand an issue. You know the same reason why anyone goes to a library. To find something interesting.
What is truly ironic is that if those groups hadn’t been complaining and hollering about “sexualizing” kids and “pornography” on the shelves a lot of students wouldn’t be ‘reading’ and be ‘sexualized’. Calling for banning of books only rises interest in reading them. It raises their curiosity and want to find out what the hubbub is all about.
Banning books has always been a self defeating strategy. It only raises the awareness that these books exists and increase the readership of them.
What is truly ironic is that if those groups hadn’t been complaining and hollering about “sexualizing” kids and “pornography” on the shelves a lot of students wouldn’t be ‘reading’ and be ‘sexualized’. Calling for banning of books only rises interest in reading them. It raises their curiosity and want to find out what the hubbub is all about.
You need to get your facts straight. The banning of books has only been about what books should not be allowed in K-12 schools. Any parent or child that wanted these books available outside of the school setting would still be able to get them. There’s no irony. The “complaints and hollering” arose because the “sexualizing” kids and “pornography” in school libraries existed before parents became of aware of it.
Banning books has always been a self defeating strategy. It only raises the awareness that these books exists and increase the readership of them.
That’s your argument for keeping this material in schools? Should schools start putting Vape vending machines in the schools, or make space available on campus for sex? Damn!
Olly, Svelaz is acting dense again. He knows this is a school library, and one can obtain books at a public library or purchase them.
When someone deflects by acting densely, one knows they are pushing a kind of ideology. By doing so, Svelaz places himself in the category of a groomer. If not, he would skip repeating yesterday’s worn arguments by providing fresher arguments of a higher caliber to prove his point. A groomer is unable to do that.
Svelaz’s second argument ( “raises the awareness”) demonstrates a lack of intellect since your response is obvious.
You’re right Seth. Either Svelaz is merely being a contrarian, or he wants children to have all this material available in schools. Because both options promote the same hideous result, the groomer label fits.
Svelaz wrote, “Steve, your issue lies in thinking that k-6 graders are being shown pornographic literature or anything like that.”
No you ignorant fool, that’s not my issue, that’s your unethical twist and the twist of your fellow progressive sheeple so it can used it to smear opposing opinions; but alas, you’re the one that looks like an ignorant fool, again.
How many times do I have to write “age appropriate” for it to penetrate that thick, ignorant, progressive skull of yours?
“The purpose of a library is for anyone to choose what they want to read, not what some group or other parent doesn’t want anyone else to read. That’s censorship. That’s denying someone else’s right to choose at that library.”
Every time I think you’ve written the dumbest line ever, youreach a new height.
Library’s choose what is in them ALL THE TIME. Where is this 2 billion book school library where you get to “choose” what you read??? Get a grip. Seriously.
Jimmy, Jimmy, what happened to the need for accuracy?
School libraries choose based on approved lists OR…To select books, school librarians rely on information found in book reviews, trade journals, bestseller lists, vendor selections, and award winners. The Library Bill of Rights states that libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues.
https://oklahomawatch.org/2022/09/29/how-books-wind-up-on-school-library-shelves/#:~:text=To%20select%20books%2C%20school%20librarians,on%20current%20and%20historical%20issues.
They have to consider ALL points of view on current and historical issues. Since there are currently wide ranging discussions and cultural changes involving LGBTQ and historical interest in racism and new theories involving them, they choose to stock books reflecting those trends. It’s still up to the students to decide whether to read them or not.
School librarians are also looking for popular appeal — what do students want to read? And they consider varying reading levels, as well as connections to local and state curriculums and national standards.
Now to be accurate, this is for Oklahoma schools. It may apply to other schools as well.
Ignorant people, like Svelaz, ignore the phrase “age appropriate” for their anti-Republican propaganda that’s spread to manipulate gullible sheeple.
Steve, this quick14 minute interview with Kirk Cameron regarding how the #1 distributor of books to schools, Scholastic Books is getting this age inappropriate content into schools. It completely proves Svelaz is either completely ignorant of what is in these school libraries, or is an advocate for the sexual grooming of K-12 children. The 2nd link is a nonprofit started to provide parents and schools an alternative for book fairs.
https://www.glennbeck.com/radio/kirk-cameron-scholastic-book-fairs
https://skytreebookfairs.org/pages/learn-more-about-scholastic
Olly, as usual you miss the point entirely. Kirk Cameron is just another religious “spokesperson” supporting book bans because they don’t like the content and use the pretext that children are being “groomed” or “sexualized” by these books.
There are already solutions to the “age appropriate” problem. It’s quite easy and it can be applied instantly.
Libraries can cordon off sections for these books so that those who do want to read them and their parents are ok with it can still do so. No need to remove the books at all. Of course this isn’t enough for the right and why they really want to ban them, because they don’t want anyone to read them. They don’t want to legitimize the LGBTQ or even the racism perspective from minorities because it’s…. Uncomfortable and dare I say it…un-american.
These book bans are not about “pornography” or “sexualizing”. It’s about denying the reality that the LGBTQ or racism exists. This is why so many “Mom’s for Liberty “ school board members were booted out in the last election. Because they were banning books and enforcing their views on everyone else. A lot of parents wised up and found out that they were just a bunch of religious zealots dictating morality on others.
Parent’s who don’t want their children to read these books can simply tell their kids no to read them or stay away from them. Banning them from the libraries because they don’t like them doesn’t mean other parents agree with their views. Kids aren’t forced to read these books. Fact. Full stop. It’s the parent’s responsibility to tell their kids why they can’t read those books if they don’t want their kids to be reading them. Not dictating that everyone can’t read them. That’s the point. If some parents believe those books “sexualize” their kids then they are responsible for making sure they TELL their kids they can’t read those books.
Face it, Svelaz. You are nothing more than a groomer and should stay away from schools where children learn and play.
Your present argument is not much different than the argument where you said Trump built Mar a Lago. Then you looked like a fool and are one now.
You base your arguments that there are always abuses from both sides, so you feel safe in hiding your grooming instincts under that type of argument. The right is not trying to promote inappropriate sexual content to young children, but you are.
SM, Svelaz represents a common theme of the modern liberal mindset. Their desired outcomes drive their actions, everything that happens in between the two appears unplanned at first. But when they bounce from one disastrous result to another action leading to more disastrous results and then blame conservatives for their failures, the only reasonable conclusion is their disasters are planned. They’re human natural disasters for which everyone has to suffer, accept them.
Olly, I agree, but in the case of Svelaz, I don’t think he can connect the dots. He repeats what he hears on the left but lacks an understanding of its content. He follows this by blaming conservatives (deflecting) to cover up for his lack of intellect and honesty.
What confuses me about Svelaz is his writing skills, though not great, are far superior to his abysmally low intellect.
What confuses me about Svelaz is his writing skills, though not great, are far superior to his abysmally low intellect.
My guess Seth is that Svelaz’s intellect matches his writing skills. His problem is his purpose on this blog. He’s not here to persuade anyone. He’s cornered himself into being a defender of an increasingly defenseless ideology. He blew right by the exit ramp when the Leftists took control of the Democratic party.
You may be right, Olly, but I had interactions in the past where intellect played a large part, and he missed the boat. I don’t think those misses were in defense of his position. Was he at the max of his intelligence? I think so. Compare his responses, which invariably follow a limited set of patterns. To me, it demonstrates a lack of intellectual ability.
Seth, it’s just a guess. We have a lot of contributors on this blog, such as yourself, that clearly have superior intellect to these Leftists. What confuses me is why does anyone give them the time of day? Might as well debate drug addicts on the streets of San Francisco. Whatever. The beat goes on.
“why does anyone give them the time of day? “
Is it for them or someone else?
S. Meyer, I’m not surprised that you resort to name calling and false accusations when you can’t present a coherent argument or engage in a rational discussion.
If you made some effort to at least pay attention to what’s being discussed you would know the issues you complain about have been addressed.
You goooo gurllll!!!
xoxoxo
Svelaz, why do you act so surprised? You have said it yourself in your words and actions on the blog. If your words say you are, and then you act dense while using deflection, what other conclusion can one draw? You are a groomer who can’t defend his words or actions.
“then they are responsible for making sure they TELL their kids they can’t read those books.”
Those are the first f-ing books I would have read as a child, you nincompoop.
Then that would be your parent’s fault. Not the school. They made it taboo to read certain things. Of course you are going to go ahead and disobey your parents anyway. So it’s not the school that is the problem, it’s the paranoid parents.
“This is why so many “Mom’s for Liberty “ school board members were booted out in the last election.”
How many is that, big mouth? And how many were not “booted”.
Post the numbers or stop repeating that lie.
Jimmy, you know you can look it up yourself, right? If you want accuracy you can help yourself and find out. It’s not hard. Keep in mind that I was generalizing what is still true. But find out for yourself man. That way you can’t blame it on inaccuracy.
Steve,
Well said.
Additional problem is they think they know better than everyone else and Americans should just shut up and do what they say. Obama and Hillary absolutely oozed with that kind of contempt.
Upstatefarmer, that’s not true. They don’t think they know better than everyone else. That’s complete BS. That they can express a different point of view, a controversial one or criticize Republican views is not “knowing better than everyone else”. It’s simply a different perspective and criticism. It seems republicans or conservatives are too thin skinned when it comes to criticism or exposure to a point of view that contrary to theirs. So it’s immediately labeled as elitist or intellectual socialism or whatever label of the day is used.
Obama and Hillary were products of a good education. A completely different world view based on their exposure to a huge amount of perspectives, points of view, and experiences that are not normally experienced by the majority of the population. That’s not saying they are better or are qualified to dictate to anyone else. But there is a level of resentment coming from those who have not had the opportunity or fortune to experience or be exposed to what they were. What is true, what drives that resentment is the fact that they were exposed to more information and more views than most and they just want to share their views with others and offer ideas or new perspectives. That’s it. But oftentimes they are met with resentment and anger because they don’t like being seen as “lesser” because they know a little more or have experienced a different perspective. Or that they may be just a little smarter.
“Obama and Hillary were products of a good education. A completely different world view based on their exposure to a huge amount of perspectives, points of view, and experiences that are not normally experienced by the majority of the population.”
Is that where they got their anti gay marriage views?
Obama is just a talking head. Follow the power…Marc Elias, Soros, etc
Obama does what he is told….guy has never run anything in his life!
“. . . that we deem to be really harmful . . .” (Obama — the non-absolute absolutist)
Note the royal we. Guess who’s the Voice of that we.
Obama is a thorough-going collectivist, which is why he detests America’s individualism. To him, individuals cannot be trusted to make their own choices, be they about speech, medicine, education, cigarettes. He and his cabal of Voices have a mysterious, higher power of insight — and they use the government’s police powers to force those insights down our throats.
I’m not aware of a single Conservative that is a First Amendment “Absolutist”.
In past decades Conservatives routinely cite as unconstitutional to “falsely yell fire in a movie theatre”, defamation or incitement to violence. Conservatives aren’t absolutionist on flag burning, it’s routinely used as a wedge issue to divide voters.
Conservatives also supported in past decades, the U.S. Department of Justice maintaining a “List of Constitutionally-Subversive Groups and Individuals” then gave the FBI authority to destroy or even assassinate individuals on that list, even on U.S. soil.
Last week, Donald Trump (and many of his supporters) cited dehumanizing speech and other actions that are “Constitutionally-Subversive” – dehumanizing speech adopted from Hitler, Goebels and Mussolini.
If the DOJ still maintains this blacklist, sometimes authorizing lethal action, some Trump supporters would be on this list today.
Conservatives have never supported an “absolutist” view of the First Amendment.
Interesting perspective. Not bad.
The great irony of free speech is that the very leftists that fought for free speech in the 60s and 70s, against “ the man”, now control much of government and have become “the man”, desiring to censor views that are in conflict with their leftist agenda. Sure there are a few on the right that want censorship of some type, but by and large the epicenter of censorship is the so called liberals of today. They want censorship of speech and thought.
“They want censorship of speech and thought.”
Really? So why are conservative legislators, republicans, creating laws prohibiting discussion of CRT, systematic racism, and banning books at libraries because they express LGBTQ views and perspectives?
Prohibiting discussions is censoring thought and speech. They have laws punishing teachers for bringing up the subject or even discussing it. That is censorship thru the threat of punishment even termination. Republicans, those on the right are openly doing this. Is it censorship too?
President Barack Obama is a progressive and NOT a free speech absolutist, his ridiculous claim is a propaganda lie trying to put lipstick on a pig and no one with a critically thinking mind will fall for it.
There is no such thing as a “progressive” (read regressive) that’s a free speech absolutist and anyone that claims otherwise is a liar.
pudnhead was right and you are wrong. Obama is a fake, not a progressive. He IS a marxist, however.
Let’s see, did Obama support gay marriage before or after Clinton and Biden changed their stripes???
Jimmy wrote, “pudnhead was right and you are wrong. Obama is a fake, not a progressive. He IS a marxist, however.”
Yes, Obama is a progressive and progressives are fakes! They’re bald-faced hypocrites, they’re fakes. They’re “Rights for me but not for thee” anti-American and anti-Constitution, they’re fakes. They talk out of both sides of their mouths, they’re fakes. The 21st century word “progressive” is synonymous with fake; therefore, both pudnhead and I are correct.
By the way; 21st century “progressives” are anti status quo no matter what the status quo happens to be. They’re like ignorant rebelling teenagers that never grew out of adolescence.
Lastly…
If you can; please explain to me what the difference between a 21st century progressive and a Marxist is.
Also if you can; please explain to me what the difference between a 21st century progressive and an Orwellian totalitarian is.
Steve,
“They’re like ignorant rebelling teenagers that never grew out of adolescence.”
That right there. And they make up fake causes to rebel for.
If you put it in those words, “21st Century Progressive”, then I agree, there is no difference. And if I understand you, yes, they are all Marxists.
I have long time friends who I have always considered progressive, and they are nothing like the people you describe. Thats the distinction I was making.
Yes Obama IS a progressive and he called progressives to action in 2008 and it was blown off as political campaign rhetoric.
Steve,
Those who call themselves “progressive” are actually regressive.
A person would have to have some kind of mental deficiency or regressive mental state to think there are more than two sexes, exposing children to pornography is okay, dividing children into who is the oppressed and who is the oppressors based off skin color is okay or say all the Jews in a class room into a corner.
Steve Witherspoon, again, no. President Obama didn’t claim to be a free speech absolutist. You’re not paying attention. He’s saying he’s sort of one. He’s explaining that his views on free speech are nuanced. Not black and white like a true free speech absolutist is. He’s certainly entitled to claim he is sort of a free speech absolutist. There’s nothing saying that you can’t have that position. Nothing.
That you have a hard time accepting it and refuse to acknowledge that it’s even possible shows us that you are not ideologically flexible, you’re a what could be accurately described as an extremist. Extremists don’t do nuance. They don’t do flexibility, and certainly they don’t do grey areas. It’s either black and white or are or aren’t.
You’re sure bent on dictating what others should be or shouldn’t be based on YOUR criteria. That’s what an extremist is.
Obama is certainly a progressive and he can call himself and conduct himself as such. You don’t get to determine what he is or isn’t. It’s quite hypocritical of you.
Everything about Obama is fake.
Rush Limbaugh told us that. I sure do miss Rush.