Mercedes Schneider takes issue with the new authoritarians who are imposing book bans in the name of “freedom” and limiting free expressions of views they disagree with in the name of of “choice.”
She writes:
We are certainly in an age in which the term, “free speech,” is indeed not free because of increasing conservative pressure to shape speech into that which a minority of extreme, right-wing conservatives would agree with.
Of course, that is not “free speech” at all.
In my school district, the St. Tammany Library Alliance is combating the right-wing conservative push to ban library books not to its liking. In its campaign declaring “Libraries Are for Everyone,” the Alliance is circulating a petition that states the following:
St Tammany Parish is a welcoming community to all and we stand firmly against banning books. As such we endorse the following statements:
- We believe that all young people in our Parish deserve to see themselves reflected in our library’s collection.
- We know a large majority of Americans (75%) across the political spectrum oppose book bans.We stand in opposition to the St Tammany Parish Accountability Project’s proposed “Library Accountability Board” ordinance because we believe parents should not be making decisions for other parents’ children about what they read or what is available in our public libraries.
- Banning books from public libraries is a slippery slope to government censorship and a violation of our first amendment rights.
- We hold our library Director, board and library staff in high regard and trust them to do their jobs.
We are united against book bans and we ask that our Parish President and Council pledge to act to protect the rights of members of our community to access a variety of books, magazines and other media through our public libraries.
Those truly adhering to and protecting free speech are at risk of losing their jobs– and under increasing pressure to modify their speech in order to please the extreme, disgruntled few.
I gladly signed the petition. Even though it is not likely that I might choose to read certain books harbored in my local public library, there is something much greater at risk if I try to impose a self-tailored book purge, and that something is freedom itself.
Freedom is not freedom if I tailor the freedom of others to suit my own preferences.
A great irony is that some of the same folks who would shape education and curriculum into their preferred image also promote themselves as great advocates of “school choice.”
Mercedes goes on to describe examples of “choice” that is no choice at all.” Freedom is curtailed when one group of people can curtail the rights of others to disagree.
Please open the link and read her warning about the threat to democracy posed by today’s narrow-minded ideologues.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“Killing the choice with which one does not agree but which serves others is not choice. Killing off what others prefer and replacing it with what you prefer Is. Not, Choice.”
Unless we can get the money out of politics or in some major way curtail its influence, we cannot have a functioning democracy. Wealthy right wing billionaires are funding the attacks on our institutions and representatives. Sinclair Broadcasting started a Crisis in the Classroom campaign last year. When there were very few legitimate local complaints against public schools, Sinclair moved to a deliberate nightly propaganda story that is an edited compilation of national stories with anti-public school messaging. These people are up to no good. They are actively trying to destroy trust in public education. It is all part of the chiseling away at democracy that Dr. Schneider describes.
Book bans… and the latest tactics on CRT, LGBTQ (without actually saying LGBTQ)… the bills in the GOP supermajority Missouri House and Senate (ouch, having to capitalize those… pun intended)… quote in article today’s paper about hearing in the Capitol yesterday:
“Penalties would include a school district losing state accreditation after a third offense.”
The bills proposed to control curriculum, “parent rights” (which they always had), etc… now include specificity on defining a “violation”
So, WHO WILL BE THE CURRICULUM CRT LGBTQ HISTORY POLICE?
Parents putting tape recorders in kids back packs (been there, seen that)!
Parents interrogating their kids when they get off the bus (maybe ask what they talked about on the bus while looking at their smartphones and tiktok and their kids’ texts).
Parents demanding cameras in classrooms? Unannounced classroom visits? (Thank goodness for FERPA)
When state laws get to the gestapo stage, it’s time for academics, media, corporations, et al to pay serious attention to what they think is noise that will go away.
My favorite German comedian sums up their view of minority rights: the minority has the right to attach itself to the majority. And here’s an attempt at a translation of one of the entries of a Devil’s Dictionary treatment of his comedy that also applies here:
Tolerance
1. Tolerance is no German word, it is foreign. “To tolerate something” means to endure. If one survived torture, then he tolerated it.
2. Tolerance is very individual, it goes to one’s inner guts. One chows down a Schweinshaxe* with two dumplings and then adds on an apple strudel because his stomach tolerates it. The other gulps down chamomile tea and gets sick.
3. He who greets another is tolerant, even though that one is his neighbor.
4. Only a twit is always tolerant.
[Bavarian specialty often poorly translated as a pork knuckle. It’s a crispy, chicharone-ish encased pork masterpiece when done well or in the company of multiple beers in a beer garden.]
Correction:
“We are certainly in an age in which the term, “free speech,” is indeed not free because of increasing XTIAN FUNDIE THEOCRAT pressure to shape speech into that which a minority of extreme, right-wing XTIAN FUNDIE THEOCRATS would agree with.
They aren’t conservative.
Reblogged this on Lloyd Lofthouse and commented:
Since when is taking away the freedom to make a choice, a choice?
Very simple. If you make the [R]ight choice, you will have the freedom to do so. If you don’t you will have the opportunity to see the error of your ways until you understand that you have the freedom to make the [R]ight choice. In the [R]ight world, people will always have the freedom to choose, it just that today’s definitions of it will be obsolete.
For example: