At one end is obscenity: legally-defined material unprotected by the First Amendment. At the other end is a list of books presently boycotted by a nascent movement of observers and moral surveilers. This story is about that boycott hitting an inflection point in both organization and political support.
It’s clear that some groups wish ideas outside their norms would conveniently be labeled as obscenity.
I don’t know if it’s settled that a teacher in a public school has a First Amendment right to talk about a book that’s banned. In America, a teacher is not always protected from being fired. This is more explicit in private schools, where policy of religion or tradition overrules the First Amendment.
Whereas most states have deferred to their school boards, in Florida, this is being decided at the state level. The article above is about the chaos as school boards cannot give meaningful judgements for teachers. We see the bureaucracy now necessary to judge content is itself neither transparent as nor scrutinized to the depth of the banned books.
I expect some of these forces will admonish a teacher who, for example, takes a stand against some of the prevailing misinformation of our time:
- The Holocaust did occur, is significant, and was witnessed by millions. It needed Hitler plus broad assent by Germans.
- While slavery has been understood in every society and practiced by most, it was institutionalized and promoted by few during the Enlightenment, most notably the leaders of the agribusiness colonies of America.
- Even if you don’t agree with people simply because they’re not heterosexual, you must recognize that the least-healthy sexuality is the kind that preys on the vulnerable. Perhaps any amount of attention paid to adults who are no risk to children is a distraction benefiting predators who seek positions of power like sports coach or priest.
But I think we’ll sooner see a First Amendment challenge about you last point. It won’t be as simple as “don’t lend books to kids” but rather:
- don’t talk about the banned book list, or test the waters with uncleared new ones
- don’t generate public info about your opinions on litigious topics. Over the years, to keep your job, you might be disadvantaged when compared to a new hire without that paper trail.
- relatedly, try to think ahead: certain topics that seem sanitized today might become a taboo of focus. In a kids book, Sam might have a robot friend. Don’t take a chance that your proximity to this book becomes a problem if, in the future bureaucracy, it’s a problem if Sam loves a robot.
At one end is obscenity: legally-defined material unprotected by the First Amendment. At the other end is a list of books presently boycotted by a nascent movement of observers and moral surveilers. This story is about that boycott hitting an inflection point in both organization and political support.
It’s clear that some groups wish ideas outside their norms would conveniently be labeled as obscenity.
I don’t know if it’s settled that a teacher in a public school has a First Amendment right to talk about a book that’s banned. In America, a teacher is not always protected from being fired. This is more explicit in private schools, where policy of religion or tradition overrules the First Amendment.
Whereas most states have deferred to their school boards, in Florida, this is being decided at the state level. The article above is about the chaos as school boards cannot give meaningful judgements for teachers. We see the bureaucracy now necessary to judge content is itself neither transparent as nor scrutinized to the depth of the banned books.
I expect some of these forces will admonish a teacher who, for example, takes a stand against some of the prevailing misinformation of our time:
- The Holocaust did occur, is significant, and was witnessed by millions. It needed Hitler plus broad assent by Germans.
- While slavery has been understood in every society and practiced by most, it was institutionalized and promoted by few during the Enlightenment, most notably the leaders of the agribusiness colonies of America.
- Even if you don’t agree with people simply because they’re not heterosexual, you must recognize that the least-healthy sexuality is the kind that preys on the vulnerable. Perhaps any amount of attention paid to adults who are no risk to children is a distraction benefiting predators who seek positions of power like sports coach or priest.
But I think we’ll sooner see a First Amendment challenge about you last point. It won’t be as simple as “don’t lend books to kids” but rather:
- don’t talk about the banned book list, or test the waters with uncleared new ones
- don’t generate public info about your opinions on litigious topics. Over the years, to keep your job, you might be disadvantaged when compared to a new hire without that paper trail.
- relatedly, try to think ahead: certain topics that seem sanitized today might become a taboo of focus. In a kids book, Sam might have a robot friend. Don’t take a chance that your proximity to this book becomes a problem if, in the future bureaucracy, it’s a problem if Sam loves a robot.