7 ms·

It's shocking how little opposition laws like get this from people who call themselves "free speech absolutists." Here we have straightforward censorship, by t

• steveBK123 1y ago
  Yes, the same people that need the 2A right to guns to protect themselves from government tyranny also are totally fine with other forms of government tyranny.
  • NickC25 1y ago
    As long as the tyrants are on "their" "side" , 2A gun nuts love government tyranny, and the right to commit tyranny.
    • mindslight 1y ago
      I'm not really a fan of either party, so I tend to dwell on the most glaring irrefutable examples that shine through groupthink biasing. Government agents summarily executed Breonna Taylor in retaliation for Kenneth Walker exercising his natural right to night time home defense. This was the exact scenario the 2A enthusiasts always grandstand about - "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away", "From my cold, dead hands", etc. Any yet the response from the sheer majority of supposed 2A enthusiasts? Utter fucking silence, if not outright support for the jackboots.
      • epistasis 1y ago
        This is shown throughout history too. When the Black Panthers were around the NRA was strongly in support of gun control.
      • FireBeyond 1y ago
        "From my cold, dead hands... unless you're at an NRA convention, in which case, please use these convenient lockers we've provided, or consider leaving your firearms at home."
        • mindslight 1y ago
          I would point out how great of a place that would be for the government to start their supposedly planned "gun confiscation", but why would they even need to do that?
    • insane_dreamer 1y ago
      Huge Venn diagram overlap between 2A gun nuts and those who are totally fine with calling in the NG to police "out of control" cities like DC
      • steveBK123 1y ago
        many such cases
  • antonymoose 1y ago
    By your logic, the government should be forced to purchase firearms and make them freely available to the citizens. The government deciding standards for content it purchase is neither tyranny nor fascism. You are free to purchase as much controversial or sexually explicit material as you see fit.
    • amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      Public schools have librarians who are trained in pedagogy. The librarians and teachers already know what books are appropriate for kids. This is state legislators and the governor trying to prevent kids being exposed to ideas they don't personal like.
      • SilverElfin 1y ago
        > Public schools have librarians who are trained in pedagogy. The librarians and teachers already know what books are appropriate for kids. This training means nothing. Critical pedagogy is just code for biasing the books in libraries towards the left. It isn’t even a hidden agenda - the ALA has been open about it. This “pedagogy” isn’t about what’s appropriate for kids. It’s about using a public institution and its funds to push one side’s ideas. So sure, the state may be trying to prevent kids from being exposed to ideas they don't personally like. But it is to counter the librarians and their organizations, who are trying to only expose kids to ideas they personally like.
        • epistasis 1y ago
          Pedagogy and critical pedagogy are two very different things. And critical pedagogy seems to be a very rare thing, why are you bringing it up and then adding a hyper-political slant to it? Substituting one term for another and railing against the substituted term is a very weak argument.
          • SilverElfin 1y ago
            Critical pedagogy is not rare, but very common. I am bringing it up because the ALA pushes and practices it, as do most individual librarians in cities, whose personal politics aligns with the ALA, and whose libraries are members of ALA. That’s why public libraries in cities have a disproportionate amount of progressive biased books visible when you walk in, and virtually nothing from other ideologies.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • UmGuys 1y ago
    They are the tyranny. They're literally attacking Americans with the military now. GOP has fully descended into whatever Tr*mp wants and he seems to want to destroy America.
• mlinhares 1y ago
  That's because they're not "free speech absolutists", they're fascists that want to force their own idea of what valid speech is on everyone else.
  • gosub100 1y ago
    Same thing the far left does on college campuses. They just do it under the guise of victimhood with terms like "assault" being used to describe someone speaking an unpopular opinion. If the school book wars said the kids were "assaulted" by this "hate speech" would that make it okay? Is that what they are missing is someone feigning victimhood?
    • epistasis 1y ago
      Speaking an unpopular opinion on campus might mean you hear other people saying things that you don't like, as well? In what way do you consider this similar to laws enforced by courts and police and the full legal system?
    • DrillShopper 1y ago
      False equivalence - I don't see lefty culture warriors burning books/removing them from libraries. They are fighting to get different books (less Eurocentric, for the most part) into the curriculum, but they're not removing them from the library.
      • HK-NC 1y ago
        I can't think of any explicitly right wing books that are even in libraries anyway.
        • etchalon 1y ago
          Is this comment sarcastic?
  • prox 1y ago
    If true they fit the exact definition of doublespeak.
• poplarsol 1y ago
  All of these books are freely available if you would like to spend your own money on them, as opposed to public funds.
  • epistasis 1y ago
    What does that point have to do anything? They are also available in schools, because the judge here enforced the US constitution. The article is about Florida politicians trying to censor books in public schools, literal government censorship.
    • bigfishrunning 1y ago
      I think the problem with these laws is that they're too general. I think we can all agree that there are topics that should not be in elementary school libraries -- I don't think my 7 year old needs to be reading about oral sex for instance, regardless of the gender or sexuality of the participants. The real problem is the nature of the wording of "pornographic", which is poorly defined as "I know it when i see it", and stretched by disingenuous people with an agenda. As a "Free Speech Absolutionist", I think as much material as possible should be in public libraries, including material that some people object to. I also think that school libraries should be curated to what is appropriate for the audience. The rub here is defining what is "appropriate". Silencing minority literature is bad. Also allowing my elementary school kids to check out "the turner diaries" is bad. There needs to be a balance.
      • fknorangesite 1y ago
        [flagged]
        • bigfishrunning 1y ago
          The point I'm trying to make is that panicing about book bans is not how you combat these bad-faith actors. It's defining rules to satiate their stated aims, and force them to bring their other motives to light, thus nullifying their arguments.
• root_axis 1y ago
  "Free speech absolutist" is a self-described label for partisan censors. Honest people understand that there's no such thing as absolute free speech.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• xnx 1y ago
  Almost without exception, people who loudly proclaim to be one thing: free speech absolutist, anti-tax, heterosexual, small government, "tough on crime" are exactly the opposite.
  • gosub100 1y ago
    Universities saying they're "diverse" until some students started promoting terrorist and acting anti-Semitic.
  • zeroonetwothree 1y ago
    Well, maybe in practice. You could consider it an example of the law of unintended consequences. Although I would apply it equally to the other political side as well. “Diversity” = everyone has to think like me, “inclusion” = exclude certain groups and so on
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  What flew under the radar? It was challenged in court and struck down. The system seems to work no? How else should it work?
  • steveBK123 1y ago
    Would be preferable to not see administrations repeatedly try obviously blatantly unconstitutional moves. Don't need to be a constitutional law expert to see the problem here. Is driving 100mph down the highway OK as long as you slow down right before the known speed trap? The system worked?
  • epistasis 1y ago
    I am contrasting the difference between 1) those who paid attention and took action, the normal type of free speech defenders, and 2) self-described "absolutists" who have no problem with this sort of vaguely defined restriction on speech.
    • zeroonetwothree 1y ago
      Why do you think absolutists have no problem with this law? Did you just make that up? I for one do not support the law and I would consider myself 99% an absolutist.
      • anigbrowl 1y ago
        Arguments about concepts like hate speech tend to pull out a large number of self-identified free speech absolutists, arguments about restricting access to books in libraries ends to draw out very few. You might find it intresting to dig through the history of past discussions right here on HN.
  • omnimus 1y ago
    I don't think courts should be where laws are decided. The main reason is that every obvious case like this undermines their power in future. Soon you will have people who start to question if courts don't have too much power. When you finally get to some important politically dividing case, all these secondary rulings in the past would be used against the courts.
• whimsicalism 1y ago
  i don’t support this law at all, but i think it is pretty obvious that there is a difference between free speech and governmental discretion in what is taught in school. free speech doesn’t require that schools stock the “Bell Curve” or Mein Kampf for instance
  • Sprocklem 1y ago
    This is a strange framing. These laws are neither about what is taught in schools nor what books schools are required to stock, but rather restrictions on what books schools may chose to make available to the children. The government is not limiting the free speech of the authors, but these laws are the government limiting access to the authors' free speech, which is at least related to free speech, even if you don't buy that it is an restriction of free speech per se. I do, however, think it is also worth noting that there is value in critically discussing the ideologies espoused by "The Bell Curve" and "Mein Kampf", since both ideologies persist and continue to have influence on American politics today.
    • whimsicalism 1y ago
      You’re motte-baileying to ‘related to free speech’. By the standard you are setting, any curriculum-setting is free speech related, so clearly not an impermissible state action.
      • Sprocklem 1y ago
        Curriculum-setting neither limits anyones free speech nor does it restrict their access to the free speech of others. Teachers are generally allowed to expand on the curriculum and students are given access to literature with information beyond that in the curriculum. These laws do effectively restrict access to information and ideas.
• laurent_du 1y ago
  Using taxpayers money to corrupt minors is not "free speech".
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • fknorangesite 1y ago
    Where is the "corruption" here? Be specific.
• komali2 1y ago
  Aaaagh! I feel your frustration but I myself am frustrated at this dance Americans still play at that there are constitutionalists there, or people interested in "maintaining the institutions" or "free speech." There are only two kinds of politicians in America: neoliberals who are looking for opportunities to commodify the State or people in it, and fascists (or baby fascists) interested in achieving Christian nationalist or white nationalist goals by any means necessary. Even the word "libertarian" doesn't mean "anarchist" in America as it does everywhere else, to refer to the most far-left you take take political ideology. Instead it refers to a deeply right-wing ideology obsessed with corporatocracy.
  • terminalshort 1y ago
    There is no philosophical difference between libertarianism and anarchism, only a difference in how they predict people will behave in the absence of centralized authority.
    • komali2 1y ago
      There's a huge philosophical difference! American libertarians are highly focused on individualism and zero-sum behavior and thinking, whereas anarchism is a collective ideology focused on mutual aid or even communism (e.g. Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism). Libertarianism is an application of right-wing ideology subtracting the State. Opposition to the State may be a shared aspect of the ideologies, but for another example, just because Nazism advocated for nationalizing industries doesn't mean it has anything beyond that in common with Marxist Leninist Communism which advocates for the same.
      • terminalshort 1y ago
        > Opposition to the State may be a shared aspect of the ideologies Yes, that's the philosophy. All the rest of what you said is just listing different predictions of what will happen after you get rid of the state. Once you get rid of the state, there is no authority to enforce the "mutual aid or communism" so that isn't a political philosophy. It's just a prediction of what will people will do under their own free will in the absence of a compelling authority.
• terminalshort 1y ago
  I completely disagree with this law, but I don't understand how this is a free speech issue. AFAIK the law isn't restricting anyone's right to freedom of speech because under this law anyone in FL is free to own, publish, buy, sell, read, or stock any book in any privately owned library. It seems to me that the government is allowed to decide what books to buy and stock in its own libraries. I don't understand how freedom of speech obligates the government to make a book available for free. It seems to me like compelled speech to require the government to stock certain books. As this pertains to schools, I don't understand how the government doesn't have the same right to control the curriculum as it does in any other case. e.g. it is not a violation of a teacher's right to free speech to order them not to teach flat earth theory in public schools because that teacher is an employee and not on their own time. Same as my employer can restrict my speech while on the job without violating my rights.
  • epistasis 1y ago
    Your first and second paragraphs are in opposition to each other. The government is setting strict rules about what sort of books are allowed with this law. It's not a mere selection of the many books, but a strict ban of certain types of books based on their content. When the government establishes laws like this, they must be in accordance with our constitution above all, and that sort of strict criteria on banning certain types of books disagrees with the first amendment and the legal tradition around it. Similarly, you are also wrong about this compelling the government to stock certain books, that's not on the table at all.
    • terminalshort 1y ago
      But no books are banned. The government is allowed to set school curriculum in every other case, so why not this one? If you don't like government school rules set by the government, then who gets to set them? I don't think you have a good answer to this. You are dancing around the fact that someone has to decide what books go in the library. Who should that person be? Seems to me that it should be the owner of the library in question, which in this case is the state whose budget and laws are controlled by the legislature.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• slibhb 1y ago
  It is notably weird to react to this article by criticizing "free speech absolutists". Who are the people you're criticizing? Be specific. Free speech absolutists are mostly principled people who want to defend civil liberties while getting flak from the right and left. An example of this is FIRE -- which was massively criticized by progressives for suing colleges over anti-conservative speech codes, DEI statements, etc. But FIRE has behavred in a princicpled manner and has sued conservatives and the Trump administration over civil liberties violations.
  • kstrauser 1y ago
    > Free speech absolutists are mostly principled people who want to defend civil liberties I genuinely laughed out loud here. As a Mastodon operator, when I see another new instance describe itself as “free speech absolutists”, it means they’re about to fill up with 2 things: Nazis (as in, literally swastikas and “Jews are oppressing me!” memes) and drawings of Japanese 8 year olds in lingerie. Every. Single. Time.
    • zeroonetwothree 1y ago
      Seems like your worldview is a bit skewed by the places you choose to hang out online.
      • kstrauser 1y ago
        Never been a moderator, have ya? I want to keep my hangouts pleasant, and sometimes that means looking at the unpleasant parts so that you can put a wall between them and myself and my friends.
  • QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
    Scott alexander and Zvi were the saddest cases- had a lot of respect for them a while back. Oh and musk of course but I think that's ketamine poisoning, not long-planned betrayal.
    • 1y ago
• ModernMech 1y ago
  Remember the part of the book where "love" is really "war" and "freedom" is really "slavery"? It's like that. "Absolute free speech" is really "only party-approved speech".
• SilverElfin 1y ago
  This story doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, because it isn’t a book ban. It’s about what public libraries spend money on and put on their shelves. You can still buy these books yourself, so clearly they aren’t banned or censored. Why can’t the state decide what to keep in libraries they fund? Let’s not pretend the default situation is uncensored. Librarians are mostly politically skewed to the left, as is their organization (ALA). Walk into libraries in most cities and you’ll find books on the main shelves pushing political ideas from one side, associated with movements like DEI, BLM, LGBTQ, etc. But you won’t find the other side on those shelves. And that’s the issue. Public money is being used by activist librarians, who practice “critical librarianship”, to basically censor the other side. Changes to public libraries are intended to correct that bias.
• dogleash 1y ago
  My highschool had banned books. That's what got me into the free speech thing in the first place. But sure, make me republican in your mind because whatever. It's attitudes like yours that discourage me from wanting to show up for the cause anymore.
  • epistasis 1y ago
    You seem to be making a bunch of unwarranted assumptions about what's in my mind, and getting upset about that, but I can't even imagine what your assumptions are. Your only stated assumption, about me thinking you are "Republican," is false, and not at all contained in my comment. If you are motivated towards free speech action because of banned books don't you think I would suppprt you in that?! That's the entire thrust of my comment, I think people fighting for free speech are great, and based on the information you provided you seem to be doing that!
    • dogleash 1y ago
      >don't you think I would suppprt you in that?! Of course not and I'll explain why: Lefties regularly distance themselves from me when I accidentally let my anti-authoritarian positions code as libertarian to them. Your parent post is a shallow dismissal of some free speech support as opportunistic with a weak-ass signal to identify the group. The same exact behavior I'm used to seeing from ostensibly likeminded individuals that ice me out for non-conformity. (I'll concede you don't name a political party, but in a two party system it's not a secret and I was just saying the implied part out loud.) So no, I don't think the person who came into the comments to shadowbox people who aren't supporting the cause properly would support me.
• UmGuys 1y ago
  It's marketing. Usually free speech absolutists just want to be able to say bigoted things. Often, they're simply racist. People are very volatile and polarized because of their social media's marketing. GOP marketing is insane. They're marketed as fiscally responsible, good for the economy, conservative, pro free speech, pro liberty, capitalist, and recently anti-war. And somehow people believe that despite reality. I can't grasp how anyone could ever support someone so awful as Trump. The man is a pathetic spoiled rotten bully in clown face who can barely string together a coherent sentence. Not to mention all the (sex) crime.