In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
University libraries, sure. Maybe restricted access in some high schools. Its definitely not widely circulated in grade/middle/high school libraries
Whenever I hear about lefties banning books, they're historically significant titles that contain language or concepts that wouldn't fly in modern polite society. They're trying to rewrite or censor history.
Huck Finn was having problems from day1 basically and "karens" have existed for a lot longer than that term. There have been plenty of rightwing karens over the years. Political alignments over a century ago weren't exactly what they are today. What party do you think some anti-racist karen librarian in massachusetts in the post-civil war era would be more likely to align with?
I agree that the president's behavior has been abundantly worse, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it has to be introduced into the conversation. In fact, it's nonessential information for refuting my argument, and if it does get brought up, it doesn't have to become the main focus.
My brother in Christ, *you* are the one who introduced Trump into this conversation.
Oh really
Even Gavin's state banned To kill a Mockingbird
You should probably read the ******* article. It wasn't banned, it just wasn't allowed to be part of the curriculum. Nobody was ever prevented from reading the ******* book.
If you think didn't ban it vs. did ban it is just semantics, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Whenever I hear about lefties banning books, they're historically significant titles that contain language or concepts that wouldn't fly in modern polite society. They're trying to rewrite or censor history.When I see calls for book-banning from right-wing Karens, it's mostly new queer stuff or things with explicit sexual content they're trying to crush before it gets a footho
Progressives and conservatives love censorship, so nothing is new.
I agree that there is rarely reason to remove historical works just because they use phrasing or themes some deem problematic today. It is better to teach people to be responsible readers than to try to cocoon them from reality. Whether it should be on a curriculum is an open debate. I'm not a teacher, but I think learning to read a controversial work from a modern perspective could be a healthy exercise.
However, your post makes little sense and comes off as hypocritical. It is clear you are in favor of banning and removing books, you just take issue when you perceive it as being done by the wrong political aisle.
You're also naive about conservative book censorship and who is behind a lot of it. The reason "Anne Frank's diary" is a frequent target for such efforts isn't because the unabridged version contains some admissions of teenage sexuality, it is because it tells a memorable and horrifying story of the holocaust.
Italy doing its bit for NATO
Rome has given final approval to a €13.5bn ($15.6bn) project to build the world's longest suspension bridge, connecting the island of Sicily to the region of Calabria, on the tip of Italy's boot.
The designers claim the bridge – which is due to be built on one of the most seismically active areas in the Mediterranean – will be able to withstand earthquakes.
It is the latest attempt by Italian officials to launch the Messina Bridge project - several have tried over the years but plans have later been scrapped due to concerns over cost, environmental damage, safety or potential mafia meddling.
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has admitted the most recent project has not been easy.
However, she said on Wednesday that she considers it an "investment in Italy's present and future".
"We enjoy difficult challenges when they make sense," Meloni said.
According to the final project, the bridge over the Messina strait will span 3.3km (2.05 miles) and stretch between two 400-metre (1,300 feet) high towers, with two railway lines in the middle and three lanes of traffic on either side.
Rome is hoping to classify the bridge as a military expenditure to make it count towards the Nato target of 5% of GDP spent on defence.
Huck Finn was having problems from day1 basically and "karens" have existed for a lot longer than that term. There have been plenty of rightwing karens over the years. Political alignments over a century ago weren't exactly what they are today. What party do you think some anti-racist karen librarian in massachusetts in the post-civil war era would be more likely to align with?
This is why I didn't mention Tipper Gore in my examples
The actual president of the USA (and the VP) are going to trade war with the EU and Brazil because the EU and Brazil (and UK) did erode actual free speech. That's the most pro free speech action since forever in my memory by an american president. I am not sure which stuff you are referring to about Trump eroding free speech. He is trying to get private companies to censor priv
He is deporting legal residents because he didn't like things they said.
Whenever I hear about lefties banning books, they're historically significant titles that contain language or concepts that wouldn't fly in modern polite society. They're trying to rewrite or censor history.When I see calls for book-banning from right-wing Karens, it's mostly new queer stuff or things with explicit sexual content they're trying to crush before it gets a footho
They also banned a - factual - book about two male penguins raising a baby penguin.
You should probably read the ******* article. It wasn't banned, it just wasn't allowed to be part of the curriculum. Nobody was ever prevented from reading the ******* book.
I think banning teachers from teaching a particular book counts as a ban.
If you only consider making something impossible to buy / rest to be a ban, then pretty much nothing is banned in the US.
I think banning teachers from teaching a particular book counts as a ban.
If you only consider making something impossible to buy / rest to be a ban, then pretty much nothing is banned in the US.
They didn’t ban teachers from teaching it, they just suspended their policy of having it as required reading. They could still offer it as an elective reading.
They didn’t ban teachers from teaching it, they just suspended their policy of having it as required reading. They could still offer it as an elective reading.
Could be, but that is not the way Gorgonian described it.
He said it "wasn't allowed to be part of the curriculum". The word 'allowed' seems to say that individual teachers were no longer allowed to teach it.
That's about whether the constitution applies to non citizens or not and how much. That's a very different set of problems not limited to the 1a. Ofc if you think non citizens have rights under the federal constitution ( i don't) you would disagree. But even then the 1a doesn't stand out as the main right of non-citizens (if you think they have any) being infringed
That's about whether the constitution applies to non citizens or not and how much. That's a very different set of problems not limited to the 1a. Ofc if you think non citizens have rights under the federal constitution ( i don't) you would disagree. But even then the 1a doesn't stand out as the main right of non-citizens (if you think they have any) being infringed
I didn't refer to the Constitution or the 1st amendment. I was just giving an example of the Trump regime restricting/punishing free speech. The first Amendment doesn't even prevent the President from assassinating native born citizens for something they said - it just says that Congress can't pass a law restricting speech.
I didn't refer to the Constitution or the 1st amendment. I was just giving an example of the Trump regime restricting/punishing free speech. The first Amendment doesn't even prevent the President from assassinating native born citizens for something they said - it just says that Congress can't pass a law restricting speech.
The constitution means what courts have decided it means (until they decide differently). The current interpretation of the 1a enlarges the scope of the 1a to all branches of gvmnt , federal and local, including the federal executive.
Btw deporting you for speech isn't punishment, if living in the USA isn't a right (and it isn't for non citizens). Removing a privilege isn't punishment.
Any second a non citizen is allowed to stay in the USA is a gift by the USA people (and it's government). A gift that can be suspended at any time, not a right in any way or form.
The constitution means what courts have decided it means (until they decide differently). The current interpretation of the 1a enlarges the scope of the 1a to all branches of gvmnt , federal and local, including the federal executive.Btw deporting you for speech isn't punishment, if living in the USA isn't a right (and it isn't for non citizens). Removing a privilege isn't puni
so only american citizen is allowed to have free speech huh?
u really are a libertarian promoting freedom...
Of course it's a punishment. Regardless of whether or not the Constitution applies to non-citizens.
I'm confused by some of you guys: Is Luciom a Libertarian or a Nazi-Fascist? I'm getting conflicting opinions on this.
HE says is a libertarian and yet many times he holds fascist discourse and views about policies.
his kind of a transgender in politic.
He believes his something that he actually his not shrug.
Of course it's a punishment. Regardless of whether or not the Constitution applies to non-citizens.
removing a privilege isn't a punishment. A punishment is depriving you of your property or freedom. There is no freedom to live in the USA for non american citizens, it's a privilege that can be suspended at any time, for any reason the USA decide to apply to that, and it's not a punishment if that happens.
Same as it is not a punishment not to qualify for any subsidy, it's a privilege to qualify for them, given subsidies aren't a right.
It is not a violation of the 1a to limit the speech of federal employees (when they are on the job) for example and fire you if you don't comply, because being a federal employee isn't a right so terminating that isn't punishment.
