Political Correctness and Freedom of Speech

[Secret Chief]

You forgot to include its original meaning....
Early usage of the term politically correct by leftists in the 1970s and 1980s was as self-critical satire; usage was ironic, rather than a name for a serious political movement.[7][11][12][13] It was considered an in-joke among leftists used to satirise those who were too rigid in their adherence to political orthodoxy.[14]

I read that, but my post was obviously referring to current usage. The right like to use it though don't they? "PC" is a favoured pejorative term. The right use it the most in fact, as popular as "cancel culture." (Except of course when the right want to cancel something, such as a particular comedian. That's not cancel culture, that's standards of decency, or national values, or....well anything but cancel culture...)

 

[Revoltingest]

I read that, but my post was obviously referring to current usage. The right like to use it though don't they? "PC" is a favoured pejorative term.

They do indeed use the original leftish definition.
It still makes sense, the modern left's rejection notwithstanding.

 

[Left Coast]

Do you believe that banning books from public schools and public libraries is a form of Political Correctness?

I think it depends on what is prohibited and why.

How do you think it relates to Freedom of Speech? Is being "obscene or harmful to minors", by whoever's measure, a sufficient reason to suppress the distribution of books at libraries? After all, adults can still buy them online, so it's not really censorship... or is it?

I think there does need to be mindfulness paid to what is age appropriate for children. Excessively graphic, violent, or sexual content shouldn't be in school libraries, especially for primary/elementary school kids.

By the time you get to college and university libraries, though, there should be few restrictions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

most libraries are actually government agencies, even the ones in public schools...or they are nonprofits operated in the public interest. They deserve heightened scrutiny when they take such actions as a matter of policy. Anything government action in the field of media is potentially First Amendment.

I don't disagree that this is important; I just see it as separate from freedom of speech.

 

[F1fan]

So what are you actually arguing for? Hustler magazines in the children's library?

Are you going to donate your collection?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you going to donate your collection?

I don't have any.
All I had as a kid was the Sears catalog.
I think it was a better time.
Too much sexuality at a young age just leads to confusion. Let children be children, let them hold on to innocence as long as they can.
I think once it's gone, life rarely gets better. Suddenly it's all about girls or boys... Instead of fishing and fireflies. And yes maybe I am a helpless romantic at heart. This generation is too much about sex and not enough about real love.

 

[F1fan]

I don't have any.

I'm glad they accepted them.

All I had as a kid was the Sears catalog.
I think it was a better time.

Right, what will a kid know what to do with a Hustler. But you found out later.

Too much sexuality at a young age just leads to confusion. Let children be children, let them hold on to innocence as long as they can.

Do you oppose sex ed in high schools?

I think once it's gone, life rarely gets better. Suddenly it's all about girls or boys... Instead of fishing and fireflies. And yes maybe I am a helpless romantic at heart. This generation is too much about sex and not enough about real love.

The kids today are not like the kids of the 70 or 80's or even 90's. A lot has changed, and parenting needs to adjust too. Trying to hold on to an ideal, innocent past is not going to help prepare a kid today. If anything they will become curious and begin making decisions to find out for themselves, with no adult guidance.

 

[Nakosis]

Isn't Political Correctness just a right wing term for being polite?

IMO, PC is the attempt to remove the pejorative association of a word by creating a new word where it is assumed this new word won't carry the baggage.
Generally however it is not the word itself which carries the baggage put the whatever it is that the word refers to which is then easily transferred to the new word.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well those Amazon women didn't exactly live up to their reputation of beauty. But no, I don't think we should have smut in the children's library.

Me either. But that's what happens when people like to use extremes as examples.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Do you believe that banning books from public schools and public libraries is a form of Political Correctness?

How do you think it relates to Freedom of Speech? Is being "obscene or harmful to minors", by whoever's measure, a sufficient reason to suppress the distribution of books at libraries? After all, adults can still buy them online, so it's not really censorship... or is it?

No it's not. Political correctness has been around forever and it's simply individuals deciding that they don't want to have anything to do with this person or that organization because they don't like their stance on something. Book banning is when someone doesn't want to have anything to do with a certain book and wants the government to step in and prevent anyone from accessing said book.

 

[blü 2]

Do you believe that banning books from public schools and public libraries is a form of Political Correctness?

How do you think it relates to Freedom of Speech? Is being "obscene or harmful to minors", by whoever's measure, a sufficient reason to suppress the distribution of books at libraries? After all, adults can still buy them online, so it's not really censorship... or is it?

I'm not the best friend "freedom of speech" ever had. Trump and QAnon are Exhibits 1 and 2.

Speech isn't 'free' in any absolute sense even in the US ─ there are still laws against defamation, incitement to crime, conspiracy, incitement to sedition or public disorder ─ and so on. They're common to all Western countries that I'm aware of and as a rule I have no argument with them.

But the editing of libraries is usually more a matter of trying to impose religious views eg deny the literary existence of homosexuality and so on. A well-run children's library has books according to age / maturity, doesn't push religious or political views, cuts a lot of slack, draws a few lines.

 

[Kooky]

No it's not. Political correctness has been around forever and it's simply individuals deciding that they don't want to have anything to do with this person or that organization because they don't like their stance on something. Book banning is when someone doesn't want to have anything to do with a certain book and wants the government to step in and prevent anyone from accessing said book.

So you're not actually banning books when you simply order the government to pull them from all public libraries, right?

After all, people can still buy them, it's only poor people and their children who have no chance of being led astray by the corrupting influence of godless literature.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Too much sexuality at a young age just leads to confusion. Let children be children, let them hold on to innocence as long as they can.

What about exposing children to graphic descriptions of a man pinnned to a cross and tortured there? Do you think that affects their innocence or not? If the goal is to preserve their innocence, it seems logical to oppose that too.

 

[Kooky]

Depends, if what the books teaches is demonstrated to be wrong or not live up to the required standard of what is considered factual and verified information, then they should be banned.

So, for example, would you ban all scientific literature that predates our modern understanding of the world?

 

[Kooky]

So what are you actually arguing for? Hustler magazines in the children's library?

That depends on whatever some bureaucrat or elected nincompoop deems "harmful" to children, doesn't it?

But the editing of libraries is usually more a matter of trying to impose religious views eg deny the literary existence of homosexuality and so on. A well-run children's library has books according to age / maturity, doesn't push religious or political views, cuts a lot of slack, draws a few lines.

This is about public libraries, i.e. libraries that don't cater exclusively to children.

 

[Nimos]

So, for example, would you ban all scientific literature that predates our modern understanding of the world?

Yes, if they are taught in class as if they are correct and it has been demonstrated that they are not. Basically its no different than using out of date teaching materials in schools. To take it to the extreme, lets imagine a biology teacher, teach kids that babies are delivered by a stork, because that is what the book say. Clearly such information is wrong and shouldn't be taught as if it were true. However nothing wrong in teaching that this is in fact a myth and the reason people said it were because this and that etc.. etc..

 

[Kooky]

Yes, if they are taught in class as if they are correct and it has been demonstrated that they are not. Basically its no different than using out of date teaching materials in schools. To take it to the extreme, lets imagine a biology teacher, teach kids that babies are delivered by a stork, because that is what the book say. Clearly such information is wrong and shouldn't be taught as if it were true. However nothing wrong in teaching that this is in fact a myth and the reason people said it were because this and that etc.. etc..

This is not about teaching, it's about making them accessible in public libraries.

Do you think an elected official or judge ought to decide which information is wrong and which is appropriate to disseminate to the public, or to distinguish between factual reports, mythology, satire, parody, exaggerated comedy, and speculative literature?

 

[Kooky]

Banning books from libraries is generally a crappy thing to do, but it isn't a free speech issue. Free speech is about the rights of the author; book banning is about the rights of the reader, and about good governance generally.

Indeed, the liberal-capitalist conception of free speech isn't about the public's right to information, it's about the capitalist's right to run a media business by all means, including propaganda and blatant lies.
In this sense, you are correct that, as long as some capitalist stands to garner profit from the sale of a book somewhere, no censorship or violation of freedoms has occurred. So, for example, shutting down all libraries as godless places spreading heathen lies is not a censorship issue, since capitalists can still sell books to those who can afford it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, politeness

Chip and Dale.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What about exposing children to graphic descriptions of a man pinnned to a cross and tortured there? Do you think that affects their innocence or not? If the goal is to preserve their innocence, it seems logical to oppose that too.

I would not show a little kid the passion movie but a simple crucifix or painting isn't really that graphic.