Political Correctness and Freedom of Speech

[Nimos]

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?

If we are just talking the library then it should be freely available. A library to me is simply a vault or collection of information and its purpose is not to judge or decide which information are true, false, offensive etc.

So in regards to your question, I think a library should be completely unbiased and just hold information and therefore no one should decide what it should hold or shouldn't hold, simply because they disagree with something.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

It is a form of parenting, however there are other forms of censure for adults, too. The practical ways to choose censure can never match the ideal ones, so the practical ways censure either too little or too much.

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?

Considering your comments about capitalist media moguls who abuse their freedom of speech, I have to reinterpret the question. There are very influential media moguls, and they can and do deceive. This wastes our time, resources and harms the union sometimes. True. So then we have to decide what to do about it and how to proceed and how to improve the union (of the people) while not snuffing out the candles of independent thought. Independent thought can be the difference between success and failure, even though it often is full of the dregs of rumors. We should protect the independent whistle blower, the writer, the investigator, the snoop, the muckraker and the creative dissembler etc. These annoying brats often improve the union.

There is a problem, and it is that laws must be handled by geeks parsing formulas and old precedents. This follows from the nature of written laws, whose value is that they are not flippant, not changing to suit whoever is in charge. To keep them requires a system with people professionally dedicated to upholding that kind of parsing, that kind of pedantry and studious involvement. I cannot see a way around this without ruining the whole thing.

The trick is to find a way to set up laws that protect all of the independent thinkers -- but not only laws but principles. Laws to be effective, long term, consistent must embody some principle. Any law made to meet a short sighted goal will easily be changed later, will not be supported in precedents and usually will be found incompatible with the body of other laws. We need principles which the lawyers can interpret methodically, and those principles must protect independent thought and speech but reign in those who abuse free speech. That is difficult to pen.

 

[F1fan]

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..

That would be for a history of science class. I had to take a history of psychology class for my degree, and it covered an very dark and immoral history of 19th century science.

 

[Father Heathen]

This is a good thread Kooky.

I think book banning is a terrible practice overall and both left and right wings ought to be up in arms over it if freedoms are to be preserved.

I may not be supportive of teaching some material in the classroom, but accessibility should be there for people who want it.

Well I'll be damned... we agree on something.

 

[Father Heathen]

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

I see it as being too uptight and prude at times.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's how the left is trying to re-define it.
This is just as they try to redefine "SJW" as
merely being for social justice. It's a denial
of the existence of unreasonable obsession
with what they consider proper things to say
& believe.

Political correctness as used by the right is simply
the same usage originally crafted by the left.
Political correctness - Wikipedia
Excerpted....
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]

Social justice warrior - Wikipedia
Excerpted....
Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term and internet meme used for an individual who promotes socially progressive, left-wing and liberal views, including feminism, civil rights, gay and transgender rights, identity politics, political correctness and multiculturalism.[8] The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.[3][9]

I see "SJW" as being over-zealous, vindictive, sanctimonious, hypocritical, etc. Essentially the fundies of the left.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see "SJW" as being over-zealous, vindictive, sanctimonious, hypocritical, etc. Essentially the fundies of the left.

This occasional agreement is nice.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Right. The Bible isn't exactly rated 'G'.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I remember when I was in grade school, there were field trips to the public library where students had a far wider selection of topics available. It was a great experience that went beyond the standard curriculum. There was also a bookmobile as well.