I share your critique of how MSM has presented a lot of this stuff. The person I've been following on the "anti-CRT" bills is Jeff Sachs who does a very objective deep-dive IMO. See https://pen.org/steep-rise-gag-orders-many-sloppily-drafted/
I share your critique of how MSM has presented a lot of this stuff. The person I've been following on the "anti-CRT" bills is Jeff Sachs who does a very objective deep-dive IMO. See https://pen.org/steep-rise-gag-orders-many-sloppily-drafted/
The bills described in that article (most not yet passed) sound pretty bad, and I hope they can be defeated.
This is part of why I think that neo-progressive censors who weaken support for free speech are ill advised; they are assuming that they will forever be the ones doing the restricting, so it will only be applied to what *they* consider "bad" ideas. Neo-progressives are no longer reliable allies on free speech - unless they happen to be on the restricted side rather than the restricting side.
I expect the ACLU to be all over some of these conservative bills, both from the residues of their traditional civil liberties focus, and from their new progressive activism focus. However, I don't know how the courts will react.
At your link, I'm not as sure about the objectivity.
Background. One of the most common partisan tactics today (by all sides) is to cherry-pick the most outrageous examples of "the other side", and try to portray those as typical rather than make any effort to put them in context. The left will seize upon the most extreme Trump supporter and try to assure their audiences that is pretty much what all 70 million Trump voters believe too. The right picks up on the most zealous progressive statements and policies, and tries to get their audience to believe that all democrats believe similarly. This gets views and clicks and is a good business model, but bodes poorly for the future of our democracy.
The linked article appears to be trying to highlight the worst portions of the worst examples it can find (passed or proposed). I see no attempt to analyze a range of bills, including the worst as well as some that may not be extreme. And I see no generosity of interpretation of motives, or recognition that there might be any problem stimulating such (ill-advised!) reactions.
Of course, that approach is their right; advocacy is acceptable in publications of course! But I question whether it's objective.
I sympathize with PART of the motivation for SOME of the legislation, as I believe that many teachers have decided that they have the moral role of creating a brave new society by inculcating their own personal political values on the next generation. There do appear to be cases where, for example, kids are being taught that police are their enemies (these may be isolated and rare, but it's VERY hard to know how much so). I think that parents have a right to know about this, and to push back democratically; they have not bought into any social contract which so empowers teachers.
But I don't think that coercive bans and censorship from the state are an appropriate tool - for the right or for the left. Free speech is the keystone right in a democracy - if any side gets near full control of information, they control elections and power, and they can suppress any dissent or feedback. Which in turns means their policies can jump the rails without corrective feedback. In the area of information control, power corrupts and more power corrupts more thoroughly. First it's used "to protect the vulnerable", but if you have the power to suppress opposition, it ALWAYS will then be used to remain in power and suppress even well deserved criticism.
I share your critique of how MSM has presented a lot of this stuff. The person I've been following on the "anti-CRT" bills is Jeff Sachs who does a very objective deep-dive IMO. See https://pen.org/steep-rise-gag-orders-many-sloppily-drafted/
Interesting.
The bills described in that article (most not yet passed) sound pretty bad, and I hope they can be defeated.
This is part of why I think that neo-progressive censors who weaken support for free speech are ill advised; they are assuming that they will forever be the ones doing the restricting, so it will only be applied to what *they* consider "bad" ideas. Neo-progressives are no longer reliable allies on free speech - unless they happen to be on the restricted side rather than the restricting side.
I expect the ACLU to be all over some of these conservative bills, both from the residues of their traditional civil liberties focus, and from their new progressive activism focus. However, I don't know how the courts will react.
At your link, I'm not as sure about the objectivity.
Background. One of the most common partisan tactics today (by all sides) is to cherry-pick the most outrageous examples of "the other side", and try to portray those as typical rather than make any effort to put them in context. The left will seize upon the most extreme Trump supporter and try to assure their audiences that is pretty much what all 70 million Trump voters believe too. The right picks up on the most zealous progressive statements and policies, and tries to get their audience to believe that all democrats believe similarly. This gets views and clicks and is a good business model, but bodes poorly for the future of our democracy.
The linked article appears to be trying to highlight the worst portions of the worst examples it can find (passed or proposed). I see no attempt to analyze a range of bills, including the worst as well as some that may not be extreme. And I see no generosity of interpretation of motives, or recognition that there might be any problem stimulating such (ill-advised!) reactions.
Of course, that approach is their right; advocacy is acceptable in publications of course! But I question whether it's objective.
I sympathize with PART of the motivation for SOME of the legislation, as I believe that many teachers have decided that they have the moral role of creating a brave new society by inculcating their own personal political values on the next generation. There do appear to be cases where, for example, kids are being taught that police are their enemies (these may be isolated and rare, but it's VERY hard to know how much so). I think that parents have a right to know about this, and to push back democratically; they have not bought into any social contract which so empowers teachers.
But I don't think that coercive bans and censorship from the state are an appropriate tool - for the right or for the left. Free speech is the keystone right in a democracy - if any side gets near full control of information, they control elections and power, and they can suppress any dissent or feedback. Which in turns means their policies can jump the rails without corrective feedback. In the area of information control, power corrupts and more power corrupts more thoroughly. First it's used "to protect the vulnerable", but if you have the power to suppress opposition, it ALWAYS will then be used to remain in power and suppress even well deserved criticism.
Well said