This problem arises when ideology meets reality: it gets messy, and one must be able to differentiate rare contexts in which there may be exceptions. Picture this: your kid goes to a park or a friend's house, and one of their parents gives them access to a graphic novel that depicts sexual acts which are age-inappropriate, considering they haven't even reached puberty. Then this individual tells them some people are born in the wrong bodies if one "feels" more closely aligned to those of the opposite gender or perhaps somewhere in between based on their preference for stereotypes most closely aligned with that gender like "girls play with barbies and boys play with trucks" then perhaps they ARE that gender. Any parent would be rightly concerned with another adult exposing their child to materials that are not only inappropriate but without their knowledge or consent. These issues are hardly a matter of "free speech," as some may be quick to assume. Instead, these debates are about the prioritization of adult civil liberties above the laws established to protect minor children and parents' constitutional rights (14th Amendment.)
A federal statute and additional state statutes prohibit the distribution of obscene and pornographic content to minors. Even more concerningly, these debates also present citizens with another dilemma which implies that tax-funded institutions such as public schools have the right to infringe on a parent's rights AND are not expected to follow the same laws which govern their citizens. I encourage those to view the books Ron DeSantis is removing from schools, which ironically should not legally be there in the first place.
Free speech shouldn't be a political position -- it should be a fundamental value. It's the source of ideas.
It should go without saying that this doesn't give anyone license to lie maliciously. What we need is latitude to honestly get things wrong while acting and thinking in good faith so we can work out better ideas and better solutions.
Would I be correct in assuming that there is little in his argument which speaks directly to what may be a more ‘modern’ concept - hate speech ? And how would his argument deal with incitement to violence ? I recognize that the crux of his argument addresses what governments or authorities may undertake to control the expression of views they deem harmful or wrong. It strikes me that, as with almost everything in life, the challenge is determining where to draw a line to establish ‘reasonable’ limits to rights and responsibilities. Thanks once again for a stimulating piece that brings history to bear on present issues and discussions.
For a writer who claims to eschew partisanship in his writings your meager justification for praising a long-dead Republican senator was a reference to Gov. DeSantis, who has supported a law to require transparency from school boards in the selection of classroom resources. You made no mention of the much larger donkey in the room partially revealed by the Twitter files that showed the Biden Administration pressuring Big Tech to silence individuals, even prominent scientists and physicians, whose views were in opposition to the Administration. And not a word about the Biden's Administration's attempt to establish a 'Ministry of Truth' as an official government agency. It's your blog and you can be as partisan as you wish, but don't insult us with claims to the contrary.
The Scopes trial was indeed a First Amendment issue. But the issue at hand was not free speech but separation of church and state. Public schools are government institutions. Teachers in such schools are agents of the state. As such, they are subject to the restrictions on government imposed by the Constitution.
In addition, control of curricula in government schools has forever been a prerogative of government -- see, e.g., Common Core. But today's threats to freedom within schools are primarily to the freedom of students to deviate from progressive orthodoxy without being punished by teachers or administrators, not to the supposed freedom of state employee teachers to say whatever they want in the classroom.
Ultimately, the only solution to the conflict between teachers' desire to teach what they want, taxpayers' right to have a say in how their dollars are being spent, parents' right to have their children instructed in a way consistent with their values, and the freedom of students to dissent is: Abolish government schools.
Ideas and perceptions through history remind me of the biological trials and errors that make evolution so fascinating and successful on occasion. Perhaps for us humans seeing admission of erring as the ultimate sign of defeat is the main obstacle.
"Better an uproar than a whisper..." (Chef's Kiss)
This problem arises when ideology meets reality: it gets messy, and one must be able to differentiate rare contexts in which there may be exceptions. Picture this: your kid goes to a park or a friend's house, and one of their parents gives them access to a graphic novel that depicts sexual acts which are age-inappropriate, considering they haven't even reached puberty. Then this individual tells them some people are born in the wrong bodies if one "feels" more closely aligned to those of the opposite gender or perhaps somewhere in between based on their preference for stereotypes most closely aligned with that gender like "girls play with barbies and boys play with trucks" then perhaps they ARE that gender. Any parent would be rightly concerned with another adult exposing their child to materials that are not only inappropriate but without their knowledge or consent. These issues are hardly a matter of "free speech," as some may be quick to assume. Instead, these debates are about the prioritization of adult civil liberties above the laws established to protect minor children and parents' constitutional rights (14th Amendment.)
A federal statute and additional state statutes prohibit the distribution of obscene and pornographic content to minors. Even more concerningly, these debates also present citizens with another dilemma which implies that tax-funded institutions such as public schools have the right to infringe on a parent's rights AND are not expected to follow the same laws which govern their citizens. I encourage those to view the books Ron DeSantis is removing from schools, which ironically should not legally be there in the first place.
Free speech shouldn't be a political position -- it should be a fundamental value. It's the source of ideas.
It should go without saying that this doesn't give anyone license to lie maliciously. What we need is latitude to honestly get things wrong while acting and thinking in good faith so we can work out better ideas and better solutions.
Would I be correct in assuming that there is little in his argument which speaks directly to what may be a more ‘modern’ concept - hate speech ? And how would his argument deal with incitement to violence ? I recognize that the crux of his argument addresses what governments or authorities may undertake to control the expression of views they deem harmful or wrong. It strikes me that, as with almost everything in life, the challenge is determining where to draw a line to establish ‘reasonable’ limits to rights and responsibilities. Thanks once again for a stimulating piece that brings history to bear on present issues and discussions.
For a writer who claims to eschew partisanship in his writings your meager justification for praising a long-dead Republican senator was a reference to Gov. DeSantis, who has supported a law to require transparency from school boards in the selection of classroom resources. You made no mention of the much larger donkey in the room partially revealed by the Twitter files that showed the Biden Administration pressuring Big Tech to silence individuals, even prominent scientists and physicians, whose views were in opposition to the Administration. And not a word about the Biden's Administration's attempt to establish a 'Ministry of Truth' as an official government agency. It's your blog and you can be as partisan as you wish, but don't insult us with claims to the contrary.
The Scopes trial was indeed a First Amendment issue. But the issue at hand was not free speech but separation of church and state. Public schools are government institutions. Teachers in such schools are agents of the state. As such, they are subject to the restrictions on government imposed by the Constitution.
In addition, control of curricula in government schools has forever been a prerogative of government -- see, e.g., Common Core. But today's threats to freedom within schools are primarily to the freedom of students to deviate from progressive orthodoxy without being punished by teachers or administrators, not to the supposed freedom of state employee teachers to say whatever they want in the classroom.
Ultimately, the only solution to the conflict between teachers' desire to teach what they want, taxpayers' right to have a say in how their dollars are being spent, parents' right to have their children instructed in a way consistent with their values, and the freedom of students to dissent is: Abolish government schools.
Ideas and perceptions through history remind me of the biological trials and errors that make evolution so fascinating and successful on occasion. Perhaps for us humans seeing admission of erring as the ultimate sign of defeat is the main obstacle.