Good morning,
BOOK BANNING
A lot of people have commented on my musings about the banning of books—across the political spectrum and for every possible perceived danger (exposing kids to violence, sex, or difficult concepts, exposing them to words, phrases and ideas that are inappropriate today and might harsh to our ears). The banning of books of course leads to the banning of ideas, which leads to the burning of books, which leads, if one accepts the prescient words of German poet Heinrich Heine, to the burning of people.
Some found connections between the battle of book banning to a lack of a sense of humor. As Peter Bain notes, “Beyond the inanity of the action here, the point is made that when a society loses its humor (I remember Mad Magazine tear-out records fondly!), it is left with little else but false moralism that enables petty tyrants and (my favorite) tin-pot dictators. Whatever happened in this country to Mr. Justice Holmes’s “marketplace of ideas,” where free debate identified truth and advanced society? Whatever happened to Teddy Roosevelt’s arena? Whatever happened to Mr. Jefferson’s view that education was the path by which America would identify each new generation of leaders?“
“We are witnessing yet another example of a segment of our society engaging in extremely un-American behavior, all the whole cloaking it in the false guise of ‘protecting American values.’ And crucially, this banning of books and punishment of teachers represents an unforgivable abdication by parents (the same ones driving these events) of what I believe is one of the core responsibilities (and privileges!) of parenting, namely, engaging with our children about a broad spectrum of challenging ideas, working with them to sort through competing principles and identifying those which hold core meaning and can help guide us through a messy world.”
FREE SPEECH
Limiting free speech, as practiced in politics, in our schools and in public discourse, is a scourge and a danger that leads down a dark path. Leave it to an educator like Adam Torson to cite a great defense of free speech, embodied in the words of Louis Brandeis, in his concurrence with the majority in Whitney v. California:
“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”
And further…
“They recognized…that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed. Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”
THE MOVIES
Several people have commented on the decline of the movie theatre, often citing their childhood experiences. My father-in-law, Bob Blau recounts going to the Saturday double features and the five cent popcorn. Tony Canzonerri has childhood memories similar to my own (albeit a decade or so later…!):
“In the mid 50’s, I would spend Saturday’s working at my Dad’s shoe repair shop in Temple City. Often he would let me walk down to the Temple Theater for the Saturday double. A gray-haired man, Mr. Edwards, would give that same “you better behave yourself” and pull some ticket stubs for free drinks and candy. And if you got out of line he was a stern guy to reckon with.
I much later in life met ‘Mr. Edwards’ and his son James when I was negotiating an Edwards lease for Jerry Snyder. They enjoyed my recollections of one of William’s first theaters…those were the days...”
AMERICA’S STANDING AND OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO EUROPE
As I stated a week or so ago, I believe President Biden did a masterful job of leaking intelligence on Russian plans prior to the Ukraine invasion. Because justification after justification was proven untrue and created by Putin and his circle, the world could see sheer immorality at the core of Putin’s actions and the unjustifiability of the invasion. This was followed by cautious American support for Ukraine. But it falls short of what America stood for in the days after World War II. Mandy Lowell reminded me this week of the Truman Doctrine, and how it should serve as a model for American foreign policy today.
From last week’s Harvard Law Today:
“’I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures,’ Truman told members of Congress crowded into a packed House of Representatives chamber. He never mentioned the Soviet Union by name, but his pronouncement became the foundation of U.S. foreign policy for containing Russian and communist expansion for the remainder of the Cold War.”
Many of the issues from saving the encircling of Greece and Turkey back in Truman’s time we face today: How much aid should we provide? Should we arm the Ukrainians? Should we engage in creating safe air corridors or institute a “no fly” zone? Would we be willing to fight for Ukraine? And what risks for these adventures? Here’s the article: https://today.law.harvard.edu/containing-russian-aggression-lessons-from-the-cold-war/
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives:
Love that they will ban books but not guns…that they will ban books but not the terrible video games. Good article from Harvard Law.