The Dangerous Legal Strategy Coming for Our Books(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Dangerous Legal Strategy Coming for Our Books
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/08/book-bans-public-schools/683921/
3 comments
The dangerous book in question: https://literacytree.com/and-tango-makes-three-twenty-years-...
Obvious-seeming questions:
What would be an honest total price, for the IP rights to the (say) 3 dozen books which the Legions of Censorship most wants to remove from America's libraries?
Why aren't Anti-Censorship Heroes busy raising that sum, so that they can make all those books freely available on the web? Thus foiling the evil plan. Or, did The Atlantic just forget to mention that effort?
(Yes, my sense is that 99% of the folks on either side of this issue are motivated by ideological posturing and zeal for combat. Not by book availability.)
What would be an honest total price, for the IP rights to the (say) 3 dozen books which the Legions of Censorship most wants to remove from America's libraries?
Why aren't Anti-Censorship Heroes busy raising that sum, so that they can make all those books freely available on the web? Thus foiling the evil plan. Or, did The Atlantic just forget to mention that effort?
(Yes, my sense is that 99% of the folks on either side of this issue are motivated by ideological posturing and zeal for combat. Not by book availability.)
Here's another obvious-seeming question: Why should would-be censors be granted power over libraries? Instead of concocting expensive schemes to get around attempts at censorship, how about if we address the problem at the source by protecting libraries, which won't cost anything?
> Why should would-be censors be granted power...
> how about if we address the problem ... which wouldn't cost anything?
This is not a Philosophy 487 essay, where clever arguments about "should" have the power to determine your, um, er - your essay grade.
Reality is that they already have a great deal of power, and are gaining more.
Could you explain your idea for "addressing the problem at the source ... which won't cost anything"? I'm concerned that that's just a "if all the Supreme Court Justices suddenly decided to do the Right Thing..." daydream.
> how about if we address the problem ... which wouldn't cost anything?
This is not a Philosophy 487 essay, where clever arguments about "should" have the power to determine your, um, er - your essay grade.
Reality is that they already have a great deal of power, and are gaining more.
Could you explain your idea for "addressing the problem at the source ... which won't cost anything"? I'm concerned that that's just a "if all the Supreme Court Justices suddenly decided to do the Right Thing..." daydream.
Addressing the problem at the source would be a broad-based political movement that demanded enforcement of the First Amendment and a restoration of constitutional norms. That kind of political movement isn't a pipe dream -- two political scientists have extensively studied how nonviolent popular movements have overturned dictatorships: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil...
Democracy did not come to exist because our rulers graciously granted it, but because the people demanded it and fought for it. Our current abandonment of democracy is not happening because the rulers have so much power, but because we the people continuously grant them power through our own inaction. A broad-based political movement could successfully halt the slide toward fascism and restore democracy.
I am sure many people will dismiss this idea as naive. I would ask them to consider two possibilities: (1) Maybe the perception that political action is futile is not a rational judgment based on facts, but a cultural prejudice based on a fashion for cynicism. (2) A widespread perception that political action is futile is a necessary condition for authoritarian government. People who believe that political action produces practical results are more likely to engage in political activity that restrains the power of elites.
Democracy did not come to exist because our rulers graciously granted it, but because the people demanded it and fought for it. Our current abandonment of democracy is not happening because the rulers have so much power, but because we the people continuously grant them power through our own inaction. A broad-based political movement could successfully halt the slide toward fascism and restore democracy.
I am sure many people will dismiss this idea as naive. I would ask them to consider two possibilities: (1) Maybe the perception that political action is futile is not a rational judgment based on facts, but a cultural prejudice based on a fashion for cynicism. (2) A widespread perception that political action is futile is a necessary condition for authoritarian government. People who believe that political action produces practical results are more likely to engage in political activity that restrains the power of elites.
Nice set of ideals - but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longtermism#Criticism
And even if everything works out exactly as you're hoping - it'll be years before you manage to put a book in any kid's hands.
And even if everything works out exactly as you're hoping - it'll be years before you manage to put a book in any kid's hands.
I don't know how you imagine longtermism is relevant to this discussion -- the crisis is happening right now in front of all of us and the need for action is right now.
The threat against libraries is just one part of a broader threat against all freedom of thought, speech, and criticism of the government in the United States. The key issue is not just the one question of whether children have access to books (although that is very important); the key issue is that the government has no right, authority, or business trying to control what is said and thought.
I love how you write "ideals" as if it's a dirty word. In a general political crisis like the current moment, ideals really do matter. You can't fight an authoritarian government unless you're willing to stick your neck out, and people only stick their necks out when they believe that principles are more important than their immediate self-interest. The whole purpose of an authoritarian government is to silence opposition through threats and bribes. If you don't believe that some principles are more important than possible losses and gains, you're always going to be vulnerable to being victimized by authoritarian government. This has concrete, practical results -- idealists can win because they take action; cynics will always lose because they won't act. In a time like this, cynicism is not the smart play.
The threat against libraries is just one part of a broader threat against all freedom of thought, speech, and criticism of the government in the United States. The key issue is not just the one question of whether children have access to books (although that is very important); the key issue is that the government has no right, authority, or business trying to control what is said and thought.
I love how you write "ideals" as if it's a dirty word. In a general political crisis like the current moment, ideals really do matter. You can't fight an authoritarian government unless you're willing to stick your neck out, and people only stick their necks out when they believe that principles are more important than their immediate self-interest. The whole purpose of an authoritarian government is to silence opposition through threats and bribes. If you don't believe that some principles are more important than possible losses and gains, you're always going to be vulnerable to being victimized by authoritarian government. This has concrete, practical results -- idealists can win because they take action; cynics will always lose because they won't act. In a time like this, cynicism is not the smart play.
The problem is it doesn't end there, it's not scalable and presents a slippery slope to broader censorship
I've heard quite similar arguments against changing a baby's dirty diaper.