Yeah, the “There was no ban!” thing just doesn’t wash. It’s reasonable to shrug your shoulders at the Seuss estate’s decision, but what eBay and public libraries are doing is (for different reasons) something else entirely.
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1368987277570015232
Yes, it’s essential to be precise on this point. AFAIK, Chicago has only suspended some Seuss books for review. The only place they’ve been outright removed is Portsmouth, VA, though I expect there will be others.
https://twitter.com/michaeldkarras/status/1369104093856239617?s=21
And for what it’s worth, I’m actually less concerned about eBay’s actions than I am with the libraries thing. Slap a content warning on them if you must. Alert parents to the images. But you don’t mess with the public’s access to public things in public spaces.
This btw strikes me as an unhelpful framing. The books have not been “taken out of circulation”. Focus on what actually happened. Be specific. THEN propose your rules and standards. It’s much harder, but much more clarifying.
https://twitter.com/conor64/status/1369065311203258376
"What is more important: free speech or safety?" is a great higher order question, but it's impossible to answer, least all by devising a single standard or rule. Let's bring this debate back down to earth and look at what actually happened. I think everyone has a legit case.
I'm reminded all of the sudden of Blake Neff, that writer for Tucker who got outed as a raging white supremacist. A lot of people asked at the time whether this qualified as an instance of Cancel Culture. It was an obnoxious question, but a legit one.
theguardian.com/media/2020/jul…
theguardian.com/media/2020/jul…
Obnoxious because it was being used to bludgeon CC alarmists. Legit because it probably IS a real case of CC.
Obnoxious questions are obnoxious and I generally avoid them, but they *are* good at exposing the problem with focusing purely or principally on higher order issues.
Obnoxious questions are obnoxious and I generally avoid them, but they *are* good at exposing the problem with focusing purely or principally on higher order issues.
So, I might ask @conor64 whether the Agatha Christie estate was right to change the title of THAT book to "And Then There Were None". And if it was right to do so, how many other changes may publishers make to "problematic" art? How sweeping may they be? How consequential?
Again, it's not that higher order questions aren't important, but I don't think it's fair to demand that people develop clear-cut standards to answer them. We shouldn't interpret that as evasion. It's just good sense.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
