Ban the Bible!

by wj 

The latest nonsense out of Florida has to do with book banning.  (Which, Gary Sargent suggests, may have unexpected consequences for Gov. DeSantis.)

A new bill would require the instant removal of certain books targeted for objections, even before any sort of evaluative process unfolds.  [It] mandates that instructional material facing objection in public schools through 12th grade for depicting “sexual” or “pornographic” conduct be “unavailable to students until the objection is resolved.”

This means books and other materials would be removed before something akin to due process occurs. Such objections could be lodged not just by a parent, but any resident in the county, meaning anyone could get a book removed more easily than before.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Republican state Sen. Clay Yarborough, doesn’t deny this. He holds it up as a positive. In a statement emailed to me, Yarborough cited the bill’s targeting of sexual material and said he will always “err on the side of protecting children.”

“I do not have any concerns with the materials being removed until an objection is resolved,” Yarborough added.

Consider this scenario.  Some resident (who, unlike most evangelicals apparently, has actually read the Bible) decides that some of those Old Testament verses are really not suitable for children.  You know, the ones which disparage the nuclear family (how many wives did Solomon have again?  Isn’t that polygamy?  It's definitely not a nuclear family!).  Or the ones dealing with sex, masturbation, etc.  So, he files an objection. 

And presto!  The Bible is now banned in schools in that county.  Not on any stupid liberal church/state grounds either, but exactly on the grounds that the reactionaries have been using to ban other books there. 

Even money that state Sen Yarborough suddenly discovers that he does too have due process concerns.  Be careful what you wish for....

Open Thread

Comments

[wj]

I should probably point out that the scenario I have suggested here is NOT one of Sargent's unexpected consequences. All of his involve the impact in the general election (assuming DeSantis gets the nomination). Just an additional one, which might bite him in the primaries, too.

[David Rickard]

Someone in Utah has already made such a claim about the Bible: https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2023/03/22/utah-parent-says-bible-contains/

[wj]

Good to hear that others have noticed the same issue with the book banning nonsense.

[Hartmut]

My bet is that calls for banning the Bible will be thrown out as 'obviously frivolous' and that the state courts will back that decision, if challenged. They will rant about 'clear intent' and 'this is different and can't by treated literally' etc.
Hypocrisy will win the day.

[Pollo de muerte]

In other Florida news ...

Disney has apparently outmaneuvered DeSantis in the battle to control the special district where it operates.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-30/disney-outmaneuvers-desantis-in-clash-over-theme-park-district

To recap, Disney very gently complained about Don't Say Gay and then DeSantis lost his mind and stripped the company of its power to control development over its property. Just before the new law went into effect, the old governing body that Disney controlled entered into a very long term agreement that mostly allows Disney to continue on as before.

It's one thing for Republicans to be cruel (that's part of the brand), but this level of incompetence is a real black eye for DeSantis. I don't know if this will get much play in national news, but it's a big deal here.

As an aside, I'm no fan of Disney as a company, but they were managing their sprawling property in an environmentally responsible manner and they have consistently been slightly ahead of the curve on respecting queer employees and non-hetero couples.

[hairshirthedonist]

Something more mathy:

https://www.wired.com/story/unbelievable-zombie-comeback-analog-computing/

I just happened to come upon that article after watching this episode of Nova last night:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/einsteins-quantum-riddle/

Later in the program, they got into the subject of quantum computing, which was described as being more "fuzzy" than traditional digital computing. To me, that sounds at least analog-ish. So I was expecting the zombie-analog article to be about quantum computing. Apparently not.

I don't have time to write a whole lot about this right now, but I know there are people here who know a lot more about such things than I do, so maybe a starting point for further discussion.

[GftNC]

I see that Disney's "very long-term agreement" hinges on the longevity of our royal family:

Under former chief executive Bob Chapek, Disney was initially hesitant to state public opposition to the bill, but did so after pressure. That prompted DeSantis and Florida Republicans to try to revoke privileges Disney has had for decades at its theme park, which employs 75,000 people.

However, a new governing board appointed by DeSantis on Wednesday reportedly said it will need to overturn last-minute agreements which would prevent it from taking control.

The document states that its provisions will stand until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England living as of the date of this declaration”.

“Royal clauses” of this kind are used to avoid rules in some places against contracts which last in perpetuity. The British royal family was chosen for the clauses because information about the family tree was readily available, but also because of the “better healthcare available to, and longer life expectancy of, a royal family member compared to a non-royal”, according to the law firm Birketts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/30/disney-ron-desantis-florida-dont-say-gay

[wj]

Yeah, I loved that parameter about the descendants of King Charles. How could a devout reactionary object to that???

[Snarki, child of Loki]

So DeSantis has to eliminate the British Royals to take over DisneyWorld?

That's a 007 movie that I'd watch the shit out of.

[wj]

So DeSantis has to eliminate the British Royals to take over DisneyWorld?

Probably easier to just pass a law voiding any contract which mentions them. It would be an ex post facto law, and hence unconstitutional (Article 1, Section 10). But that's never stopped the MAGAts from trying.

[hairshirthedonist]

Just returned to find that I posted in the wrong thread. Sorry!

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Pretty sure that reference to Brit Royals is legal boilerplate, that shows up in lots of documents that benefit the richy-rich.

So go ahead DeSantis, shoot yourself in the *other* foot by invalidating it.

[Pollo de muerte]

In this case, it was a savings clause in case someone argues that the agreement(s) violate the rule against perpetuities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

It's generlly only a concern with contracts or estate planning documents that attempt to control property for a very long period of time.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

TRUMP INDICTED

[wj]

It says something that my first thought on reading the comment above was:
In which jurisdiction for which crime?

There were, after all, so many possibilities. Even if New York was most likely to get there first.

[CharlesWT]

TRUMP INDICTED

Trump: "Please, please don't throw me in the brier patch!"

[McKinneyTexas]

WJ, how many Bibles are in how many public school libraries? If you and others here are offended by censorship, how does the commentariat feel about Sensitivity Readers? Here's a good read on that topic: https://www.piratewires.com/p/gaslight-kat-rosenfield?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Where does Huckleberry Finn fall on our permitted list of books? Is there anything sufficiently sexually explicit that it can't be kept out of school libraries? Who draws that line?

[Pollo de muerte]

I'm old enough and southern enough that I remember when the Gideons visited all of the 5th grade classes at my school and handed out Bibles to all students.

I'm pretty sure that most states allow Bibles in public school libraries and a quick google suggests that it is pretty common.

For the most part, it looks like the efforts to remove the Bible from public schools are an effort to point out the crazy low threshold for removing a book for "review" that Republicans are pushing under the banner of "parents rights".

I am very skeptical of censorship in all forms, but this appears to be a "fight fire with fire" situation ... hopefully it doesn't get to actual book burning.

[hairshirthedonist]

Who draws that line?

Initially, the school librarian. After that, various levels of challenge as necessary - school board, courts, etc.

It's not really anything new other than the level of semi-organized outside interference. Someone's always deciding what belongs in any library, for all sorts of reasons varying depending on what kind of library (or book store), since everything isn't in every library (or book store).

Who decides what movies kids are allowed to see in theaters?

[Hartmut]

The Bible is culturally significant, so it should be present in school libraries (together with other scriptures like the Quran and basic texts from other world religions and philosophies, even the Book Mormon. I draw a line at Scientology though). Not elementary schools, naturally. Some books I would put into a restricted area together with secondary literature.
Books like those of Mark Twain should be available but ideally in annotated versions (annotations on a level schoolkids can handle, not a scholarly commentary). What I would also appreciate is a general guide to the content of the library with hints where stuff could be problematic (but definitely not written by a group with a name of 'concerned X of Y' for that tends to be a warning sign that it is not about what is best for the children but pure ideology).
What's useful but contentious would be an age suitability index for all books (as is common for movies).
Unfortunately, all of this would cost money and would never satisfy the usual suspects.

[wj]

I draw a line at Scientology though

But does it really qualify as a real religion when it is the result of a science fiction author (in a bar conversation, IIRC) claiming that he could start a religion. And a listener begging leave to doubt it. It became a bar bet, before it became a (pseudo)-religion.

[Hartmut]

That's what I meant. While I personally think that Joseph Smith was a fraud, Mormonism has become a non-fake religion. Hubbard is a proven fraud and so is his 'religion' (a textbook example of grift). So, Book of Mormon OK, Hubbard's writings not OK (in school libraries at least). Mein Kampf (critical annotated edition) yes (in the restricted section), Nick Fuentes' collected rants NO.
I am in two minds about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Annotated excerpts in a texbook on antisemitism should suffice.
Of course, I am assuming a school with large funds that can afford a really large library.
I think schools should consider a large online library as a medium term project and the government should lend a helping hand (accquiring the necessary copytights etc.)

Of course no chance of anything like that happening in the forseeable future.

[wj]

There could also be some caveats, depending on the existence and ready accessibility of public libraries. Which, typically, would have larger collections of books. (Assuming the self-appointed censors haven't gotten to them, too.)

If kids can get to a public library, it's less critical that the school library have everything.

[nous]

I have no problem with Scientology being in a school library as long as it is shelved in science fiction where it belongs.

And here is the deal with editing new editions of older texts for "sensitivity." It's a distressing trend in that it leads to readers who are unable to think critically and parse through the contradictions present in our entrenched social problems.

In that it is entirely of a piece with the anti-CRT, anti-LGBTQ+ urges that are busy trying to pack school boards and ram through their form of cultural fundamentalism. It's entirely of a piece with the people who insist on having their own partisan media ecology to exist in opposition to the mainstream.

I've taught plenty of texts in college that give sensitivity readers fits. I still do teach some. But the thing is you have to make sure that the text in question is vital to what you are teaching, and that you are leaving space and time in the classroom to fully contextualize and work through the tough issues that provoke the sensitivity. If you don't have that luxury, then you pick another text to get you where you need to go and skip the controversy because it's just going to be a distraction that sidelines the class.

Teaching a socially messy, but important text is a commitment of weeks. They may well transform lives, but they do so in ways that take time to manifest and are Really Fucking Hard to measure. Both of those things are a problem for an education system that is built on selling worker preparation and concrete, measurable outcomes as their value proposition.

If you want nuance, you have to build an inherently pluralistic and secular educational system and you have to leave space for it to work and to contain noise that you don't like.

I can understand a publisher wishing to keep a messy book in circulation. I think Huck Finn is an example of a book that should absolutely continue to exist, but that really needs to exist in a critical edition that can do the work of contextualizing it for the reader. The problem is when the work in question exists in a popular edition without any critical context. Young readers really do need contextual help working through these texts. So you get to choose: keep the books, but do so in critical editions; alter the books to strip away bigoted representations that do not serve the larger purpose of the narrative; let the books fall out of circulation because they no longer serve the needs of contemporary readers.

[Michael Cain]

If kids can get to a public library, it's less critical that the school library have everything.

That can be a big "if", especially in low-income and rural areas.

[McKinneyTexas]

Who decides what movies kids are allowed to see in theaters?

Depending on the kid's age, the parents or the kid.

HSH, are you saying that the school librarian has first call on sexually explicit materials in a public school? If so, can you be more specific on oversight? Do the parents (taxpayers) have any say-so?

[wj]

That can be a big "if", especially in low-income and rural areas.

Exactly, Michael. That's why I was careful to include "accessible" in my comment.

Let me note that the problem exists also in suburban areas. We have a great public library system here. But public transit is rudimentary. Which means that kids can have challenges getting to the library on their own, Especially young kids, for whom a 4 mile bicycle ride is a stretch. (Yeah, I did that sort of thing even back in 3rd grade. But it was a different time.)

[wj]

Do the parents (taxpayers) have any say-so?

Just for openers, I would draw a distinction between a whole community finding something unacceptable vs. (as in Florida, among other places) letting any single resident (not necessarily even a parent) have an effective veto. We can discuss the merits of a community objection, but a 1-person veto is, IMHO, a bridge too far for anyone not devoted to being a culture warrior.

[McKinneyTexas]

I'm keying my questions off of "sexually explicit materials in a public school." The question is: do the parents--plural--have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.

[Pro Bono]

If a parent should be able to exclude a picture of Michelangelo's David, should another parent be able to exclude a picture of a gun?

If not why not?

[bobbyp]

The question is: do the parents--plural--have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Please be so kind as to define "sexually explicit materials".

Thank you.

[wj]

The question is: do the parents--plural--have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.

I would say that at least as salient a question is, what is reasonably considered "sexually explicit", or any other kind of objectionable?

For example, does having a homosexual couple depicted count? Clearly, for some, merely admitting the existence of homosexuality (except, perhaps, if it is demonized), let alone treating as unexceptional, is beyond the pale. How about having materials, of an "if you want to know more" type, for when a teacher gets to field a question about a student having two daddies?

Or even, how about a simple book on human anatomy? Especially if it addresses "What does each part do?"

I don't actually have a problem with parents having a say. Although I do beg leave to doubt that teachers' and librarians' judgement in such matters is exceptionally outré. But something resembling objective standards for what is allowed/forbidden seems like a necessary precursor.

[wj]

OMG, we've reached the point where bobbyp and I are in sync! Where will it all end???

[McKinneyTexas]

BP, here you go: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835973/Ron-DeSantis-airs-video-containing-sexually-explicit-content-childrens-books.html

[bobbyp]

answer the question, McKinney.

[Priest]

Growing up as the youngest of three children of a professor there were a lot of books in the house. We had a collection of literature from some publisher aimed at juvenile audiences presumably acquired for my oldest brother, so probably published mid-50s to early 60s. The publisher had no problem leaving in what is now "sensitive content" in Huck Finn, but (as I was unaware of until high school when I got a hold of an unexpurgated version) Gulliver's Travels had some bits edited out, and the entire section on the Hounyms was whacked. Which explained the non-ending ending in the version I read as a kid.

[McKinneyTexas]

BP, are you serious? Seems like you're evading. Is the example problematic or not?

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Parents get a "say" in their election of a school board, which then hires a supervisor, who hires a principal, who hires the librarian, who picks the books.

Not quite OT, I see elsewhere that Missouri zeroed public library funding from their state budget, which will have the most profound effect in rural areas.

[nous]

You know, in early 1980s the local public library in my rural Wisconsin town had material that explicit available in the teen section, and anyone could wander to the adult section of the library to see material that was even more explicit than that. They were all better sources of information than the porn mags that my classmates stole from their family members, which was the normal information channel for local adolescents.

The only real difference I am seeing (other than the online content links, which, let's face it, probably lead to safer online spaces than what a minor would find through google) is that all these books are oriented to LGBTQ+ perspectives rather than the blanket heteronormativity of the books I had access to during my adolescent library browsing.

I suspect that the issue here is not that these texts are sexually explicit so much as that they are unapologetically queer.

[nous]

As for parental veto right in this sort of content, that's why parochial schools existed, and why parents homeschooled. And those kids were usually well chaperoned at the public library.

With massively mixed results, just as always.

[wj]

McKinney, I have no problem with saying that the content that DeSantis shows is not appropriate. On the other hand, experience (e.g. on CRT supposedly in schools) suggests serious skepticism as to whether said content was actually present in school libraries. Certainly it is nowhere near typical of most of the books being banned from school libraries.

[McKinneyTexas]

Certainly it is nowhere near typical of most of the books being banned from school libraries.

Can you give me some examples of "most of the books being banned from school libraries"?

So, if the Librarian makes the call initially, I assume it would be fine with everyone here if a Librarian excluded all queer literature and/or flooded the library with explicitly Christian literature? Because, you know, Librarians?

[wj]

Here ya go
https://www.scribd.com/document/630033537/Martin-County-School-District-Removed-Books

[bobbyp]

BP, are you serious? Seems like you're evading. Is the example problematic or not?

So, you are saying you cannot define "explicitly sexual materials"?

[bobbyp]

OMG, we've reached the point where bobbyp and I are in sync! Where will it all end???

With us linked arm and arm marching into the sunset under the banner of pure communism, 'natch.

or maybe some other banner. LOL

have a good day. u 2 mckinney.

[Michael Cain]

For example, does having a homosexual couple depicted count?

More and more ads on television include depictions of gay and lesbian couples that are clearly in romantic relationships. Depiction of gay or lesbian couples have become relatively routine in national content. Yes, there's age-appropriate considerations. But I think states are really going to struggle to enforce rules that Bobby's father can give his female spouse a quick kiss on the mouth as he rushes out the door to go to work, but Johnny's father can't display the same emotion towards his male spouse.

What can I say? I live in a state that was effectively quite red only 20 years ago, but now has an openly gay Democratic governor, married to a man with whom he's raising two nice-looking kids, and won reelection by 22 percentage points last year.

[wj]

More and more ads on television include depictions of gay and lesbian couples that are clearly in romantic relationships. Depiction of gay or lesbian couples have become relatively routine in national content.

Which is, I suspect, a large part of what is driving the hysteria of the reactionaries. They can't change what sells (i.e. what advertisers show). And that means that everywhere (including their little bits of isolation) will rapidly come to reflect something they don't think they can, and certainly do not wish to, cope with.

Their only hope is to seize control of the government and outlaw all the things they don't like. And it will have to be seize control, because they already lack a majority. And they know it.

[nous]

At what age should a child who feels non-het sexual desire have the right to find out that they are not alone in feeling this way and that many people live happy lives while involved in non-het relationships despite their parents thinking that these sorts of relationships are disgusting and unacceptable?

At what point should a child who does feel that way and whose parents find this unobjectionable be allowed to discuss this in public when the conversation turns to romantic relationships? Should this be allowed if the parents of other children in the class object to such things?

Also, for the record, the artwork in Genderqueer is no more explicit than the artwork on the Wikipedia page for Oral Sex. And it takes more work to find the graphic novel than it does to find Wikipedia.

[bobbyp]

Should this be allowed if the parents of other children in the class object to such things?

A much better question than the "when did you stop beating your wife" queries from our house attorney. At issue is policy: Who gets to decide, when, and under what circumstances. I see a lot of heat here but not much in the way of policy from those who support banning books, but don't have the courage to just come out and say only their side is entitled to weild this power under circumstances that only they get to decide.

[Michael Cain]

And it takes more work to find the graphic novel than it does to find Wikipedia.

Long ago my wife and I gave our children access to the internet. This was in the days before ubiquitous smart phones, so was via the computer we let each of them have. (Because of history, we were believers in personal computers.) I pointed out to the kids that their internet access was through a proxy and I had access to a list of every URL they visited. And that as Dad, I was probably going to look at the list from time to time, and impose filters if I thought that necessary.

There was sort of an implicit challenge in there. "The proxy is a Linux box. Feel free to try to crack it and conceal that from Dad. Who breaks into things, and prevents break-ins, professionally from time to time."

Since it's an open thread, that reminds me of the time a woman I worked with at Bell Labs let slip that her "professional experience" getting into locked cars was as a thief, not repo or AAA work.

[Priest]

The scandalousness of high school guys scouring the school library collection of National Geographic looking for naked pictures. Somehow my generation survived that depravity.

[wj]

And then there were all us farm kids, who inevitably grew up knowing about sex**. Even those who didn't get involved in 4-H. (And most of us weren't flower children later either.)

It's enough to make someone suspect that enforced ignorance is the real path to depravity. Just more projection from the MAGAts?

** And starting with animal sex at that!

[Pro Bono]

The question is: do the parents--plural--have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.

There should be some oversight on what goes in a school library. Restrictions should not be solely, nor even primarily, on sexual content. They should certainly not be in direct response to objections by a small number of parents.

[Girl from the North Country]

What Pro Bono said, passim.

And what nous said in his first two paragraphs (I cannot speak to the third) @08.26.

[Girl from the North Country]

And, by the way, this focus on "explicit" books is somewhat hilarious, when studies reveal that most children are exposed to really explicit, graphic live-action porn on their phones by the time they are 11, and the most violent misogynistic porn at that, so that many boys (maybe even most) now think that throttling their partners, or spitting on them, is a normal part of heterosexual sex.

[wj]

studies reveal that most children are exposed to really explicit, graphic live-action porn on their phones by the time they are 11

But since parents, not to mention grandparents, didn't grow up attached to a phone 24/7, they have likely no clue.** That, or they aren't willing to get into a fight over whether the kids get to have a phone; a fight where a pyrrhic victory is the best they could hope for anyway. So they have shifted to a battle over books and libraries that they might be able to "win".

** Non-parents probably being even more clueless on the subject. But nobody here seems to be defending their right to interfere.

[hairshirthedonist]

So, if the Librarian makes the call initially, I assume it would be fine with everyone here if a Librarian excluded all queer literature and/or flooded the library with explicitly Christian literature? Because, you know, Librarians?

The snark at the end is cute. It’s almost like you came from another planet and don’t recognize the similarity between the words “library” and “librarian.” It’s utterly uncontroversial that librarians select books for libraries. Not without any sort of guidance beforehand and not without oversight afterward. But that is what they do and have done for a very long time as a simple matter of fact.

Why noting that implies that no one can ever object to a librarian’s choices is beyond me. Never stop manufacturing your straw men. It’s tradition!

[Girl from the North Country]

What hsh said.

And let's not forget, we are having this conversation about a country where not only can representations of Michelangelo's David be banned, but where children can get their hands on guns to kill their teachers, other children, their parents; and the same people who want to ban David and the explicit sex in the books will fight to the death to defend the right "to bear arms".

Because freedoms!

[Girl from the North Country]

That's interesting - what happened to McKinney's comment, to which hsh was responding?

[JanieM]

That's interesting - what happened to McKinney's comment, to which hsh was responding?

It's right where it always was, as far as I can tell.

(do a search for "you know,") -- (or to put it a different way: 5:27 on 3/31)

[Girl from the North Country]

OK, I found it, but (and I might be going crazy) when I originally saw it it looked as if it was immediately before hsh's response. I'm going to assume it's me, not Typepad....

[JanieM]

I'd go for Typepad or maybe odd browser behavior if I were you. ;-)

And by the way, I try to stay away when McK starts his sneering gotchas, and having just gotten back from almost a month away from home I'm buried in catch-up chores anyhow.

But banning books that mention LGBTQ+ people is, among other things, just another part of the effort to rebuild the closet.

nous's questions in the first two paragraphs of his 3/31 8:27 comment: "At what age do children have the right..." --- both have the same answer: from the POV of the people who are trying to ban these books, children do not have those rights in the first place, so there's no need to talk about "when" they might have them.

I have lived through these questions in real life, with neighbors who thought their kids were "too young" to hear about the existence of gay people. It never occurred to them that any of *their* kids might be gay.......

(Edited slightly after the fact.)

[wj]

neighbors who thought their kids were "too young" to hear about the existence of gay people. It never occurred to them that any of *their* kids might be gay.....

I wouldn't be too sure. It seems entirely possible that some of them suspected exactly that. And were in serious denial. Or thought that their kids could somehow be kept from thinking that their feelings were real if they were kept in ignorance -- get them to act "normal," no matter what they really wanted.
/massive cynicism

[nous]

According to the Focus On the Family crowd, kids only ever end up gay if they are exposed to the idea of same-sex attraction at a vulnerable point in their development and don't have strong heteronormative role models to counteract the influence. Daddy must be the firm patriarch, mommy the submissive support staff, and media influences must be tightly controlled to erase all homosexual representation.

And if this paranoid worldview strikes you as absurd, I've read similar fearmongering about vegans and their ungodly plan to save all the animals while callously murdering unborn humans.

It's a tiresome genre.

[JanieM]

I wouldn't be too sure.

These are people that I knew personally, along with their kids. I get what you're saying, and I'm not denying that people like that abound, but I don't think these were those people. In fact, the one I knew best came around once she thought things through and had a little more exposure to the issues, and became a staunch ally.

[wj]

In fact, the one I knew best came around once she thought things through and had a little more exposure to the issues, and became a staunch ally.

Things like that are what give me hope for this country.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"Things like that are what give me hope for this country"

One down, 70M+ to go.

[wj]

One down, 70M+ to go.

The longest journey begins with a single step.

[nous]

The longest journey begins with a single step.

Zeno remains inconsolable.

[Girl from the North Country]

LOL

[wj]

Zeno remains inconsolable.

If we get half way thru the 70+ million, it will be cause for celebration. If we get half way thru the remainder, even more so.

If we don't get thru the last few thousand, I just don't care. It's tragic for them, but for the rest of us? Not so much.

[GftNC]

This, from today's WaPo, is rather cheering:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/03/fox-news-dominion-defamation-case-judge-ruling/?itid=hp_opinions_p001_f012

Opinion Fox News has been blown to smithereens

By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist

April 3, 2023 at 7:46 a.m. EDT

Comment
Gift Article

It’s not just Democrats who believe that Fox News hosts and their guests lied repeatedly about Dominion Voting System efforts to “steal” the 2020 election. It’s also the opinion of Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis.

Davis in a ruling on Friday regarding Dominion’s defamation suit against the network held that on 20 occasions, Fox made false accusations that Dominion tampered with voting results. (Disclosure: I’m an MSNBC contributor.)

“Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity,” the judge wrote. Since Fox never disputed falsity, Davis concluded: “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.” Fox’s motion for summary judgment was rejected, meaning the suit will go to trial.

It cannot be repeated enough: Plaintiffs almost never win on the issue of falsity before the trial even begins. Usually, there is some defense that the facts were plausibly true — or at least that the comments were opinion (therefore, not actionable). Not in this case.

Fox’s lawyers and executives have suggested that Fox wasn’t responsible for what its star hosts said. Davis flatly rejected this. “FNN [Fox News Network] is not a passive entity. FNN controls what is broadcast on its various networks. FNN does this through its employees as agents of FNN,” Davis held. He added, “FNN did in fact publish the statements to its viewers.”

Fox claimed it is protected by a “neutral report” privilege — that is, it can repeat false statements that are “newsworthy.” New York law does not recognize such a defense, Davis stated. Moreover, he found, “Even if the neutral report privilege did apply, the evidence does not support that FNN conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.” He added, “failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates its reporting was not disinterested.”

Likewise, Davis wrote, Fox does not get to use the “fair report” privilege, which applies to “substantially accurate reports about proceedings, not the underlying facts.”

Overall, Davis’s ruling means that even before the first witness is heard in Fox’s defamation trail, the jury will be told the network repeatedly published false statements about Dominion that injured its business reputation. That is not exactly saying that Fox acted with malice, which Dominion’s lawyers will have to prove to win the case. Still, a jury might well come to that conclusion considering that the entity didn’t bother to check out an outrageous, obvious lie. Dominion now starts with a powerful advantage: Who’s going to believe anything Fox says at this point?

“The ruling is as significant for Fox News as it is for the whole of right-wing media,” said Angelo Carusone, CEO of Media Matters and who has documented Fox’s antics for years. “For Fox, the ruling underscores their incredibly weak legal position and dramatically increases the likelihood that they Fox will lose at trial.” He added, “Regardless of how this shakes out legally, Fox is on its heels, which means the right-wing echo-chamber is currently without its conductor at a moment when it needs it the most.”

On the issue of malice, Davis’s damning recitation of the facts shows that Fox knew it was lying. Just a brief excerpt from the opinion underscores how much evidence Dominion has:

Dominion points out that Fox witnesses have declined to acknowledge the allegations as true, and in some cases even testified they did not believe the allegations. [Former Fox News host Chris Stirewalt] testified that he [did] not believe the allegations, that “no reasonable person” would have believed them, and confirmed that this was a widely held belief among the news people he talked with. Additionally, the Brainroom addressed many of the allegations and determined the allegations to be untrue. ... In addition to the general knowledge of falsity, Dominion claims that specific evidence shows that each of the following Fox executives expressed disbelief in the allegations, yet engaged in the publication process of the broadcasts — making them each responsible: Ms. Scott, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Lowell, Ms. Cooper, Ms. Petterson, Mr. Clark, Mr. Sammon, Mr. Komissaroff, Ms. Rosenberg, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Schreier, and the Murdochs.
The mountain of internal communication and deposition in which Fox personnel acknowledged these comments were false is shocking but not surprising. After all, fact-checkers and politicians have tracked misinformation, distortions and wacky conspiracy theories on Fox for years. This is just the first time it’s been shown that the network knew its lies were bunk. The motive, reiterated in internal documents, seemed simple: Keep its radicalized viewers satisfied to keep them from fleeing to competitors.

Fox’s arguments appear weak. It claims there’s a difference between not knowing something is true and knowing it’s false. But running something without any evidence that it is true sounds like the very definition of malice — i.e., reckless disregard for the truth.

Fox also claims that the people who knew about specific statements weren’t at the top of the network. But plenty of evidence suggests senior employees knew what was going on. As Davis recounts, “FNN has generally the same answer to all: FNN was waiting for the evidence.” Such unproven, absurd claims wouldn’t have been aired in any legitimate newsroom.

In the end, it will be up to the jury still to decide the issue of malice. It will also decide whether the parent company, Fox Corp., can be held responsible and determine damages. In any case, Fox has already taken a beating. There now exists a legal record of its dishonesty. The public should now understand that Fox personalities are willing to say things they know are false as part of a business model to keep viewers glued to its propaganda machine.

The pretense that Fox is a real news organization is being blown to smithereens — as is a great deal of the right’s narrative about everything from stolen elections to race to immigration. Discredit Fox, and you discredit a huge portion of the right-wing echo chamber and the MAGA pols who thrive in it.

Credible media, elected officials and voters can now stop treating Fox as a legitimate news outlet. If Fox doesn’t believe its own propaganda, why should anyone else?

[wj]

I don't know who Jean-Michel Connard is. And I know this absolutely is fake news (not least because the arraignment hasn't happened yet). But it's also priceless.
https://twitter.com/torriangray/status/1643030780430659585

Especially the "sketches" -- which apparently are AI generated.

[nous]

He's a connard alright. That's some quality connarie. Well done, sir.

[wj]

Lead story on the late night news here is NOT about Trump. It's about tributes here for a drag queen who died today (while on tour in London). https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/famed-san-francisco-drag-performer-heklina-reportedly-found-dead-in-london/

How wonderful for Trump's ego, that he ranks in importance below a drag queen.

[Hartmut]

The theatre scene in Florida is concerned and worried about how far the state is going to go in its censorship efforts and whether e.g. several plays by Shakespeare can still be staged - or the stage version of Mrs. Doubtfire. Several schools have already preemptively canceled school theatre productions for fear of running afoul of the new rules.
Wouldn't it be easier to just reinstate the Hays Code in an updated form? Or would that be counterproductive since too explicit rules leave room for loopholes. The purpose is to scare people into self-censorship after all, so vague rules would be better. Gummiparagrafen as we call it in German (elastic clauses; the German term translates literally as 'rubber clauses'), a favorite tool of authoritarian governments.

[Hartmut]

Next: Ban WW1 movies featuring male and female tanks. Then it's time to finally go after the sexualisation of electrics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners

[Pro Bono]

I guess that the Rs are not interested in banning child beauty pageants. Because it's not the sexualization of children they care about, it's parental control.

[Hartmut]

Plus, Jabbabonk the Orange and his spiritual companions would not forgo those events (and often are the ones behind them too).

[wj]

The purpose is to scare people into self-censorship after all,

Close. The purpose is to give the appearance of having scared people into self-censorship. Maybe with q couple of test cases (involving members of disrespected groups), to show how rigid the rules can be.

Because, after all, for the politicians (at least most of them) this is about the performance, not about actually accomplishing anything. Bread (Social Security) and circuses.

[JanieM]

it's [about] parental control.

Only for some parents. Those parents also get to control the kids of other parents whose values are unacceptable to the Rs.

Otherwise, why do they get to control what all kids read, rather than just what their own kids read?

[Hartmut]

Those other kids could infect their kids with what they read. And you surely have heard what problems the mere existence of kids with two moms or dads cause resulting it being a suspension (or is that suspending?) or firing offense to adress the mere fact. 'Don't ask don't tell' expanded to everyone about everyone (not just oneself).
Of course there is one exception: If you beat up a kid for having gay parents (let alone being gay), you can use that a as a get-out-of-punishment-free card (although you have to work on the 'righteous anger' shtick in some places).

[wj]

Score another one for the optimists. In Wisconsin, where a 1 or 2 point margin in an election is a big deal, the reactionary candidate for the state Supreme Court lost . . . by eleven (11!) points. Between Dobbs and an extreme gerrymander by the legislature, the non-reactionary voters got motivated to turn out. Here's hoping it's another (see Kansas' initiative on abortion rights) straw in the wind for 2024.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"the reactionary candidate for the state Supreme Court lost . . . by eleven (11!) points."

Well, sure.
The MAGAts were too busy on Tuesday, glued to their TVs as their God-Emperor was hauled before a judge.

Too bad that justice has really slowed down over the centuries, or Trump would be scheduled for crucifixion on Friday. Sturdy lumber and deck-screws with washers recommended.

[CharlesWT]

Apparently, among other things, Trump is a ham sandwich.

[wj]

That Trump is treif cannot be a surprise.

[CharlesWT]

:)

[Michael Cain]

Between Dobbs and an extreme gerrymander by the legislature, the non-reactionary voters got motivated to turn out.

I read that the Wisconsin Republicans won an open state senate seat, and now have large enough majorities to impeach and convict at will. So long as none of them defect, of course.

[Girl from the North Country]

Score another one for the optimists.

Yes, that was a really cheering result.

On the ham sandwich question, I am absolutely fascinated by the tone (or timbre? I don't know the terminology) of voice in which Trump now makes his speeches, including I would say about 98% of last night's. It seems a very strange die-away voice, perhaps like a minor key in music? Has anybody here (or any lurkers who know about these things) any opinion on this? I strongly suspect that this is a technique which actors, performers etc know about, although he seems to be doing it unconsciously because of its doom-laden feeling ...

[Girl from the North Country]

Oh, I've just heard on C4 News John Bolton repeating the saying (which I had forgotten) that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. I took Charles's @10.32 about the ham sandwich to be a comment on Trump's performance as being characteristically hammy, hence my comment above about his delivery which might otherwise have seemed very mysterious!

[wj]

you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Possibly. But if you're a prosecutor with an (extremely) high profile criminal, you aren't going to unless you think you've got an extremely solid case.

Successful prosecutions of cases like these can be a stepping stone to higher office (e.g. state Attorney General), if you aspire to such. But a failed prosecution can be a permanent blot on your record. So I'd incline to believe that the DA thinks he's got a really solid case, maybe even a slam dunk, based on the evidence he's got in hand. (With Michael Cohen's testimony merely a "nice to have".)

[wj]

I had missed this, back in the day. Apparently there is an audio recording of Trump and Cohen discussing the hush money payments, and how to launder the money thru a shell corporation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-tape.html

The significance of that being that, even if Cohen can be trashed as an unreliable witness, Trump's own voice could provide evidence all on its own.

[ral]

A ham sandwich is better than nothing. Nothing is better than eternal happiness. So eternal happiness is beaten by a ham sandwich.

Old math joke, but seems to have become an Internet Quotation

[nous]

I read that the Wisconsin Republicans won an open state senate seat, and now have large enough majorities to impeach and convict at will. So long as none of them defect, of course.

The R who (narrowly) won that seat has publicly stated that he does not support impeaching Gov. Evers. Given the huge margin of the Supreme Court win there, I think that any attempt to push things farther to the right in WI on the back of all that gerrymandering is going to provoke a backlash and put the Rs in the back seat for years.

Probably won't deter the rural Republicans, but it should scare any Rs with a college or medium sized city in their district.

And the state house is still two shy of a supermajority for the Rs.

It will be interesting if the state supreme court does go after the districting and demand maps that do not disadvantage Democrats by a -9 margin.

[wj]

It will be interesting if the state supreme court does go after the districting and demand maps that do not disadvantage Democrats by a -9 margin.

And not only for the state government. Could move a couple of House seats as well -- in a (currently) narrowly divided House. And that's before the impact of whatever backlash the state sees over the various bits of MAGA insanity.

[GftNC]

Clarence Thomas could be impeached...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/apr/06/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-harlan-crow-trump-indictment-politics-live

[Ufficio]

Not with a Republican-controlled house

[Girl from the North Country]

Not with a Republican-controlled house

Almost certainly true. But I guess the Dems could make hay with it in 2024, and given what seems like a pretty much nationwide revolt against the Roe v Wade decision, that could be a good thing.

[wj]

Call me cynical, but somehow I just can't see a Democratic Party controlled House being willing to make a black man the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached. Certainly not without a lot more than just the sort of high dollar gifts the Congressmen themselves routinely accept from folks with interests in legislation they will be voting on.

[nous]

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling corruption is going on in here!

Will make zero difference with the Will to Power crowd on the right. They only care that Thomas is wholly and shamelessly theirs.