Anti-Anti-Racist Legislation for Classrooms to Stifle Free Speech

[Bomb#20]

Conservatives: "TEACHERS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE TEACHING THAT WHITE KIDS ARE OPPRESSORS!!!1111one1! OUR OVERLORDS NEED TO MAKE NEW LAWS ON THE BOOKS TO REMOVE CERTAIN TOPICS FROM DISCUSSION! Also, we need to burn some specific books over here."

Let's break that down into its three component claims. 1. Conservatives say the government needs to stop teaching certain stuff. 2. Conservatives are being hysterical. 3. Conservatives are book burners.

So, 1: Basically, the same position liberals had on school prayer back when conservatives controlled the schools?

2: Can you quote all conservatives being hysterical? Or are you just trying to smear the taint from a few hysterical conservatives onto the whole ideology while simultaneously feeling that a few hysterical progressives don't taint progressivism as a whole?

3: Oh, wait, that was progressives.

Libertarians: "It is the function of government to control public education. So, it's okay."

Um, which Libertarians are supposed to have said that? Libertarians have a bit of a reputation for saying there shouldn't even be public education.

Democrats: "The legislation is <snip>."

Not convinced you're competent to accurately report even what Democrats say, but here it's the least of your problem so we'll let it go...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

1. <snip>

So, instead of "conservatives shouldn't be doing this, it's OH YEAH, WELL DEMOCRATS DID IT, TOO!1111"

Perhaps after pages of gaslighting, you could now just admit that conservatives are wrong to make these laws. Perhaps. But nope, you won't.

Um, which Libertarians are supposed to have said that?

Here's one complete with hysterical gaslighting:

God forbid that the legislative branch should use power of the purse as a check on the authority of the executive branch. If that sort of thing is allowed to continue it's a slippery slope: the next thing you know the King will have to go hat in hand to Parliament when he wants a tax increase. The rational mind recoils in horror!

Democrats: "The legislation is <snip>."

Not convinced you're competent to accurately report even what Democrats say, but here it's the least of your problem so we'll let it go...

Fascinating snipping and denial.

 

[Gun Nut]

Teachers should be teachers not political activists.

who gets to decide what is a "political" topic and what is a "historical" topic?
Could a parent force their local public school to stop teaching science because it conflicts with their POLITICAL beliefs that the US government is covering up that the Earth is flat? It's political because the government is stealing tax money and using it for other things than the "big Lie" of the moon landing...

 

[Bomb#20]

laughing dog pipes up to say he agrees with me...

You missed the point again.

No, you missed the point again. What a surprise -- that's what foreseeably happens when you reply to only the first paragraph and you cut out the rest of my post, starting your cut precisely where my post says "The point is,".

My point, that Trausti and you seem to miss is that compulsory education makes all children a captive audience. That means children of parents who cannot afford to send their children to private school, and the children of parents who can afford to send their children to private school. And, as Tom C points, out, the first group includes home schooling.

Yeah, I got all that -- I didn't miss your point and I doubt if Trausti did either. TomC is wrong, and I ruled against him on narrow grounds, and you're ruling against him on broader grounds, and I'm not terribly hung up on whether your broader grounds are valid or not since the previous narrow ruling makes the issue moot, but you're still trying to pick a fight with me over that moot issue, because, see above, you missed the point again.

So, complaining about a perceived curriculum in public (i.e. compulsory) education is really simply special pleading or just another example of shallow conservative "thinking" or just a complaint against education.

But "Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience." was not a complaint about a perceived curriculum. Stop reading for keywords and read in context.

And after substantial gaslighting from right-wingers trying to defend the new laws, we now can observe what the new laws are doing. So, for example, in another thread about CRT, there is now a discussion about how the Karen group called Moms for Liberty is trying to stifle free speech. It is exactly as predicted.

Eh? What free speech? Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience. Does the religious fundamentalist teacher also get free speech to preach the true religion to other people’s captive children? That’s the issue.

The point you keep missing over and over is that the issue in dispute is DDR's repeated claim that "free speech" includes a right to preach ideology to a government-supplied captive audience. Remember, the actual topic of the thread? "Anti-Anti-Racist Legislation for Classrooms to Stifle Free Speech".

So much for "free speech advocates."

There are quite a few things people say that don't qualify as "free speech". Libel. Copyright infringement. Offering to pay for a hit. Revealing military secrets to the enemy. Preaching religion to a captive audience under color of government authority. DDR might as well call you a Russian spy and then when you sue him for libel cry "You're against free speech! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

 

[TomC]

TomC is wrong, and I ruled against him on narrow grounds,

Heh.
You ruled against me. So has Jarhyn and lumpenproletariat.
I'm used to it. But it's still amusing when posters do it.

Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

So, instead of "conservatives shouldn't be doing this, it's OH YEAH, WELL DEMOCRATS DID IT, TOO!1111"

Are you really so obtuse that you think that's a fair gloss of what I wrote? I was not proposing that it's a wrongdoing excused by an earlier wrongdoing. I was proposing that when liberals did it it was a rightdoing, and now that conservatives are doing it it's still a rightdoing. It's a shame it took conservatives this long to realize a government-promulgated religion is a bad thing, but better late than never.

(Also, why do you keep pretending other people are shouting, when you're the one who keeps shouting?)

Perhaps after pages of gaslighting, you could now just admit that conservatives are wrong to make these laws. Perhaps. But nope, you won't.

You are accusing me of gaslighting because you don't give a rat's ass whether the things you say about opponents are true.

Libertarians: "It is the function of government to control public education. So, it's okay."

Um, which Libertarians are supposed to have said that?

Here's one complete with hysterical gaslighting:

God forbid that the legislative branch should use power of the purse as a check on the authority of the executive branch. If that sort of thing is allowed to continue it's a slippery slope: the next thing you know the King will have to go hat in hand to Parliament when he wants a tax increase. The rational mind recoils in horror!

In the first place, are you sarcasm impaired?

In the second place, are you reading-comprehension impaired? The issue in dispute was separation of powers; that the government should control public education was a premise the other party to that argument had already introduced.

And in the third place, did you not understand my question or are you refusing to answer it? Which Libertarian is supposed to have said that?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are you really so obtuse that you think that's a fair gloss of what I wrote? I was not proposing that it's a wrongdoing excused by an earlier wrongdoing. I was proposing that when liberals did it it was a rightdoing, and now that conservatives are doing it it's still a rightdoing. It's a shame it took conservatives this long to realize a government-promulgated religion is a bad thing, but better late than never.

(Also, why do you keep pretending other people are shouting, when you're the one who keeps shouting?)


You are accusing me of gaslighting because you don't give a rat's ass whether the things you say about opponents are true.

Libertarians: "It is the function of government to control public education. So, it's okay."

Um, which Libertarians are supposed to have said that?

Here's one complete with hysterical gaslighting:

God forbid that the legislative branch should use power of the purse as a check on the authority of the executive branch. If that sort of thing is allowed to continue it's a slippery slope: the next thing you know the King will have to go hat in hand to Parliament when he wants a tax increase. The rational mind recoils in horror!

In the first place, are you sarcasm impaired?

In the second place, are you reading-comprehension impaired? The issue in dispute was separation of powers; that the government should control public education was a premise the other party to that argument had already introduced.

And in the third place, did you not understand my question or are you refusing to answer it? Which Libertarian is supposed to have said that?

Stop deflecting from the crux of the issue. Get back to us when you are ready to condemn the new laws.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Moms for Liberty" group demands schools ban books with "sexy" pictures of seahorses
A far-right group in Williamson County, Tennessee, is demanding schools censor a number of books and subjects

Sexy pictures of seahorses?

I've heard of furries but this is the first I've heard of fishies!

 

[laughing dog]

No, you missed the point again.

Not that you will ever it admit, but I did not.

Yeah, I got all that -- I didn't miss your point and I doubt if Trausti did either.

There is no evidence of that from your or his responses.

But "Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience." was not a complaint about a perceived curriculum. Stop reading for keywords and read in context.

Of course it was - if you bothered to actually think about it. There is no reason for anyone to bring up "compulsory education" and "captive audience of other people's children" in this discussion at all unless one is upset about a perceived curriculum (in this "CRT"). I suggest you take your advice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are quite a few things people say that don't qualify as "free speech". Libel. Copyright infringement. Offering to pay for a hit. Revealing military secrets to the enemy. Preaching religion to a captive audience under color of government authority. DDR might as well call you a Russian spy and then when you sue him for libel cry "You're against free speech! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

There are also quite a lot of things people say that DO qualify as "free speech," but are not "preaching to a captive audience," and that aren't even "preaching" never mind that an audience could be alleged to be captive.

So for example, asking questions can be free speech depending on the question. Engaging in discussion, teaching someone to think, could also be free speech.

That is my primary problem with this law, that it overreaches by banning certain concepts too broadly. That it is too vague. That it is too subjective.

That is different than what you are writing I wrote.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, you missed the point again.

Not that you will ever it admit, but I did not.

No? Then feel free to explain why in post #50 you responded to post #49 by not addressing my point and in fact cutting out the last two thirds of it starting where it said "The point is,".

But "Compulsory education makes other people’s children a captive audience." was not a complaint about a perceived curriculum. Stop reading for keywords and read in context.

Of course it was - if you bothered to actually think about it. There is no reason for anyone to bring up "compulsory education" and "captive audience of other people's children" in this discussion at all unless one is upset about a perceived curriculum (in this "CRT").

In the first place, show your work. I already exhibited an alternative reason for someone to bring that up; and in fact Trausti's own words indicate that this was his reason for bringing it up.

And in the second place, you're committing a non sequitur. Even if there's no reason to bring up X unless you're upset about Y, that doesn't imply X is a complaint. "An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition." So an arguer will often bring up X because it's one of the steps in his chain of reasoning, not because it's a complaint. This isn't rocket science.

In fact, how is it possible that you don't already know this? You're the one who brought up "Compulsory education makes all children a captive audience.". Well, were you complaining about a perceived curriculum?

 

[Bomb#20]

There are quite a few things people say that don't qualify as "free speech". Libel. Copyright infringement. Offering to pay for a hit. Revealing military secrets to the enemy. Preaching religion to a captive audience under color of government authority. DDR might as well call you a Russian spy and then when you sue him for libel cry "You're against free speech! Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

There are also quite a lot of things people say that DO qualify as "free speech," but are not "preaching to a captive audience," and that aren't even "preaching" never mind that an audience could be alleged to be captive.

So for example, asking questions can be free speech depending on the question. Engaging in discussion, teaching someone to think, could also be free speech.

Certainly; but that's a broad generality. So what's your point? Nobody here is denying that it is possible for some hypothetical law in some hypothetical jurisdiction to violate somebody's freedom of speech. But you haven't produced any evidence that the law we're discussing interferes with anything that qualifies as "free speech".

That is my primary problem with this law, that it overreaches by banning certain concepts too broadly. That it is too vague. That it is too subjective.

Really, that's your primary problem with it? Because all the vague subjective concept banning is in part B, but your specific example of an allegedly bad thing the law did was caused by part A.

Stop deflecting from the crux of the issue.

Oh please. If the crux of the issue isn't your free speech claims, why did you put them in the thread title and in the concluding summation of your OP?

Get back to us when you are ready to condemn the new laws.

If you want me to condemn the new laws you'll need to at some point try offering a substantive reason.

I'm not a lawyer; could I have drawn up that law better than the lawyers who did it? Easily. What of it? Oklahoma's a democracy; its voters have a right to elect clumsy lawmakers instead of electing me. If you can show the legislators exceeded their authority, or if you can show something bad happened due to the vagueness and subjectivity of the law, then you'll have a case. But as far as I can see, you're condemning the law because it's keeping Oklahoma from adopting an established religion, and the religion it's stopping Oklahoma from establishing is yours, and apparently when progressives find they can't win democratically they abandon democracy. That's a reason for you to condemn the new law. That's not a reason for me to condemn it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is not a post to Bomb#20, just because it follows his post. It's to everyone else.

One of the Moms for Liberty's many complaints is about the Wit & Wisdom curriculum. It's a set of books. Teachers can buy additional activities for the books, not sure how much of those activities are covered in the curriculum. In any case, while the weirdest complaint is about a book about seahorses, there are a number of other complaints about other books. Here is a spreadsheet they put together. The reader may note that the state is Tennessee, not Oklahoma, even though Bomb#20 is talking about Oklahoma. This is because nearly the same legislation has been proposed (or worked on) in some 20 states and it has been passed in some of them, including both Oklahoma and Tennessee. In another thread, I detailed one of the organizations promoting suggested legislation across all the states and this common source is why they are all similar. They have one starting point. [I also showed, by the way, in that other thread how much of the narrative about CRT is this top-down group tricking people into thinking innocent things like SEL (Social and Emotional Learning) is CRT, when it isn't.]

Now, speaking of starting points, the scare-mongering about Critical Race Theory also is coming from top-down groups sending propaganda to conservatives encouraging organization and what they call "grassroots" pressure. This is no doubt how an organization like Moms for Liberty operates, getting all scared of change because of the constant stream of propaganda sent top-down from organizations like Heritage Action for America. In another thread, I also detailed the bullshit from that group.

Because these things are being strategically created top-down, everyone is really being played. One arm is being sent proposed, terrible legislation that is vague and subjective. And the other arm--the so-called grassroots--is being told CRT is everywhere, and that they have to identify it and complain about it, and how they can pressure school boards to make changes. So the grassroots can then use the subjectivity and vagueness of the legislation to get changes made. This then substantiates the complaints and creates even more stories to be propagandized.

Now, back to Moms for Liberty and the spreadsheet...from skimming through this list of books and complaints and focusing on demographically related complaints as opposed to other things (like complaints of "dark" content), here is the list of books, they have complained about:

• First Nations of North America: Plains Indians. The complaint in part reads "[p]aints white people in a negative light."
• The Buffalo are Back. The complaint reads in part "divisive," even though much of the complaint is also about other things.
• The Story of Johnny Appleseed. The complaint reads in part "racially divisive."
• Martin Luther King Jr. and The March to Washington. Complaint reads "Photographs of political violence." And that is part of a theme of complaints about both darkness and making white children feel guilty.
• Ruby Bridges Goes to School. Complaint reads "Racist remarks. N-word." Further details says it "causes shame for young, impressionable white children."
• The Story of Ruby Bridges. Complaint reads "Divisive, shows racism." Further details say it "characterizes white people as mean, hateful, and oppressive." Since this is an historical account, it likely is showing specific white people who acted that way and the complainant is jumping to a broad generalization that doesn't exist because of the complainant's politics.
• Separate is Never Equal. Complaint reads "Racism." Further details claim the book says racist things about Mexicans, but I doubt this is true. Details also claim that it characterizes "white children and adults as mean and Mexican children as victims of oppression." This is an historical story of the Mendez family and actual oppression from segregation and is not meant to be a generalization of today.
• Starry Messenger Galileo Galilei. Complaint reads "anti-church." Again, this is history.
• The Keeping Quilt. Complaint is about a newest alleged version of the book that is not even currently in use by the curriculum. It is alleged that it contains gay marriage.
• Coming to America. Complaint is confusing, but seems to be saying that it isn't age appropriate to teach kids how immigrants and slaves were treated badly.
• When Marian Sang. This is an historical account of Marian Anderson who faced segregation. The complaint is that the historical account doesn't talk about how great America is today.
• Thunder Rolling in the Mountains. Complaint reads that it is anti-white people. Again, this is an account that happened in history--this time of Indians suffering a defeat in war in 1877 to the US Army. So, this is another jumping of conclusions to the story being anti-white.
• The River Between Us. The complaint reads in part that the book paints white people as evil. The time setting of this book is the Civil War. I took a look at online reviews and people loved this book. I didn't see any claims about reverse racialism.
• We are the Ship: The Story of the Negro Baseball League. Complaint reads that it talks of being hanged by white people and someone received a cake with the n-word on it. Sounds historically realistic.

The readers of this thread can infer exactly how the complaints work with the new law. Here are some bullets from proposed amendment some time ago:

• Their moral character is determined by race or sex;
• A person bears responsibility for past actions by other members of their race or sex;
• A person should feel discomfort or other psychological distress because of their race or sex;
• ...
• Promoting division or resentment between race, sex, religion, creed nonviolent political affiliation or class;

I have stated numerous times about the vagueness and subjectivity, but I've also most recently mentioned how it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, if parents are telling their kids that anything negative at all about US history (in which White people were in charge of the government and held the most power) is factually negative regarding some group of individuals who were white, then their impressionable kids will feel discomfort or feel like it is divisive. If 20% or even 10% of very partisan conservatives scream it is divisive (even if it weren't), it would by definition become divisive. So this is why almost all of the historical narratives in Wit & Wisdom have been marked by Moms for Liberty. In each of these, they jump to conclusions and then claim divisiveness which makes it divisive.

So what comes next? Videos of their children crying before school boards and courts? Removal of curriculum that isn't actually Critical Race Theory at all? Moms for Liberty showing up at school board meetings with signs that read "I choose FREEDOM over masks!" and at the same time "Ban the Books!"

I guess we will have to stay tuned to see.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Certainly; but that's a broad generality. So what's your point?

You are making a fallacious claim that when I wrote about protecting free speech it had to be about protecting the ability to "preach to a captive audience." However, that is not what free speech is in the set of all things it may be considered to be. The fallacy came in when you discussed what free speech is NOT, instead of what free speech IS.

Nobody here is denying that it is possible for some hypothetical law in some hypothetical jurisdiction to violate somebody's freedom of speech.

We are not discussing hypothetical laws or hypothetical jurisdictions. We are discussing bills in particular states and newly enacted laws in others which all have the same source and mostly have the same issues since the source is the same. Such laws are concrete, not abstract. The jurisdictions are also concrete, not abstract. None of these are hypotheticals. Some problems with the concrete laws may be hypotheticals, sure, and that was the case for some time because the laws are so new and untested. So the complaints began as hypotheticals PRIOR to some concrete examples. Those criticisms were given in other threads. This one essentially said, see, look here's a concrete example, and now most recently, here are some more concrete examples. The existence of concrete examples in no way diminishes the breadth of the original arguments regarding terrible wording of the legislation. Instead, they are narrow examples of different parts of the problem and one ought not use just one mere narrow concrete case to extrapolate that my view is "preaching to a captive audience" is the kind of speech generally under discussion. That would be illogical.

But you haven't produced any evidence that the law we're discussing interferes with anything that qualifies as "free speech".

There is plenty of evidence here in the thread.

That is my primary problem with this law, that it overreaches by banning certain concepts too broadly. That it is too vague. That it is too subjective.

Really, that's your primary problem with it? Because all the vague subjective concept banning is in part B, but your specific example of an allegedly bad thing the law did was caused by part A.

Hmmmm, weird logic. In another thread, I stated my objections are a, b, c. In this thread I stated some problems are a, b, e, f in the op. Then, I gave an example of a. Finally, I gave a concrete example of b and e. You are looking at "e" only, then re-framing it with your politics into "preaching" then further extrapolating it into the only problem at all that I've said there is with these new draconian laws as they apply to free speech issues.

Stop deflecting from the crux of the issue.

Oh please. If the crux of the issue isn't your free speech claims, why did you put them in the thread title and in the concluding summation of your OP?

Hmmm...weird question. You keep framing users of the forum as "arguers," posts as "arguments," and now the ending sections of ops as "concluding summations." Sorry, but you know that isn't how contributing posts to this forum works and further we can see how you know because we can look at your posts. Your next-to-last post, for example, ends in an ancillary point. It would be ridiculous to claim that is a summation and then use it to extrapolate and put into context everything else because it would make all your points way too narrow. That is illogical.

Get back to us when you are ready to condemn the new laws.

If you want me to condemn the new laws you'll need to at some point try offering a substantive reason.

No, I expect your condemnation of the new draconian laws to be based on evidence and reason of which I am under no obligation to teach you. You should do it because it's the right thing to do, not because I have some responsibility to provide evidence, reasoned argument, or descriptive vocabulary with frills on it. We are not in a formal debate.

I'm not a lawyer; could I have drawn up that law better than the lawyers who did it? Easily.

I doubt it.

What of it? Oklahoma's a democracy; its voters have a right to elect clumsy lawmakers instead of electing me. If you can show the legislators exceeded their authority, or if you can show something bad happened due to the vagueness and subjectivity of the law, then you'll have a case. But as far as I can see, you're condemning the law because it's keeping Oklahoma from adopting an established religion, and the religion it's stopping Oklahoma from establishing is yours, and apparently when progressives find they can't win democratically they abandon democracy. That's a reason for you to condemn the new law. That's not a reason for me to condemn it.

Right....my religion that NONE OF Moms for Liberties claims are actually Critical Race Theory. Right...my religion that the new draconian law is both vague and subjective and therefore an overreach. Right...my religion that conservative advocacy groups documented to be propagandizing this issue are propagandizing this issue. Right...my religion that these grassroots conservative groups are being fed propaganda because I've got the propaganda and have documented it in this forum. Right...my religion that the documented objections by Moms for Liberty over reading material map nicely to the bullet points of the new draconian laws, i.e. divisiveness, race blaming etc. Right...my religion. Everything I am saying is faith-based. None of it is evidence-based.

But poor you. Nothing you said in the thread is based on faith, it's all evidence based, and data driven. You don't have a religion.

SORRY, I was joking. Yes you do. You are holding onto your religion when being confronted with tons of documented data and reason. Your religion is this, regarding critical race theory:

There appear to be influential people who are trying to get schools to teach these opinions; it's okay to pass laws as preventive measures.

The people advocating such views do not have a constitutional right to have the government supply them with captive audiences; and it is clearly within the authority of a democratic legislature to choose not to spend taxpayer money to stump for an ideology the public disagrees with.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Teach history -- all the facts -- but don't propagandize.

The correct policy to deal with "CRT" or other political propaganda in public school classrooms:

Let anyone place a recorder in a classroom to record what the teacher says, and

Make it illegal for the teacher to propagandize, such as saying "America is a racist country," etc. Teach only the facts, not theories about race or "social justice" etc.

Any teacher saying such improper propaganda statements would be subject to discipline.

But all factual teaching of U.S. history, about slavery and Jim Crow etc., would be appropriate, or required.

No one should object to this. Teachers are not free to indoctrinate students with their personal political bias, or social theories. But they are obliged to present the historical facts. They should have no objection to being recorded, so that it's possible to determine what they are really saying to the students.

The parents or school board or taxpayers should not have to believe the teacher who claims s/he's only telling the truth, but should have recordings of the class sessions so they can hear exactly what the teacher is saying to the students and be able to determine whether the teacher is really teaching the facts or is propagandizing.

Before having protests to the school board or complaints at PTA meetings, etc., invite anyone to place their recorder into the classroom to record the class sessions. And then allow the recordings to be presented to the school board if there's a complaint against a teacher.

 

[zorq]

Make it illegal for the teacher to propagandize, such as saying "America is a racist country," etc. Teach only the facts, not theories about race or "social justice" etc.

Theories are facts. Facts are part of some propaganda. The disagreement over what constitutes a fact is PART of modern propaganda.

If a history teacher could prove objectively that the racism that was (incidentally) baked into the US constitution from the beginning is still affecting the American government, its agents, or merely a good chunk of its populace, that FACT would qualify as "propaganda" to you and any other dimwit in the age of Trump. These days "alternative facts" are a popular buzzword which, might I remind you was coined and originally used without a hint of sarcasm.

Your proposition is ridiculous but primarily because the current political environment is ridiculous.

 

[Bomb#20]

...So for example, asking questions can be free speech depending on the question. Engaging in discussion, teaching someone to think, could also be free speech.

Certainly; but that's a broad generality. So what's your point?

You are making a fallacious claim that when I wrote about protecting free speech it had to be about protecting the ability to "preach to a captive audience."

Quote me. I claimed nothing of the sort.

However, that is not what free speech is in the set of all things it may be considered to be. The fallacy came in when you discussed what free speech is NOT, instead of what free speech IS.

No such claim, therefore no such fallacy. Discussing what free speech is not is perfectly pertinent when you're alleging free speech violations. If you think you can show that anything obstructed by the Oklahoma law qualifies as free speech, get to it.

We are not discussing hypothetical laws or hypothetical jurisdictions. We are discussing bills in particular states and newly enacted laws in others which all have the same source and mostly have the same issues since the source is the same. Such laws are concrete, not abstract. The jurisdictions are also concrete, not abstract. None of these are hypotheticals.

If you mean some other newly enacted laws in some particular states other than Oklahoma, feel free to post a link to some other state's law and then we can examine whether it violates free speech rights. If you're walking back your claims about Oklahoma, hey, somebody learned something!

Instead, they are narrow examples of different parts of the problem and one ought not use just one mere narrow concrete case to extrapolate that my view is "preaching to a captive audience" is the kind of speech generally under discussion. That would be illogical.

Certainly would, if anybody'd done that. Your narrow concrete case wasn't a case of preaching to a captive audience -- it was about a college course and college students aren't captive. You're conflating different things I said in response to different things you said.

But you haven't produced any evidence that the law we're discussing interferes with anything that qualifies as "free speech".

There is plenty of evidence here in the thread.

...says the guy who never responded to post #35. Let's go through this one last time and lay it to rest once and for all. The Oklahoma law has two parts, A and B. Part A is its rule for college-level content; part B is its rule for K-thru-12 content. Part A can't interfere with anything that qualifies as free speech because it imposes no restrictions on what anyone can say in a college class. Part B can't interfere with anything that qualifies as free speech because K-thru-12 students are (pace TomC) a state-supplied captive audience, and there's nothing at all that any state employee has a free-speech right to say to a state-supplied captive audience -- his right to speak does not magically trump another person's right to absent himself from the speech. Q.E.D.

Hmmmm, weird logic. In another thread, I stated my objections are a, b, c. In this thread I stated some problems are a, b, e, f in the op. Then, I gave an example of a. Finally, I gave a concrete example of b and e. You are looking at "e" only, then re-framing it with your politics into "preaching" then further extrapolating it into the only problem at all that I've said there is with these new draconian laws as they apply to free speech issues. <more in the same vein snipped>

 

[Bomb#20]

... the reason I have put this review in is because of a recent news story.

“[After] learning more about HB/SB 1775 and how it essentially revokes any ability to teach critical race theory, including discussions of white privilege, from required courses in Oklahoma … we recognized that HB/SB 1775 would require substantial changes to the curriculum for this class particularly,” Erick Worrell, a spokesman for the college, wrote in an email Friday to The Washington Post.

I should add, there are only two reasons I can think of for why a college would choose to cancel a required course when it has the option of making it an elective:

1. The professor or administration wants to trick the public into thinking the law requires substantial changes to the class.

2. The professor or administration thinks if the class is elective then too few students will sign up for it to make teaching it worth the effort.

Can anybody think of a third alternative?

 

[laughing dog]

... the reason I have put this review in is because of a recent news story.

“[After] learning more about HB/SB 1775 and how it essentially revokes any ability to teach critical race theory, including discussions of white privilege, from required courses in Oklahoma … we recognized that HB/SB 1775 would require substantial changes to the curriculum for this class particularly,” Erick Worrell, a spokesman for the college, wrote in an email Friday to The Washington Post.

I should add, there are only two reasons I can think of for why a college would choose to cancel a required course when it has the option of making it an elective:

1. The professor or administration wants to trick the public into thinking the law requires substantial changes to the class.

2. The professor or administration thinks if the class is elective then too few students will sign up for it to make teaching it worth the effort.

Can anybody think of a third alternative?

How about the substantial required changes in the curriculum
1) could not be accomplished before the start of the class, or
2) would be viewed as bait and switch by the students?

 

[Bomb#20]

I should add, there are only two reasons I can think of for why a college would choose to cancel a required course when it has the option of making it an elective:

1. The professor or administration wants to trick the public into thinking the law requires substantial changes to the class.

2. The professor or administration thinks if the class is elective then too few students will sign up for it to make teaching it worth the effort.

Can anybody think of a third alternative?

How about the substantial required changes in the curriculum
1) could not be accomplished before the start of the class, or
2) would be viewed as bait and switch by the students?

But that's my point: there are no substantial required changes. The law doesn't require any changes to the class at all. From DDR's link in the OP:

"A. 1. No enrolled student of an institution of higher
education within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education shall
be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual
diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling
shall not be prohibited. Any orientation or requirement that
presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis
of race or sex shall be prohibited."​

How on earth does that require the school to change the curriculum at all? Note the words "required" and "mandatory". If the class referenced in the OP was at risk of being classified as diversity training, or was accused of presenting race or sex stereotyping or bias, what of it? The law doesn't require the college to change the class; it only requires the college to let students opt out. There's no difficulty accomplishing that before the start of the class; all it takes is the flick of a Bic. If the course description booklet has already been printed, if students have already signed up, whoop de doo. Tape a hand-lettered note to the door of the classroom saying it's been recategorized from required to elective.