Amazon Underneath Fireplace For Blocking An Anti-Transgender Ebook – Thelegaltorts

The Case For Internet Originalism – JONATHAN TURLEY

A search this morning still found the book unavailable. I haven’t read the book and I am unfamiliar with Anderson’s arguments. However, my concern is not the validity of his arguments, but the effort to prevent others from reading such arguments.

The deliberate removal of the book would be another example of private censorship. This is precisely the danger that I discussed in my recent testimony to the House of efforts to use private companies to implement a system of point of view controls. There are big differences in how gender is defined and how different genders should be legally addressed. This book is part of this national dialogue. Instead of responding to such a book with counter-arguments, many would like to silence the author to prevent others from reading or hearing his views.

A similar controversy arose last year when Target pulled out the book “Irreversible Harm: The Transgender Madness That Seduces Our Daughters” after a single Twitter follower objected. After a national backlash, Ziel later gave in and allowed people to buy the book.

The Thomas controversy is still unfolding, but concerns re-emerge over the manipulation of Amazon’s access to opposing views. It seems you can find a DVD version by typing the term “DVD,” but critics have found that unlike documentaries about judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it’s difficult to find. A search says the video is not available for streaming. It is difficult to gauge the controversy at this early stage. However, Thomas was repeatedly cursed by the Black History Museum and other groups for his conservative ideology. It should be celebrated during Black History Month. I disagree with some of Thomas’s views at all, but his life is a remarkable success story.

Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948 on the Georgia Coast in Pin Point, Georgia. He grew up with Gullah, the Creole dialect. His home was a one-room hut with dirty floors and no plumbing. He grew up without a father, who left him at two. At the age of seven, he and his younger brother were sent to live with their grandfather Myers Anderson and his wife in Savannah, Georgia. He used his Catholic education to overcome segregation and prejudice and eventually went to Holy Cross and was admitted to law schools at Yale, Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania. After holding a number of legal positions, he became Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982 and later became only the second African American to join the court.

That seems like an incredible life to be highlighted during Black History Month.

What worries me most is that members send letters asking them to know why cable companies are still allowing people to watch Fox News while saying nothing about removing books like Anderson’s. As mentioned earlier, at the recent Parliament hearing, Members repeatedly stated their support for free speech, but not a single Democrat has specifically opposed calls to get Fox News out of the air.

When it comes to censorship, members are neither subtle nor subtle in silence. When Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking Hunter Biden’s pre-election story as a mistake, the Senators pushed him and other big tech executives to be more censored. Rather than addressing the dangers of such news censorship, Senator Chris Coons urged Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing what he sees as “climate denial.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to be taking the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said he was “concerned that your two companies are actually falling behind or pulling back, that you are not taking action against dangerous disinformation”. Accordingly, he asked for an answer to this question:

“Will you commit to the same kind of solid game books for changing content, including fact checking, flagging, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps in the upcoming election, even for politicians in the upcoming runoff?”

“Robust content change” has a certain appeal, like a kind of software upgrade. It is not a content change. It’s censorship. If our representatives want to take action against freedom of expression, they should admit that they are advocates of censorship. In fact, leading scholars recently had the integrity to declare that they believe “China is right” about censorship.

It now appears that Amazon “robustly” removed a bestselling book on gender because it contradicts the author’s conclusions. The answer from Blumenthal and other members? Grilling.