Speaker 1: In a saga reminiscent of Keystone Cops, a two year
Speaker 1: pursuit of felony charges against school librarians in Granbury, Texas
Speaker 1: unfolded like a farcical mission gone awry. Right wing extremists.
Speaker 1: Scott London embarked on his vendetta and poured over stacks
Speaker 1: of literature while sporting a bodycam to capture his quest
Speaker 1: to persecute, I mean, prosecute his target three school librarians
Speaker 1: allowing miners to check out books at the library, some
Speaker 1: deemed op scene. Despite subpoenas and dramatic investigative theatrics, Ultimately
Speaker 1: the case did fizzle when the disc attorney did decline
Speaker 1: to indict, citing insufficient evidence. So stick around for the
Speaker 1: sort of details of Scott London's attempt to stop kids
Speaker 1: from reading. There's a lot more idiocy to cover the
Speaker 1: story from NBC News by Mike Hixenburg. It's by Tyler Kincaid,
Speaker 1: Scott Freeman, and Nava Parks on July twenty third, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. Now, Cindy, I know there's a lot of
Speaker 1: talk about deciding what books should and should not be
Speaker 1: in schools or libraries or things like that. What do
Speaker 1: you think who should be making those type of decisions.
Speaker 1: Is it somebody who ultimately runs around with the camera
Speaker 1: trying to invade privacy or do you think there might
Speaker 1: be a more mature way to do it.
Speaker 2: No, I definitely don't think that suff righteous. As for
Speaker 2: who has nothing to do with his days, apparently that's
Speaker 2: not the person who should make those decisions, and he
Speaker 2: won't because basically he works for two years for nothing
Speaker 2: because he proposed some charges to be filed and they weren't,
Speaker 2: so unfortunately, I don't think it will have the effect
Speaker 2: I wish it had, because I'm pretty sure someone else
Speaker 2: will try another time. But yeah, I think it should
Speaker 2: be the at the federal level. I don't see why
Speaker 2: a child in Texas should have access to different books
Speaker 2: than in California. There's no reason for for that. So
Speaker 2: I don't think UH school boards should exist. I think
Speaker 2: it should be done by the Ministry of Education, which
Speaker 2: should be funded accordingly, and not let by people who
Speaker 2: want to destroy the public system like like it was
Speaker 2: for quite a bit. But yeah, it's I think it's
Speaker 2: symptomatic of a portion of the population who UH cees
Speaker 2: education as as as a bad thing, you know, uh,
Speaker 2: and and there are many reasons why, and we can
Speaker 2: jump into it, but basically, that's that's that's it. It's
Speaker 2: just a miserable cup who thinks too much of his
Speaker 2: beliefs and wants to pulls them onto everyone else. That's
Speaker 2: just what it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can't disagree with you there. It's really a
Speaker 1: case that we're kind of mind boggling me though, that
Speaker 1: the police were getting involved in books and eli talking
Speaker 1: about children and books and all of that. You know,
Speaker 1: the privacy of the children was a something that he
Speaker 1: took into consideration. Or are we talking about how exactly
Speaker 1: far did he go with that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, he sure didn't consider that. So he even went
Speaker 3: so far as to gather a list over the past
Speaker 3: two years of like the names of children in these
Speaker 3: schools that had checked out these books. And it's ironic
Speaker 3: to think to see that he thinks this is creating
Speaker 3: like this is creating a safe environment for children, like
Speaker 3: this is this is the protection that children need. And
Speaker 3: you hit a lot of points that I really agree with, Cindy.
Speaker 3: He really he is just pushing his personal beliefs. He
Speaker 3: said in an interview with the same sort back in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty three. This has nothing to do with the constitution.
Speaker 3: I don't know what a constitutional constable is, but he
Speaker 3: said in the interview, this has nothing to do with
Speaker 3: his job. So he's just like being paid taxpayer money
Speaker 3: to just do this thing and persecute like librarians under
Speaker 3: felonies for letting kids read books. And it's just such
Speaker 3: a strange Like I'm starting to not believe. I saw
Speaker 3: somebody say that, like everybody watches America the same way
Speaker 3: America watched Tiger King, And I really see that, Like
Speaker 3: that makes a lot of sense to me, And I'm
Speaker 3: starting to no longer believe that the things that happen
Speaker 3: here are reality.
Speaker 1: You know, I have to say that, it really is
Speaker 1: a little amazing to think that you're going, it's okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to punish librarians for this, but really, where
Speaker 1: is it do you draw the line if you ultimately
Speaker 1: decided this is a book that's bad, who would you
Speaker 1: just say? Is it the person who bought the book,
Speaker 1: Is it the person that put it on a wagon
Speaker 1: and wheeled it into the front door. Where do you
Speaker 1: as a physical possession? Is it writing on a piece
Speaker 1: of paper? What ultimately decides whose responsibility it is is
Speaker 1: books in your library. We're going to give you a
Speaker 1: felony that's absurd all around. What are you gonna do?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just absolute absurd. So let me ask
Speaker 1: you this, Cindy D. Do you think this is a
Speaker 1: deliberate chilling effect to try to as you mentioned, the
Speaker 1: people who want to not have education. Is this more
Speaker 1: in the long along the lines of what we're looking
Speaker 1: at there just really not wanting it to.
Speaker 2: Have I think it is when you look at all
Speaker 2: the cases where legislators, local legislators are trying to impose
Speaker 2: this kind of those Benning books. But in this specific case,
Speaker 2: I don't think Okay is smart enough to go this far.
Speaker 2: I just think he thinks he's uh, he's just right
Speaker 2: in his mind. He's just self righteous and and he
Speaker 2: just wants to impose his views on on on anyone.
Speaker 2: And you know, we we are talking about the the
Speaker 2: idea of panning books, but we're not talking about the
Speaker 2: reasons why he says he does it because the content
Speaker 2: he doesn't like. It's not like there's there's a quote
Speaker 2: at some point where she says, uh, something like imagine
Speaker 2: if we got to give maxims on you know, like
Speaker 2: pornographic material in the hands of kids, and and that's
Speaker 2: not what's happening, you know. It's it's not like, uh,
Speaker 2: those books first of all, contain images of actual sexual
Speaker 2: depiction or anything like that. It's it's just books of
Speaker 2: things that make him uncomfortable. And that's just what it is.
Speaker 2: It's just talking about gender, it's talking about homosexuality, it's
Speaker 2: about talking about all of this, and that's just make
Speaker 2: him ikey, and so he just wants to prevent everyone
Speaker 2: to uh, to read those books. And it's just, yeah,
Speaker 2: I can't see, and I can't see it's in any
Speaker 2: other way than just I don't like it, so others
Speaker 2: can have it.
Speaker 1: It's it's not a matter of a matter of right,
Speaker 1: it's a matter of a feeling of discomfort, loss of entitlement,
Speaker 1: you know. And and and maybe you're right, maybe it's
Speaker 1: not his delivered attempt to bring in the idea of
Speaker 1: a chilling effect. It could just be that, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's a it's a feature he didn't even know
Speaker 1: about in it. This is an added bonus, because yeah,
Speaker 1: I think at the end of the day, it's really
Speaker 1: not even I think you probably hit the nail on
Speaker 1: the head. Eliah, Where where where did you come from this?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 1: What? What did you get from this?
Speaker 3: So it I've said a lot of times that I
Speaker 3: don't think censoring information is a way to teach kids
Speaker 3: the right information. I think if if you teach them
Speaker 3: how to think, not what to think, teach them how
Speaker 3: to discern correct incorrect, correct from incorrect, true versus from
Speaker 3: not true, you know, good source from bad source, then
Speaker 3: it doesn't matter what they're like. They can see and
Speaker 3: read and take in whatever they want, and now they
Speaker 3: have the tools to discern, like, this is something that's
Speaker 3: helpful to me, and I should hold onto this, and
Speaker 3: this is something that's not quite so helpful, and I
Speaker 3: should get rid of this. What makes a kid want
Speaker 3: to go and seek something out more than anything else.
Speaker 3: Tell them that they can't have it, and then they're
Speaker 3: gonna want to go find it. And it's like, we
Speaker 3: talked about this on an episode recently, and somebody else
Speaker 3: on the show on the episode said the same thing.
Speaker 3: They're going to go get the book on Amazon for
Speaker 3: like seven bucks. Anyway, as soon as they realize that
Speaker 3: you took it out of the library, specifically so they
Speaker 3: wouldn't be able to read it. So it's not doing
Speaker 3: anything to stop them from accessing this material, and it's
Speaker 3: just punishing people that are like just trying to educate kids.
Speaker 3: There was a person in the video in the article
Speaker 3: that said the same thing. Nobody should be facing threats
Speaker 3: of felony charges just for trying to educate people and
Speaker 3: provide information to the world. That would be like the
Speaker 3: three of us. If if somebody came to the three
Speaker 3: of us to say that, you know, we were committing
Speaker 3: a felony because you know the things we talked about
Speaker 3: on one of these shows. I think that's it's it's
Speaker 3: akin to that, and it's it blows my mind.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd like to to Sorry, just just one point.
Speaker 2: I'd like to come back to what you just said
Speaker 2: when you talked about Sorry, I lost it now I
Speaker 2: go go ahead. Uh, I'm sorry. I forgot my train
Speaker 2: of thought.
Speaker 1: Oh no, it's fine. Uh. I guess that happens to
Speaker 1: us sometimes. I know I've already forgot. Who are the
Speaker 1: two of you again, Kelly? Oh that's right, Kelly. I
Speaker 1: thank thanks for failing in for Eli. Now having said that,
Speaker 1: you mentioned LGBTQ books. Eli, Uh, what about sending people
Speaker 1: of color that also seem to draw a share of attention. Now,
Speaker 1: I wanted both of you to kind of comment on
Speaker 1: what do you think that was about. Is it just
Speaker 1: a it can't be an achy thing. Surely this far
Speaker 1: in history, we're past achiness when it comes to race
Speaker 1: like that, are we?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 1: I mean, I was just trying to figure why don't
Speaker 1: we want to pretend that people of color don't exist
Speaker 1: when they exist around us. I don't understand that motivation.
Speaker 2: I can answer to that, and I can come back
Speaker 2: to the point I forgot. You said that children they're
Speaker 2: just going to buy the book on Amazon. The problem
Speaker 2: is it increases the divide between the education of poor
Speaker 2: people and people who have the means to go to
Speaker 2: buy those books. And we know that in the US
Speaker 2: it's one of the major problems that education is extremely
Speaker 2: uh related to your revenues. So poor people have much
Speaker 2: much worse education, and then rich people and even the
Speaker 2: middle class. But yeah, there's there's this this idea that
Speaker 2: not wanting to uh to acknowledge your past because if
Speaker 2: you look at you know, Rosa Parks and all those
Speaker 2: pictures you see about black people trying to eat in
Speaker 2: a restaurant and being attacked by people. I think it's
Speaker 2: still fresh in the memory, and people are so ashamed
Speaker 2: of it that they just pushing it away and try
Speaker 2: to make it like it it didn't happen. I think
Speaker 2: that's one of the reasons why so many books talking
Speaker 2: about race issues in the US are on the list
Speaker 2: of band books.
Speaker 1: So it's a more of a discomfort level than anything else.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's you know, and really I think
Speaker 1: I understand a little better that the end of the day,
Speaker 1: it's it's. It is a very difference of wanting to
Speaker 1: stigmatize versus one of the naturalize. And I think that
Speaker 1: that is fundamentally one of the differences, because so many
Speaker 1: of the things that he talked about are things that
Speaker 1: at the end of the day is a so what
Speaker 1: you know, who cares move on? And but you know,
Speaker 1: the unfortunately people like this keep popping up and we
Speaker 1: keep having to play whack a mole. But you know,
Speaker 1: do you think that this is a winning argument or
Speaker 1: is this a losing argument? Is this something that that
Speaker 1: people are receptive to, or or is this losing something?
Speaker 1: What do you think you lie.
Speaker 3: I think that hopefully fewer than I think, but probably
Speaker 3: more than I think, people are are receptive to book banning.
Speaker 3: I think that most people probably think they're restricting information
Speaker 3: is the right way. And to your point, Cindy, which
Speaker 3: is a very good point, for those people who don't
Speaker 3: have the income resources to get that education outside of
Speaker 3: the school, if the school is now banned from providing it,
Speaker 3: they're just out of luck, and that's just another hurdle
Speaker 3: they have to overcome in order to have the same
Speaker 3: opportunity or even a similar equitable opportunity as anyone else.
Speaker 3: And I think what happens is that when you look
Speaker 3: at historically the people that are likely to ban books,
Speaker 3: they're historically Christian or religious at least, and I think
Speaker 3: in most cases Christian at least. The ones that we've
Speaker 3: talked about, I think it's more likely to be white.
Speaker 3: I think they're more likely to be heterosexual or heteronormative.
Speaker 3: And I think it's also really common for everybody, regardless
Speaker 3: of any type of background, for somebody in power to
Speaker 3: feel defensive when things that they have done that are
Speaker 3: not that great are brought to light. And that happens
Speaker 3: a lot to white people and to hetero int strate
Speaker 3: people and to sist people, because there's a lot of
Speaker 3: examples of white and cysts and straight people causing harm.
Speaker 3: So when books like The Bluest Eye, which was one
Speaker 3: of the ones specifically mentioned in the article and was
Speaker 3: on the ten top ten most challenged books in the
Speaker 3: United States in twenty twenty three and was only one
Speaker 3: of one of only a few books on that list
Speaker 3: that was not about lgbt q I A plus issues,
Speaker 3: but also one of only a few that was written
Speaker 3: by a person of color. And it's because these books
Speaker 3: are challenging the white normativity, in the hetero normativity, and
Speaker 3: that's what they don't like. And I think until it
Speaker 3: becomes clear that the perceived majority in society and in
Speaker 3: culture that you know that white sis hetero people perceive, sorry,
Speaker 3: until it is understood that perceived majority isn't as strong
Speaker 3: as it is perceived to be, that's going to continue
Speaker 3: to be the case where they the majority of people
Speaker 3: feel like this is the right thing to do and.
Speaker 1: Sending any thoughts or any any comments.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think there's one of the biggest fuels of
Speaker 2: the conservative movement in the US is the amount of
Speaker 2: shame they have to overcome to be part of the
Speaker 2: current society because the conservatives they are against, they still
Speaker 2: have some racist ideas, they still have homophobic ideas, they
Speaker 2: still have all those wrong ideas that have been proven
Speaker 2: false like fifty years ago, but they still have it
Speaker 2: because they grew up with those ideas and since they
Speaker 2: are no longer accepted in this society and we are
Speaker 2: tribal creatures, we want to belong to our society. And
Speaker 2: the response to to this exciting. I would say, like
Speaker 2: like they're pushed on the side is trying to either
Speaker 2: prevent this information uh that they're different from reaching the kids,
Speaker 2: or trying to impose their views on everyone. And so
Speaker 2: you have those two, uh, two movements in the conservative movement.
Speaker 2: You have one where they're trying to impose their views
Speaker 2: on everyone, like parieting abortion, like preventing gay marriage, like
Speaker 2: all this, and at the same time you have this, uh,
Speaker 2: let's make sure that our kids are not educated as
Speaker 2: they need to be in order to understand the society
Speaker 2: and stay with our ideas.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would also I would also have to say
Speaker 1: that in many ways the books are symbolic because it's
Speaker 1: a it's a it's a notation of a lack of
Speaker 1: acceptance that obviously goes so much further than books. This
Speaker 1: is as you, as we mentioned earlier, stigmatized, this is
Speaker 1: to exclude this is this feels beyond just icky. This
Speaker 1: feels like, you know, the censorship that goes far beyond.
Speaker 1: But we but it's it's what's it's what's happening now, Eli,
Speaker 1: did you have any other thoughts on this, Nothing in.
Speaker 3: Particular, I'd say, yeah, it does go beyond the ikey,
Speaker 3: it goes it's it's I mean, it's it's not just
Speaker 3: like it's I don't like this, and I don't want
Speaker 3: I mean a lot like I was saying a minute ago,
Speaker 3: I don't want, you know, the my children to feel responsible,
Speaker 3: to feel guilt, to feel shamed for the actions of
Speaker 3: my you know, of of people in the past, which
Speaker 3: I can't say is unreasonable. But I don't think anybody
Speaker 3: wants your children to feel ashamed for the actions of
Speaker 3: people in the past.
Speaker 1: It doesn't serve a purpose.
Speaker 3: Right exactly, And and I don't think anybody wants that.
Speaker 3: I think it's just that these things need to be
Speaker 3: acknowledged so that we understand what did happen. Why it
Speaker 3: is important to make sure that everybody has equality and
Speaker 3: everybody is treated the same, regardless of their background. And
Speaker 3: when you continue to remove the examples of that not
Speaker 3: happening and the results of that not happening, then you
Speaker 3: remove the motives or the incentives to make sure it
Speaker 3: doesn't happen anymore.
Speaker 2: Sending you a final thought, Yeah, I'd like to point
Speaker 2: out that in order to be educated on what your
Speaker 2: previous generations did and not feel guilty, that's possible that
Speaker 2: everyone else does it, but you need education for that.
Speaker 2: You need properly trained educators. And if you defend the
Speaker 2: education system, then it doesn't happen. And it's you know,
Speaker 2: it's it's it's a chestrangity too. You cannot solve this
Speaker 2: problem if you don't manage to find a way to
Speaker 2: teach that. Yes, your grandparents did some horrific things, but
Speaker 2: it was a different time, they grew up in a
Speaker 2: different way. And although we do understand now that it's
Speaker 2: not acceptable and we're trying to change it, we don't
Speaker 2: feel guilty because we didn't do anything wrong. We are
Speaker 2: not our grandparents. No.
Speaker 1: As a parent, my youngest being fourteen we had talked
Speaker 1: earlier about Amazon and what you could find on Amazon
Speaker 1: and the reality. So yeah, I just accept a certain reality,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't change the reality. Also, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: the income disparity and also the exclusion that comes along
Speaker 1: with all of this, So all these things being very important,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that both of you brought these up.