The Dangerous Legal Strategy Coming for Our Books
Posted5 months agoActive5 months ago
theatlantic.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
80/100
Book BansCensorshipLgbtq+ Rights
Key topics
Book Bans
Censorship
Lgbtq+ Rights
The Atlantic article discusses a legal strategy to ban books in public schools, sparking a heated discussion on censorship and LGBTQ+ representation.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
N/A
Peak period
5
0-3h
Avg / period
2
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Aug 20, 2025 at 1:37 PM EDT
5 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Aug 20, 2025 at 1:37 PM EDT
0s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
5 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Aug 22, 2025 at 1:01 PM EDT
5 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 44964095Type: storyLast synced: 11/18/2025, 1:45:23 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
What would be an honest total price, for the IP rights to the (say) 3 dozen books which the Legions of Censorship most wants to remove from America's libraries?
Why aren't Anti-Censorship Heroes busy raising that sum, so that they can make all those books freely available on the web? Thus foiling the evil plan. Or, did The Atlantic just forget to mention that effort?
(Yes, my sense is that 99% of the folks on either side of this issue are motivated by ideological posturing and zeal for combat. Not by book availability.)
> how about if we address the problem ... which wouldn't cost anything?
This is not a Philosophy 487 essay, where clever arguments about "should" have the power to determine your, um, er - your essay grade.
Reality is that they already have a great deal of power, and are gaining more.
Could you explain your idea for "addressing the problem at the source ... which won't cost anything"? I'm concerned that that's just a "if all the Supreme Court Justices suddenly decided to do the Right Thing..." daydream.
Democracy did not come to exist because our rulers graciously granted it, but because the people demanded it and fought for it. Our current abandonment of democracy is not happening because the rulers have so much power, but because we the people continuously grant them power through our own inaction. A broad-based political movement could successfully halt the slide toward fascism and restore democracy.
I am sure many people will dismiss this idea as naive. I would ask them to consider two possibilities: (1) Maybe the perception that political action is futile is not a rational judgment based on facts, but a cultural prejudice based on a fashion for cynicism. (2) A widespread perception that political action is futile is a necessary condition for authoritarian government. People who believe that political action produces practical results are more likely to engage in political activity that restrains the power of elites.
And even if everything works out exactly as you're hoping - it'll be years before you manage to put a book in any kid's hands.
The threat against libraries is just one part of a broader threat against all freedom of thought, speech, and criticism of the government in the United States. The key issue is not just the one question of whether children have access to books (although that is very important); the key issue is that the government has no right, authority, or business trying to control what is said and thought.
I love how you write "ideals" as if it's a dirty word. In a general political crisis like the current moment, ideals really do matter. You can't fight an authoritarian government unless you're willing to stick your neck out, and people only stick their necks out when they believe that principles are more important than their immediate self-interest. The whole purpose of an authoritarian government is to silence opposition through threats and bribes. If you don't believe that some principles are more important than possible losses and gains, you're always going to be vulnerable to being victimized by authoritarian government. This has concrete, practical results -- idealists can win because they take action; cynics will always lose because they won't act. In a time like this, cynicism is not the smart play.