Andrew Sullivan Getting a Tad Shrill?Here he doesn't even
check his facts, or perhaps he just blurs a line?
DOES GLENN KNOW ABOUT THIS? Banning new books in public libraries that feature any gay characters or are written by gay authors?Except when you go to the
linked article, it's not about "public libraries", but "public school libraries". Not that Sully is alone on this; the linked article's author says:
A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.
And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.Except that's not the case. Indeed, reading a bit further:
Allen originally wanted to ban even some Shakespeare. After criticism, he narrowed his bill to exempt the classics, although he still can't define what a classic is. Also exempted now Alabama's public and college libraries.Seems to be a verb or a colon missing in that last sentence, but I read it to indicate that it doesn't apply to college libraries or public libraries. So what we are really talking about is whether books with gay authors or characters should be allowed in high school and elementary school libraries. And I think that's a debate worth having. My thought is that the orientation of the author shouldn't be an issue, but the orientation of the characters, especially in elementary school libraries, might be worthy of debate. And certainly it should be done on a case-by-case basis. The writer brings up "The Color Purple" which should NOT be given to elementary school students.
But Andrew Sullivan isn't looking for a debate, he's looking for evidence of a theocracy. The article is very muddy on the chances that Allen's bill will pass (I suspect it won't). But of course Andrew wants to judge Republicans on what one legislator in one state has proposed.
