Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Observing the right to freely read

Observing the right to freely read
Getty Images

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" (Abingdon Press, 2017) and vice president of the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

Last week marked Banned Books Week (October 1-7, 2023).


The essence of the week represents a shared responsibility to preserve democratic values and oppose efforts to hinder knowledge. It is an observance that exposes citizens to the information and autonomy necessary to formulate their viewpoints and make well-informed decisions, reinforcing the building blocks of a functioning democracy.

Banned Books Week invites reflection on the problem of prohibiting books that have resurfaced in our country. A critical examination of the banning movement reveals an effort fueled by a minute fringe group antithetical towards BIPOC+ (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color+) and LGBTI+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex+) writers, readers, and themes. The act of book banning contradicts our First Amendment rights -- the freedom to abstain and engage with texts as individuals choose.

One must recognize books' integral role when reflecting on history. They impart knowledge, broaden perspectives, and foster critical thinking. Literature transcends geographical boundaries and cultural differences, enabling a deeper understanding of ourselves and those around us.

It is essential to examine why certain groups are advocating for book bans. Historically speaking and still relevant today, banned books often contain content deemed controversial or threatening to specific segments of society. Defenders of book bans often use fear-based tactics with language such as "protecting children" or "preserving values" to maintain their version of order and morality without considering diverse perspectives on sensitive issues.

Even more alarming is how this banning movement disproportionately targets BIPOC+ and LGBTI+ writers and narratives. In turn, it undermines the much-needed representation these communities deserve. As a society that champions diversity and inclusion, we must ensure that marginalized voices are heard rather than silenced.

The First Amendment is the cultural cornerstone of the values of freedom of speech and expression. Inherent in that right is our ability to choose what we read without unnecessary restrictions imposed upon us by others. A request that encompasses acknowledging and defending the freedom of others to abstain from engaging with particular works if they so choose.

While parents and educators must regularly make decisions based on the moral principles they follow, they should also be aware of the societal consequences of suffocating diverse perspectives in literature. Engaging in open conversations regarding sensitive subjects breeds empathy rather than perpetuating discriminatory misconceptions.

Book banning is an assault on the First Amendment and intellectual inquiry. It is a dangerous precedent that threatens individual thought and diminishes our shared cultural expression, which makes us united in our differences. Last week's observance is a respectful act of resistance in opposition to censorship and responsible expression of civic participation.


Read More

Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, and Donald Trump Finally Agree on a Major Voting Rights Issue
Image: IVN staff

Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, and Donald Trump Finally Agree on a Major Voting Rights Issue

If you asked Gavin Newsom, Ben Shapiro, or Donald Trump whether they put voters first, all three would say yes.

They would say it confidently.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Retaliatory prosecutions and political score-settling mark a grave threat to the rule of law, constitutional rights, and democratic accountability.

Getty Images, sommart

White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government

The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.

The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing it with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crumpled dollar bills, two coins, a wallet, book, glasses, and home phone on a table.

A new economic study shows tariffs are paid overwhelmingly by American consumers, exposing trade policy as a hidden domestic tax.

Getty Images, David Harrigan

The Tariff Receipt Americans Can No Longer Afford

For years, the American public has been told that tariffs are a sophisticated form of tribute, a way to extract wealth from foreign adversaries while shielding the domestic worker. It is a seductive narrative, painted in the bold strokes of nationalistic pride. But as a rigorous new study from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy confirms, the reality is far less heroic. The bill for these trade barriers is not being mailed to Beijing, New Delhi, or Brussels. It is being delivered, with startling efficiency, to the kitchen tables of the American family.

The findings are as clear as they are sobering. After analyzing more than 25 million shipment records totaling nearly 4 trillion dollars, researchers found that American importers and consumers have shouldered 96 percent of the cost of recent tariffs. Foreign exporters, by contrast, have felt a mere 4 percent of the sting. Despite the robust rhetoric emanating from the White House, the data suggests that tariffs function not as a foreign levy but as a domestic consumption tax. The government may have collected 200 billion dollars in customs revenue in 2025, but that money was extracted almost entirely from the pockets of the people it was ostensibly meant to protect.

Keep ReadingShow less