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

Beware for all the president’s men (and women)

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, White House' border czar' Tom Homan, and Attorney General Pam Bondi listen as President Donald Trump speaks before swearing in the new Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on March 24, 2026.

(AFP via Getty Images)

Beware for all the president’s men (and women)

If I were Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, I might start packing up my office at the Pentagon.

While President Trump is boasting about the so-called success of a war with Iran that has no clear mission nor end in sight, Americans are souring on it. Big time.

Keep ReadingShow less
Clarity Is Power: The Three Pillars That Keep the People in Charge
man in white robe holding a book statue
Photo by Caleb Fisher on Unsplash

Clarity Is Power: The Three Pillars That Keep the People in Charge

American democracy does not weaken all at once. It falters when citizens lose clarity about how power is being used in their name. Abraham Lincoln warned that “public sentiment is everything… without it, nothing can succeed.” When people understand what their leaders are doing, they can hold them accountable.

But when confusion takes hold, power shifts quietly, and the public’s ability to act begins to erode. Clarity enables citizens to participate fully in democratic life and shape a government that responds to them. Confusion is not harmless; it erodes the safeguards, public awareness, and civic action that make self‑government possible. Clarity strengthens all three pillars at once — it protects our constitutional safeguards, sharpens public awareness, and fuels civic action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a woman wearing black, modern spectacles Smart glasses and reality concept with futuristic screen

Apple’s upcoming AI-powered wearables highlight growing privacy risks as the right to record police faces increasing threats. The death of Alex Pretti raises urgent questions about surveillance, civil liberties, and accountability in the digital age.

Getty Images, aislan13

AI Wearables and the Rising Risk of Recording Police

Last month, Apple announced the development of three wearable smart devices, all equipped with built-in cameras. The company has its sights set on 2027 for the release of their new smart glasses, AI pendant, and AirPods with built-in camera, all of which will be AI-functional for users. As the market for wearable products offering smart-recording capabilities expands, so does the risk that comes with how users choose to use the technology.

In Minneapolis in January, Alex Pretti was killed after an encounter with federal agents while filming them with his phone. He was not a suspect in a crime. He was not interfering, but was doing what millions of Americans now instinctively do when they see state power in motion: witnessing.

Keep ReadingShow less