Substacks
South Carolina poised to impose draconian censorship regime on school libraries Judd Legum
On Tuesday, the South Carolina State Board of Education will impose a centralized and expansive censorship regime on every K-12 school library in the state. The new regulations could result in the banning of most classic works of literature from South Carolina schools — from The Canterbury Tales to Romeo and Juliet to Dracula. The rules were championed by South Carolina State Superintendent of Education Ellen Weaver, who is closely aligned with Moms for Liberty, a far-right advocacy group seeking to remove scores of books from school libraries.
The regulations restricting library books, which were first proposed by the State Board of Education in September 2023, would ban any instructional materials, including library books, that are not “Age and Developmentally Appropriate.” The term “Age and Developmentally Appropriate” is defined as “topics, messages, materials, and teaching methods suitable to particular ages or age groups of children and adolescents, based on developing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral capacity typical for the age or age group.” This definition is so broad and subjective that it could justify the removal of virtually any material.
Further, any library books (or other instructional materials) are automatically deemed “not ‘Age and Developmentally Appropriate’ for any age or age group of children if it includes descriptions or visual depictions of ‘sexual conduct,’ as that term is defined by Section 16-15-305(C)(1).” Critically, the regulations ban library books with any descriptions of “sexual conduct” whether or not those descriptions would be considered “obscene.” Under the South Carolina law, a library book is not considered obscene if it includes descriptions of “sexual conduct” if it has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” or if the book, taken as a whole, does not appeal to a “prurient interest in sex.” This means that classic texts that contain descriptions of sexual content, including The Bible and Ulysses, are not considered obscene.
The new South Carolina regulation refers only to Section 16-15-305(C)(1), which defines “sexual conduct” as “vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse, whether actual or simulated, normal or perverted,” “masturbation,” or “an act or condition that depicts actual or simulated touching, caressing, or fondling of, or other similar physical contact with, the covered or exposed genitals.” Starting tomorrow, any book that contains any descriptions of “sexual conduct” that meets that sweeping definition is required to be banned from South Carolina schools, regardless of whether it has literary merit or would be considered obscene.
Similar language in an Iowa law “resulted in mass book bans affecting classics, 20th-century masterpieces, books used in AP courses, and contemporary Young Adult novels.”
The enforcement of the new regulation is highly centralized. Any South Carolina parent with a child enrolled in a public K-12 school can challenge up to five books per month on the grounds that they contain descriptions of sexual content or are otherwise not age-appropriate. The school district board is then required to hold a public meeting within 90 days to consider the complaint. At the meeting, the school district board is required to announce whether or not it will remove the book. If the school district board decides not to remove the book, the parent can appeal to the South Carolina State Board of Education. After the State Board receives the appeal, it must publicly consider it no later than the second public meeting.
If the State Board decides that the book should be removed, that decision is binding not only on the school district where the complaint originated by all K-12 schools in South Carolina. Any school employee who fails to comply with the bans will be subject to discipline by the State Board. The State Board is empowered to impose any punishment, including termination, that it deems appropriate.
The regulations are opposed by over 400 authors, prominent book publishers, and free speech groups.
Moms for Liberty’s influence in South Carolina
Weaver is a close ally of Moms for Liberty, which has advocated across the country to remove books from school libraries. She appeared at the Moms for Liberty 2023 Joyful Warriors National Summit. “There is nothing more precious that God has created than the hearts and the minds of our young people,” Weaver said. “And that is what the radical woke left is after. Make no mistake: saving our country starts with saving our schools.”
Many of the books challenged by Moms for Liberty activists address racial or LGBTQ issues. Earlier this month, Weaver’s department announced it would “eliminate Advanced Placement African American Studies in [South Carolina] high schools.”
The South Carolina Association of School Librarians (SCASL) opposes Weaver’s efforts to impose a centralized censorship regime on school libraries. In response, Weaver wrote to the group and declared that “the South Carolina Department of Education will formally discontinue any partnerships with SCASL as an organization, effective immediately.” The SCASL has collaborated with the South Carolina Department of Education for over 50 years. Weaver said the move was punishment for suggesting her efforts to remove library books amounted to a “ban” or a “violation of educators’ intellectual freedom.”
Weaver’s regulation goes even further than other states with leaders who are aligned with Moms for Liberty. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) is a top ally of Moms for Liberty, and he has taken extensive steps to restrict school library books. But even in Florida, book challenges are handled at the school district level, and the law requires the removal of books that are considered obscene — not all books with any sexual content.
The $225/hour consultant
South Carolina’s new regulations were drafted by attorney Miles Coleman, an attorney and the president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society, a far-right legal organization. According to public records published by the South Carolina ACLU, Weaver personally requested a contract that paid Coleman $225 per hour to create and advocate for the regulations.
Coleman then appeared before the State Board to advocate for the regulations and claimed he had “no dog in the fight.”
Coleman told the Post & Courier in April that the regulations have “carveouts” for “materials with artistic or academic value.” But such language does not appear in the regulations or the statutory provisions referenced in the regulations.
The legislature stays on the sidelines
The South Carolina General Assembly has 120 days to review a proposed regulation. Typically, for a controversial regulation like the one proposed by the State Board of Education, the legislature would either hold a vote to approve or reject the regulation. Absent that, the legislature could freeze the regulation to give them more time to act. In this case, however, the legislature adjourned in May without considering the regulation at all. Therefore, the regulation is slated to go into effect automatically on June 25.
It’s unclear why the legislature failed to take action, but some South Carolina Republicans are calling on Weaver to withdraw the regulation to give the legislature more time. “Regulations proposed by agencies should go into effect only after being vetted by the legislature,” South Carolina Senator Tom Davis (R) said. “Superintendent Weaver should withdraw [the regulation] and resubmit it in January 2025.”
When Nellie asked me to fill in while she is off birthing a persons, I said yes but only on slow news weeks. She assured me that no news ever drops the first week of July and I’d be able to paste in a few of my favorite Mormon mommy TikTokers, write a sentence or two about Seattle’s annual Independence Day Flag Burning Parade, and then go soak my feet in the pool. She lied. It’s been a hell of a week, and Nellie said no takes backs, so I guess you’re stuck with me. Let’s go.
→ Will he or won’t he? The New York Times reports that Biden told an ally that he is weighing whether to continue in the race. What they don’t say is that ally is actually the nice Bulgarian woman who helps him into the shower. Either way, last week’s disaster of a debate continues to roil the Democratic Party, which is now tasked with trying to figure out who is the least terrible candidate: a historically unpopular VP or the guy who starts sundowning around noon. Or maybe somebody else?
The Dems are in a tough position. Biden’s most trusted advisers (read: Hunter) want him to stay in the race, but everyone else is desperately trying to think of someone, anyone, who can win against Trump while also sparing the old man’s feelings.
So far, most of the freakout is happening behind closed doors. Publicly, most Democrats are standing by their man—for now. Just three Dems in Congress have called on Biden to step aside. And, barring that chat with the ally, the president himself seems to be in full “I’m not quitting” mode.
Not that he has done anything this week to demonstrate his fitness for office. While the president laid low, his press secretary said that it was really just a cold, plus maybe a bit of jet lag. White House aides told Axios that the president is “dependably engaged” from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. In a meeting with concerned Democratic governors who flew in to check on the old guy at the top of the ballot, he said all he needs is to work less, sleep more, and be able to clock out after 8 p.m. In that same meeting, the president is reported to have said: “It’s just my brain.” This is supposed to reassure us? What’s even more troubling is that longtime friends of the Bidens told New York magazine’s Olivia Nuzzi that they were “shocked to find that the president did not remember their names.” Incoming statement from the White House: “Guys, it’s just face blindness.”
I get it: Biden is a beloved elder statesman, and no one wants to hurt the old man’s feelings. So just do what they did at the retirement home when my grandpa had dementia: tell him whatever he wants to hear. Good news, Mr. President, you won the election! We’ll get Gorbachev on the line for you right after dinner. More ice cream? It’s chocolate chip. Seriously, this works.
→ Or maybe it’s just the media? Nothing to see here, folks! Just when we thought the spell had been broken and most of the media was finally willing to report on what’s been happening before our very eyes, former Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, who is now advising the Biden campaign, claimed on MSNBC that the media is rigging this whole thing. In this case, the former mayor was referring to her hometown paper, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which published an editorial calling for Biden to exit stage left.
“Let me just say I was very disappointed with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,” Bottoms told Chris Jansing. “As we have talked about making sure we’re protecting elections and making sure there’s no undue influence, this was undue influence by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, or an attempt to influence.”
As Jansing pointed out, it’s an editorial board. Attempting to influence elections is their literal job. Then again, Bottoms is a political operative. Spin is her literal job too.
→ Speaking of spin: The New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn sent a note out to staff, congratulating everyone on their coverage of Biden’s age: “What I’ve seen and what our readers have experienced from our team is steadfast, fact-based reporting. . . . We have stayed on that story with every turn, always with nuance and context, through today’s outstanding report.”
See, now that a critical mass sees that Biden is plainly too old, we’ve shifted straight into revisionism. We’ve been telling you the truth the whole time. Except, in March, the Gray Lady was likening Biden’s age to just a new, later in life style—like Scorsese with The Irishman (s/o Jon Levine for re-upping this). And those videos of his many senior moments before the debate? Misleading! Bad faith! You aren’t watching an old man be old, they said. Those are deepfakes and cheapfakes.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the Associated Press offered up 2024’s answer to “mostly peaceful” riots:
→ KHive, assemble: Personally, I vote Al Franken as Biden’s replacement. He’s smart, funny, Midwestern, and he loves women. But Vegas has Kamala as the probable Democratic nominee. And I guess that makes sense, given that she’s the vice president and all. “It’s her party now,” read the banner headline on Drudge this past Wednesday.
Monday, July 1, was a busy day. That morning the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Donald J. Trump v. United States that gives the president absolute immunity for committing crimes while engaging in official acts. On the same day, Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon began a four-month sentence for contempt of Congress at a low-security federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut. Before he began serving his sentence, he swore he would “be more powerful in prison than I am now.”
“On July 2, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, went onto Bannon’s webcast War Room to hearten Bannon’s right-wing followers after Bannon’s incarceration. Former representative Dave Brat (R-VA) was sitting in for Bannon and conducted the interview.
“[W]e are going to win,” Roberts told them. “We’re in the process of taking this country back…. We ought to be really encouraged by what happened yesterday. And in spite of all of the injustice, which, of course, friends and audience of this show, of our friend Steve know, we are going to prevail.”
“That Supreme Court ruling yesterday on immunity is vital, and it’s vital for a lot of reasons,” Roberts said, adding that the nation needs a strong leader because “the radical left…has taken over our institutions.” “[W]e are in the process of the second American Revolution,” he said, “which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Roberts took over the presidency of the Heritage Foundation in 2021, and he shifted it from a conservative think tank to an organization devoted to “institutionalizing Trumpism.” Central to that project for Roberts has been working to bring the policies of Hungary’s president Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, to the United States.
In 2023, Roberts brought the Heritage Foundation into a formal partnership with Hungary’s Danube Institute, a think tank overseen by a foundation that is directly funded by the Hungarian government; as journalist Casey Michel reported, it is, “for all intents and purposes, a state-funded front for pushing pro-Orbán rhetoric.” The Danube Institute has given grants to far-right figures in the U.S., and, Michel noted in March, “we have no idea how much funding may be flowing directly from Orbán’s regime to the Heritage Foundation.” Roberts has called modern Hungary “not just a model for conservative statecraft but the model.”
Orbán has been open about his determination to overthrow the concept of western democracy and replace it with what he has, on different occasions, called “illiberal democracy” or “Christian democracy.” He wants to replace the multiculturalism at the heart of democracy with Christian culture, stop the immigration that he believes undermines Hungarian culture, and reject “adaptable family models” in favor of “the Christian family model.” He is moving Hungary away from the stabilizing international systems supported by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
No matter what he calls it, Orbán’s model is not democracy at all. As soon as he retook office in 2010, he began to establish control over the media, cracking down on those critical of his far-right political party, Fidesz, and rewarding those who toed the party line. In 2012 his supporters rewrote the country’s constitution to strengthen his hand, and extreme gerrymandering gave his party more power while changes to election rules benefited his campaigns. Increasingly, he used the power of the state to concentrate wealth among his cronies, and he reworked the country’s judicial system and civil service system to stack it with his loyalists, who attacked immigrants, women, and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. While Hungary still holds elections, state control of the media and the apparatus of voting means that it is impossible for the people of Hungary to remove him from power.
Trump supporters have long admired Orbán’s nationalism and centering of Christianity, while the fact that Hungary continues to have elections enables them to pretend that the country remains a democracy.
The tight cooperation between Heritage and Orbán illuminates Project 2025, the blueprint for a new kind of government dictated by Trump or a Trump-like figure. In January 2024, Roberts told Lulu Garcia-Navarro of the New York Times that Project 2025 was designed to jump-start a right-wing takeover of the government. “[T]he Trump administration, with the best of intentions, simply got a slow start,” Roberts said. “And Heritage and our allies in Project 2025 believe that must never be repeated.”
Project 2025 stands on four principles that it says the country must embrace: the U.S. must “[r]estore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children”; “[d]ismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people”; “[d]efend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats”; and “[s]ecure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’”
In almost 1,000 pages, the document explains what these policies mean for ordinary Americans. Restoring the family and protecting children means using “government power…to restore the American family.” That, the document says, means eliminating any words associated with sexual orientation or gender identity, gender, abortion, reproductive health, or reproductive rights from any government rule, regulation, or law. Any reference to transgenderism is “pornography” and must be banned.
The overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the right to abortion must be gratefully celebrated, the document says, but the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision accomplishing that end “is just the beginning.”
Dismantling the administrative state starts from the premise that “people are policy.” Frustrated because nonpartisan civil employees thwarted much of Trump’s agenda in his first term, the authors of Project 2025 call for firing much of the current government workforce—about 2 million people work for the U.S. government—and replacing it with loyalists who will carry out a right-wing president’s demands.
The plan asserts “the existential need” for an authoritarian leader to dismantle the current government that regulates business, provides a social safety net, and protects civil rights. Instead of the government Americans have built since 1933, the plan says the national government must “decentralize and privatize as much as possible” and leave “the great majority of domestic activities to state, local, and private governance.”
It attacks “America’s largest corporations, its public institutions, and its popular culture,” for their embrace of international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union and for their willingness to work with other countries. It calls for abandoning all of those partnerships and alliances.
Also on July 1, Orbán took over the rotating presidency of the European Union. He will be operating for six months in that position under a slogan taken from Trump and adapted to Europe: “Make Europe Great Again.” The day before taking that office, Orbán announced that his political party was forming a new alliance with far-right parties in Austria and the Czech Republic in order to launch a “new era of European politics.”
Tomorrow, Orbán will travel to Moscow to meet with Russian president Vladimir Putin. On July 2, Orbán met with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv, where he urged Zelensky to accept a “ceasefire.” In the U.S., Trump’s team has suggested that, if reelected, Trump will call for an immediate ceasefire and will negotiate with Putin over how much of Ukraine Putin can keep while also rejecting Ukraine for NATO membership and scaling back U.S. commitment to NATO.
“I would expect a very quick end to the conflict,” Kevin Roberts said. Putin says he supports Trump’s plan.
Roberts’s “second American revolution,” which would destroy American democracy in an echo of a small-time dictator like Orbán and align our country with authoritarian leaders, seems a lot less patriotic than the first American Revolution.
For my part, I will stand with the words written 248 years ago today, saying that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
—
Notes:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/steve-bannon-report-to-prison/index.html
https://newrepublic.com/article/179776/heritage-foundation-viktor-orban-trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/21/magazine/heritage-foundation-kevin-roberts.html
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-is-project-2025-and-why-is-it-alarming/
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-orban-visit-kyiv-ukraine-peace-putin-zelenskiy/33022024.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/europe/viktor-orban-visits-kyiv-intl/index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/02/nato-second-trump-term-00164517
Khrystyna Bondarieva, “Putin on Trump’s proposal to quickly end war in Ukraine: Russia supports it,” Ukrainska Pravda, July 4, 2024.
NEW – Biden says he will beat Trump “again in 2020.” @disclosetv
7 Events That Could Shift the Crypto Market Landscape in an Instant
The Federal Reserve, Custodia Bank, and the Battle over Sovereignty
This is What Happens When You Try to Report Dirty Cops
THE IRON-CLAD PIÑATA Seymour Hersh
The Russell Brand Rorschach Test Kathleen Stock
RARE VIDEO: 1987 DC Hearing – NBC Warns Against Removing Fairness Doctrine – Learn Why It Matters
WATCH: CSPAN Caller Call Out the Resending of the Smith-Mundt Act – Learn Why That’s IMPORTANT
WATCH: 1975 Church Comitee Hearings on the CIA Mockingbird Media
-
Awakening Video10 months agoThis is What Happens When You Try to Report Dirty Cops
-
Substacks4 months agoTHE IRON-CLAD PIÑATA Seymour Hersh
-
Substacks10 months agoThe Russell Brand Rorschach Test Kathleen Stock
-
Substacks10 months agoA real fact-check of Trump’s appearance on Meet the Press Judd Legum
-
Substacks8 months agoLetter to the Children of Gaza – Read by Eunice Wong Chris Hedges