Latest news with #MomsForLiberty
Fox News
7 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Joy Reid confronted by Piers Morgan over blog scandal in explosive interview
Former MSNBC host Joy Reid was blindsided by Piers Morgan's questions about whether she wrote the series of homophobic posts that were unearthed from her old blog in 2018, in a contentious interview published Thursday. "Now you're not at MSNBC," Morgan asked. "Now you're on your own doing your own thing, and you don't have to worry about repercussions and stuff. Are you prepared to finally come clean and just admit that was your blog and you did say those things?" "You know, Piers, I might have known that you would use this opportunity and interview and that this was your purpose, right?" Reid began. "This is your purpose and that's fine. This is your show, and you can do whatever you like. You know, I could sit here and go on and on and fight with you about your strange, weird obsession with Megan Markle, but I won't do that because that would be rude." "Happy to, if you want to!" Morgan interjected. "We can do that as well," Reid remarked. Reid insisted that someone she didn't know had access to her site for years but that she was "willing to take responsibility for anything that was on that site." "Did you say those things?" Morgan interrupted. "Not to my—" Reid began. "Come on ,Joy, you said them. You know you did," Morgan said as the two began talking over each other. "The reason that you are trying to go here is that you are trying to defend the idea that Moms for Liberty and these other organizations can take books that are not pornography—" Reid said. "No, no, I'm just trying to see whether you like to hold people to account," Morgan said. "And I held myself to account—" Reid argued. "I'm just trying to ask you questions about you being held to account," Morgan finished. Reid continued to apologize for everything on the blog, without clarifying if she wrote the comments, and returned to criticizing the Moms for Liberty political group for targeting controversial LGBTQ-themed books in schools. Morgan disagreed with Reid's comments on Moms for Liberty and returned again to the topic of Reid's controversial blog posts. He pointed out that despite her support for the LGBTQ community, her blog posts had a very different message. "I'm talking about you posting on your blog that you wouldn't watch 'Brokeback Mountain' because you don't want to see two male characters having sex," Morgan said. "'Does that make me homophobic? Probably. Most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing.' Your words, not mine, Joy." "And your point is?" Reid said. "That maybe that makes you a bit of a hypocrite when you're taking the position of being an ally for the LGBTQ community," Morgan said. "And actually the best way to handle it, I would argue, is just to say, 'You know what? Actually, I did write that at the time. They're not my views now. I've learned. I've evolved. I've moved on.' Trying to pretend even now that you didn't write it is preposterous. And I think you know that." Reid reiterated that she takes full responsibility for everything on the site and felt "deeply apologetic" for the things that hurt people. She added that her views are clearly different from what was written in the past blog posts. After claiming in 2018, when her blog's old posts resurfaced, that the site had been hacked, Reid eventually admitted that could not be substantiated, and said, "The person I am now is not the person I was then." Reid apologized but, while taking responsibility for the content, she repeatedly suggested she was not the actual author of some of the offending posts. At the time, Reid was not formally reprimanded by MSNBC. The progressive network rallied behind her, saying the posts are "not reflective of the colleague and friend we have known at MSNBC for the past seven years. Joy has apologized publicly and privately and said she has grown and evolved in the many years since, and we know this to be true." Reid was fired by MSNBC earlier this year.
Globe and Mail
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Ira Wells, who literally wrote the book on book bans, shares his thoughts on the politics of censorship
Typically, the library is a place to access a breadth of resources and ideas, to sit in the present and behold the past. Well, not for public school students of Peel Region, just north of Toronto. In 2023, working within a framework of anti-racism and inclusion, librarian educators removed thousands of books from the shelves, including most titles first published more than 15 years ago. Meanwhile, in Florida, ultra-conservative Christian parents' rights organizations such as Moms For Liberty have been taking over school board meetings to demand the expulsion of 'harmful' literature, by which they mean books like the award-winning YA novel The Hate You Give, inspired by the Black Lives Matter Movement, or Tango Makes Three, a picture book based on the true story of two male penguins who pair-bonded in New York's Central Park Zoo. Alberta to ban books deemed sexually explicit from school libraries As Ira Wells, a professor at the University of Toronto and the author of On Book Banning, points out, the effects of censorship are the same regardless of the particular politics of the censor. Neither kids in Peel Region nor Florida can find Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye on the shelves, to give but one example. Wells recently spoke with the Globe about the past, present, and future of book banning. Early in On Book Banning, you introduce a bipartisan value that you call the 'Censorship Consensus.' What does that mean? In many parts of the U.S., but in Florida in particular, parents were and are essentially pushing to get LGBTQ books off the shelves. And they are framing this as a matter of harm, of the books harming their kids. Their solution is book-banning. Progressive educators in the Peel District School board here in Ontario conducted these equity-based processes that involved reviewing library books for various harmful qualities, such as racism, obviously, but also eurocentrism, heteronormativity, and cisgender normativity. And their solution, at least in the Peel region, was to ban such books. Opinion: When we remove books from schools or libraries, we prune the landscapes of children's imaginations We have these two polar opposite groups, the Canadian progressives and the religious fundamentalists in Florida, but they're both banning books. They're both framing the library as a field of contagion where we need to save the children from the harm that they will experience through books. That symmetry struck me as notable. Reading books is not the popular pastime it once was. So why is the removal of physical books from library spaces such a ground zero for censorship? I think it has something to do with restoring a semblance of control to people who are feeling threatened for different reasons. In Florida, I think that parents are anxious about the fact that they cannot control what their children are accessing on TikTok. And so, despite the fact that their children are, statistically, certainly not spending nearly as much time reading as they are on their cell phones, it gives them a semblance of control. In the book, I say that it's a version of symbolic violence. It's a way of signaling to members of their own community what they would remove from the society itself. You invoke Enlightenment thinkers, particularly John Stuart Mill, and European predecessors like John Milton to argue against book banning. Do you feel that the European humanists are particularly relevant today, where our society is so pluralistic and with the prevalence of social media? That you should allow or encourage someone to engage in speech that you may find personally offensive or disagreeable is a counterintuitive idea. It doesn't come to us very easily. It's not a given that children would want to hear opposing views. We have to be educated into that. So I think it's worth returning to some of the original points where this idea came from. Milton's innovation is essentially that we recognize ethical categories not only by what they are, but what they're not. And it has some application here, in the sense that, if you were to purge the library of everything that you disagreed with, then you would be left with what Milton calls an 'excremental whiteness,' or enforced purity, a false virtue. When students can't make a 'wrong' choice, in what sense are they being virtuous at all when you're just forcing them to have these views? Ultimately we want to encourage others to express their views so that we can figure out what we ourselves actually think. What we think must be thought through in opposition to the best arguments on the other side. The censor's urge is usually couched in language of protecting society, especially, children, from language or ideas that constitute 'harm.' Did your research, and the many interviews you conducted for the book, ever lead you to figure out what precisely constitutes harm, when it comes to books? The religious fundamentalists have one idea of harm— 'LGBTQ indoctrination,' and what they call critical race theory, which is a caricature and a bogeyman of what critical race theory actually is. Basically, anything that they find upsetting constitutes harm. On the other hand, the Ontario progressive educators will explicitly tell you that classics are harmful because they're Eurocentric, they're colonialist, they privilege heteronormativity and so on. My argument is that conceiving of literature in this way, as primarily a site of contagion that needs to be censored, in fact becomes the source of harm. They are harming students by depriving them of information and stories that might have given their life value. It harms by severing our children from history, presenting a very sanitized version of the world. It teaches students that when you confront an upsetting view, the answer is to silence and censor. And it encourages students to think of themselves as fragile receptacles of harmful material. It's demeaning to students; it takes a very dim view of what they're capable of. Let me affirm that I am very much in favour of diverse libraries and feel that every student should see themselves reflected on the shelves. The way to do that is to build, is to add. Culling the libraries and removing scores of 'old' books is really misguided. And it's also incredibly paternalistic. There's a racist heritage to the notion that classics — Socrates, Shakespeare, and so on — belong only to the white, upper-class men who can sit around and engage with with that stuff. W.E.B. Du Bois called that out over 100 years ago. I think there's a long history of that racism that is inadvertently replicated when educators claim that students are only interested in reading texts that reflect their own exact social identities back to them. Children read for all kinds of reasons – all kinds of imaginative reasons. What's one thing parents can do to protect and nurture their children's intellectual freedom? Listen to your children and be attentive to what excites them and what engages them. And nurture that. Don't try and force your children into a politically motivated way of engaging with literature. We are not going to save the world through forcing our children to read certain kinds of books; books are more than just levers of social engineering.
The Independent
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NYC school board members with ties to right-wing Moms for Liberty ousted in local election
School board members in Manhattan with ties to the conservative parent group Moms for Liberty were not re-elected to their local education council, according to results announced Monday. Those knocked off the panel included Community Education Council 2 member Maud Maron, who brought a federal lawsuit against the New York City Education Department to regain her seat after a former schools chancellor removed her for misconduct. Maron stirred controversy last year for sponsoring a resolution condemned by LGBTQ+ advocates as anti-transgender student athletes. In a statement to the Daily News, Marone said many parents have started voting — not just during the election, but with their feet — and leaving a school district that, as she sees it, is lowering academic standards. 'More social justice activism in lieu of an academic focus will accelerate that trend,' said Maron, who was one of two CEC 2 members to speak at a Moms for Liberty forum in Jan. 2024. Democratic politicians decried the event, and neither member secured enough votes to return to the education council. Nearly 1,400 parents applied this cycle — a 24% increase — for seats on Community and Citywide Education Councils, which serve as New York City's school boards in a public school system controlled by the mayor, according to Education Department data. There are 32 geographic councils and four citywide panels, which focus on certain students: English language learners, children with disabilities and high schoolers. 'Our schools continue to thrive because of committed parent leadership,' Schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos said in a statement. 'The [Community and Citywide Education Councils] elections show just how deeply we value parent voices to shape our schools and build a stronger, more inclusive system for all our students. We are committed to giving our elected parent leaders the support and tools they need to lead effectively.' But greater interest in serving on the councils didn't translate into any improvement in voter turnout, which remained abysmally low. This year, fewer than 18,200 parents cast ballots in a school system of close to 1 million children — a 4% decrease in participation since the last election cycle in 2023, the data showed. While the panels are often limited in what they can do, they help shape the conversation around hot-button education debates, such as how schools should respond to Israel's war in Gaza or transgender student athletes. Last cycle, the local education advocacy group Parent Leaders for Accelerated Curriculum and Education, or PLACE, captured a significant foothold on the councils, launching a debate over whether the city was experiencing a backlash to progressive education policies. PLACE advocates for more Gifted & Talented programs and the use of a single exam for admissions to specialized high schools. PLACE-endorsed candidates will make up 31% of elected seats, down several percentage points from the last election, according to the group's tallies. This election, PLACE declined to endorse Maron, a co-founder of the organization, who is separately running for Manhattan district attorney as a Republican. 'It's an honor to have received the most votes for an individual candidate in the entire city,' Craig Slutzkin, the current president of Community Education Council 2, said in a PLACE press release Monday. 'I believe this a reflection of parents' desire for rigorous, quality education for all kids throughout the city, something I have been fighting for over the past two years.' CEC 2 — which oversees a sprawling district from Lower Manhattan to the Upper East Side, while omitting some neighborhoods such as the East Village — became the site of sustained protests since The News broke the story last spring of plans to urge the chancellor to revisit the city's inclusive policy on transgender girls' participation in school sports. The ensuing turmoil sparked organized efforts to oust the resolution's backers. CEC 2 saw more than double the number of applicants than in 2023, according to Education Department data. Erin Khar, a parent leader on the P.S. 41 Greenwich Village School PTA, said she was encouraged to run by other education advocates, and made her final decision to apply after President Trump's inauguration and the onslaught of new federal policies that came with his re-election. 'I realized that while I don't have control of things over a federal level, I do have influence and control over what happens in New York City,' said Khar, who hopes to help rescind the transgender sports resolution. 'I absolutely believe we'll be able to do it with the new makeup of the council with a message to the trans kids … The message to them is we will protect them — that the protections that already exist within the DOE will be upheld, and we're going to ensure that.' Council members serve two-year terms beginning on July 1.
CBS News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Baltimore teacher says in lawsuit she was falsely accused of making social media threats
A Baltimore teacher is suing Republican delegates, members of Moms for Liberty, and a right-wing social media account for defamation of character after she was accused of making online threats. Former Baltimore County Spanish teacher Alexa Sciuto said last summer she questioned local Moms for Liberty leader Kit Hart about the meaning of the word "woke" at a conservative parenting summit, which Sciuto was protesting. Sciuto posted a video of the exchange on her TikTok. "I think it got 600,000 views on my platform," Sciuto said. After the video went viral, Sciuto posted a picture of Hart with the caption, "Officer, I swear I didn't mean to murder her," which she said was rhetorical. Lawsuit names state lawmakers, Moms for Liberty members Baltimore County Republican delegates Lauren Arikan, Robin Grammer, Ryan Nawrocki, and Kathy Szeliga wrote a letter to the superintendent of Baltimore County Public Schools saying Sciuto made a death threat to Hart and called for her to be fired. "I did not think that what I said could possibly be interpreted as a threat," Sciuto said. Sciuto resigned from Baltimore County schools in May 2024. Her lawsuit, filed in Baltimore County circuit court, states that members of Moms for Liberty have been falsely claiming she was fired. Sciuto is suing the four delegates who wrote the letter, two local leaders of Moms for Liberty, including Kit Hart, and the owner of a right-wing social media account. She's seeking damages for reputational harm, emotional distress, and loss of future earnings. "People still believe that I was fired, and I was not; they believe that I was asked to resign, and I was not. Worst of all, they think that happened because I made a criminal threat and I did not," Sciuto said. "So, to be taking action and to be speaking for myself after all of that is different and it's good and I'm ready." The defendants named in the lawsuit have yet to respond to WJZ's request for comment.
