Authors Rally Against So-Called Book Banning, Mum on Woke Censorship

The American Library Association and the Association of American Publishers have finally taken a stand against the woke mind virus that has led to both self-censorship and censoring classic literature.

Just kidding.

The groups are celebrating the 70th anniversary of a Freedom to Read Statement created during the Blacklist panic of the 1950s. That mattered given how powerful government players, specifically Sen. Joseph McCarthy, tried to make holding far-Left political views a crime.

Sen. McCarthy’s attempt to flush out U.S.-based Communists represents a dark chapter in American history, even if elements of that threat proved genuine.

We’re facing a similar threat today, the groups suggest.

“Today, as we grapple with a new wave of censorship in schools, libraries, and bookstores targeting a wide range of expression, including fiction and nonfiction, the Freedom to Read Statement remains an important defense of the freedom to write, publish and inquire.”

That joint statement hails from Tracie D. Hall, Executive Director of the American Library Association; Allison K Hill, CEO of the American Booksellers Association; Maria A. Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers; and Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild.

Have these august bodies weighed in on the Biden administration’s censorial tactics, weaponizing social media to prevent Americans for debating the biggest issues of our age? Or how platforms like YouTube prevent respectable presidential candidates like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. from speaking their minds for all to consider?

What about publishing houses eager to “update” classic novels from Roald Dahl, Ian Fleming and Agatha Christie to remove “problematic” passages?

Any comments on attempts to edit classic films like the nip and tucks applied to 1971’s “The French Connection?”

The silence remains deafening. Plus, many of the “book banning” accusations pertain to sexually explicit books that most adults know are wildly inappropriate for school libraries.

And it gets worse.

Authors have been mostly silent on modern censorship issues. Literary giants like Joyce Carol Oates and Stephen King weigh in on many topics via social media but rarely, if ever, address an issue that speaks directly to their craft.

Both literary lions are in their golden years (King is 75, Oates is 85) and their work may be “updated,” too, after they pass. What if a 20-something “sensitivity reader” decides the homophobic villains of King’s “It” are too triggering for future readers?

Does King care about his legacy? Or does he fear the woke mob more? We may already know that answer given the way he backpedaled over the need to judge merit over diversity three years ago.

Yet “hundreds” of authors signed the 70th anniversary document decree, including recognizable names like Carl Hiassen ("Strip Tease") and X. Ibram Kendi ("Anti-Racist Baby"). Are those authors critical of the other, less popular kinds of censorship we’re experiencing today? If so, have they spoken up about it in any way that matters?

Kendi is a one-man woke army and likely cheers on the rise of sensitivity readers.

It’s politically expedient to support the 70-year document for liberal authors since it attempts to portray conservatives as the key threat to speech in the modern era.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives, by and large, stand on the front lines of today’s free speech battles, with old-school liberals like Rob Schneider, John Cleese and Ricky Gervais by their side.

One of the author signees has stood tall on the free speech issue for decades. He’s even put his life on the line, literally, to defend speech.

Salman Rushdie faced an Iranian-fueled “fatwa” in 1989 after the release of his novel “The Satanic Verses.” Rushdie lived under a constant threat of attack for decades before the issue seemed to fade away.

Sadly, a Muslim extremist physically assaulted the author last year, leaving Rushdie with several permanent injuries including the loss of vision in one eye.

Still, Rushdie swiftly slammed sensitivity readers in no uncertain terms, and his signage here must be taken in good faith.