Florida Governor, Legislature is motivating students to learn things they are censoring from schools

[lees1975]

https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-best-way-to-make-sure-i-learn-about.html

Censorship invites investigation. And in a free society, there are always detours around the prohibitions and restrictions.

I think we are about to see just how creative a group of teachers and college professors can be in helping their students have access to all kinds of ideas as the censorship of the state government motivates the curiosity of those who will now be looking to learn all about what their governor doesn't want them to know. Educators in America have done an outstanding job of finding ways to exercise their academic freedom. We've already seen some examples of this.

As conservatives complained that CRT was being promoted by schools and colleges, it really didn't have anywhere near that kind of coverage or promotion. But now, even as states like Virginia and Florida have restricted any kind of instruction their small minded legislatures and governors deem "woke", CRT is coming to the forefront of the media, being explained by experts, discussed in all kinds of forums and people are realizing that it is not the bugaboo the extremists make it out to be. It's not a Marxist plot for taking over the country, it's a theory that is the product of the conditions of the society that produced it. And as it gets more exposure, even though it has been banned from schools, those who are using it as a political bombshell lose credibility because of their false presentation of it.

[BOSSHOG]

1. More evidence that conservative values are cancerous

Those who oppose CRT oppose the truth.

I’m a veteran. I’m an old white guy. Fuck you desantis.

It’s impossible for any entity to “lose credibility” when they have none to start with.

[usonian]

2. Banning books in the internet age isn't going to work.

Don't want to get into a technical argument over things that are only speculation, but there's always a way around content blocking. And there's the first amendment, since the internet crosses state lines. Questions? Ask EFF and ACLU.

They know better than I do, anyway!

More to your point: "The Streisand Effect"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The Streisand effect is the way in which attempts to hide, remove, or censor information can lead to the unintended consequence of increasing awareness of that information. It is named after American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress the California Coastal Records Project's photograph of her cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California coastal erosion, inadvertently drew greater attention to the photograph in 2003.

Attempts to suppress information are often made through cease-and-desist letters, but instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity, as well as media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, which can be mirrored on the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks. In addition, seeking or obtaining an injunction to prohibit something from being published or remove something that is already published can lead to increased publicity of the published work.

The Streisand effect is an example of psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, they are significantly more motivated to access and spread that information.

History and etymology

In 2003, American singer and actress Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million for violation of privacy. The lawsuit sought to remove "Image 3850", an aerial photograph in which Streisand's mansion was visible, from the publicly available California Coastal Records Project of 12,000 California coastline photographs, documenting coastal erosion and intended to influence government policymakers.The lawsuit was dismissed and Streisand was ordered to pay Adelman's $177,000 legal fees.

"Image 3850" had been downloaded only six times prior to Streisand's lawsuit; two of those being by Streisand's attorneys.Public awareness of the case led to more than 420,000 people visiting the site over the following month.

Two years later, Mike Masnick of Techdirt named the effect after the Streisand incident when writing about Marco Beach Ocean Resort's takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of urinals) over its use of the resort's name.

How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don't like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let's call it the Streisand Effect.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0

Erosion? Must be worth viewing after the recent storms!