intheflow
intheflow's JournalLibrarian here. I'm going with: the book hasn't been banned.
It's been removed from required reading, but as far as I can see from the OP article, excerpts can still be taught (as they have in the past) and its not being removed from the school library. From another article, the age-inappropriateness content at issue is probably an account of a lynching early in the book. And, there actually are books (or parts of books) that are not appropriate for 7th graders in a public classroom situation. 7th grade in particular is prickly because at least a third of the kids are still emotionally immature for their ages.
Before you all jump on me, I'm not saying I agree with this decision. I read Helter Skelter in 6th grade, so I'm sure the majority of 7th graders in this Texas town could handle one horrific scene in an otherwise inspirational book. But this didn't come about in response to a parental request, or any MAGA assholes, it was reviewed by a panel of "teachers, principals and curriculum coordinators" as part of a regular review of teaching materials.
But okay, let's be true progressives and shit on public educators because - obviously, if they live in Texas, they must all be criminally insane and incompetent. 
I am sorely tired of the media predicting the R's will retake Congress.
It doesn't seem likely to me. If they're lucky, they will be able to hold on to what they have. But I'll bet much of TFG's base is not excited at the prospect of supporting a man who is now under multiple criminal investigations. Women are pissed at the SCOTUS Roe ruling. The J6 committee hearings will start up again before November. There's the hardcore 30-35% that will always have a hard-on for Trump/the Christofascist nation Trumpists are trying to establish, but there's reason to believe that many R's will not vote this election cycle because they hate this drama, they hate having their identities as Republicans be tarnished by the grifter, and they won't be able to bring themselves to vote D.
So I went to this wiki page and you've chosen a quote based on pre-Civil War case law.
Most of the rest of the Wikipedia page lists how the Federal Government has supported and strengthened interstate travel rights. Here are some other quotes from further down the page:
"The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler. 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler... was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[9] The Supreme Court began rejecting Wheeler's reasoning within a few years. Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.[2][3][10]"
and
"The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:
(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation)..."
and
"A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have significant implications for state attempts to limit abortion rights, ban or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, and enact anti-crime or consumer protection laws. It may even undermine current court-fashioned concepts of federalism.[15][16][17][18][19]"
----
All emphasis is mine, and God knows this SCOTUS wants to bring the country back to a pre-Civil War society. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a boatload of historical Constitutional and SCOTUS support FOR free and unfettered freedom of movement.
*Edited for dumb typos.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: Sweetlea
Home country: Planet Earth
Current location: Still Planet Earth, but may be in an AU.
Member since: Mon Aug 9, 2004, 01:39 PM
Number of posts: 28,509
