When Information Delivery Is Condemned
While reflecting on the process of the midterm elections, I felt the need for a distraction as numerous other people evidently do. I glanced over the news feed. A most recent controversy caught my attention – the key words being the name Kyrie Andrew Irving and “antisemitism”.
Amazon has been enabling the purchase of the bestseller documentary and book, titled “Hebrews to Negroes: Wake Up Black America” – the same information that Kyrie Andrew Irving has shared, and has been accused of “promoting false accusations” about Jews since his words came under the radar of activists and lobbyists.
If anyone could make sense of this inquisition of Mr. Irving, please explain via reason and accurate referencing. While you are at it, do justify – by providing a rational discussion – how his act of information delivery goes against freedom of speech.
As a Liberal Arts professor and researcher in the U.S. over 40 years, I resorted to a multitude of reference materials throughout my academic career – some of those instructional materials were controversial; others, not. My teachings as well as scholarly activities were completed by the book; that is, within the rules, regulations and policies of the higher education institutions where I have served with honor. In sum, delivering referenced information has never been anything to frown down upon. Quite the contrary, it was applauded indirectly for the vast educational contribution to critical thinking and analyses. So, I ask: Why is a thinking individual such as Kyrie Andrew Irving being condemned publicly for bringing a legally (and broadly) sold documentary and book? Could the reason possibly be lying within his skin hue?
hülya n. yılmaz, 10.11.2022
hülyaswritings 