NJ Dems Call for Ban on Coulter Book


Anonymous Patron writes "Two New Jersey Assemblywomen, Joan M. Quigley and Linda Stender, issued a press release asking "to ban the sale of [Ann Coulter's] book throughout the state."

Read the press release."


The Assembly members themselves are confused about the difference between a ban and a boycott. Reading the press release itself, it is clear they are calling for a boycott, but their own press office gave it the headline:


I'm happy to see that no one here (as of this writing) supports either a ban or boycott of the latest Coulter book. I hope that gets noted the next time someone is tempted to write a "librarians hate free speech" entry on their blog.

For the record, I also oppose any restrictions on sales. I hope that the people who do buy or borrow this book (and I hope borrow from their library) will compare Ms. Coulter's tone of argument with what are portrayed as the "fruits of the flesh" versus the "fruits of the spirit" as listed in Galatians 5:19-23usccb.org>:

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

And draw their own conclusions.

I think the record shows that I'm NOT a Coulter fan, but the instances that Rude Pundit records don't look like plagerism to me. They look like restatements of facts from single sentences. It would be nice if she cited her sources, but many authors do not.

Would I be plagerizing the Census Bureau if I said there are 298,968,638 in America without mentioning them?

To me, plagerism would require a longer descriptive or opinion-based passage that wasn't sourced. Like if she lifted a few paragraphs from Laura Ingraham or Michelle Malkin about why liberals are they are.

So, even though I don't appreciate Ms. Coulter's style, I don't think she can be justly accused of plagerism from these examples. But I'm willing to consider others.

As far as the Rude Pundit himself/herself is concerned, the Pundit's writing are even more full of the hateful invective I've come to associate with Ms. Coulter. Neither writer has a ghost of a chance of influencing anyone outside their respective choirs with rhetoric like that. We need more dialog and fewer flames.

Liberals are so humorless.

It wasn't liberals who were screaming hysterically about Steve Colbert's hilarious send up of President Chimp.

Did you even read the press release? They aren't drafting some law to ban the book or challenging it in court. They are asking retailers not to sell it, basically asking them to boycott it.

You can't beat the Rude Pundit. He's fantastic.

Author Coulter, Ann H.
Title Godless : the church of liberalism / Ann Coulter.
Publication info. New York : Crown Forum, c2006.
Edition 1st ed.

Click on the following to:
Publisher description

32 holds on first copy returned of 6 copies

Location  Call No.  Status
  ACTON/New Books   320.51 C855           IN TRANSIT +1 HOLD
  DOVER/New Books   320.5 COU           Out
  NATICK/New Books   320.513/C855G           IN PROCESSING
  NORWOOD/New Books   320.513 Coulter (MCN)           Out
  SUDBURY/Adult   ON ORDER           ON ORDER
  WESTON/New Books   320.513/Coulter           Out

1 copy ordered for BEDFORD on 06-02-2006.
1 copy being processed for CAMBRIDGE/COLLINS/Adult.
1 copy ordered for MAYNARD on 04-27-2006.
1 copy being processed for NATICK/New Books.
1 copy ordered for NEWTON on 06-09-2006.
1 copy being processed for NORWOOD/Adult.
1 copy ordered for WATERTOWN/AV/New on 05-27-2006.
1 copy being processed for WESTON.

Description 310 p. ; 25 cm.
Bibliography Includes bibliographical references (p. [283]-301) and index.
Subject Liberalism -- United States.
United States -- Politics and government -- 1989-
ISBN 1400054206
Standard no. 9781400054206

I didn't use misunderestimate in a posting. Look up a few inches and you can see swift-boated was used.

Oh, and thanks for noticing. I have the 3-11 shift today for the Trust. Want to see my Mensa membership card?

Most of the libraries around here have the book marked "ON ORDER" "ACQUISITIONS" or some such unavailability. Why doesn't my library have it yet when I can get it tomorrow from Amazon?

The book is #1 at Amazon. In America all publicity is good publicity.

And "misunderestimate" isn't a word. What's your point?

Geez, one comment on a lack of humor in liberals and another on semantics. I see the conservative brain trust is on duty.

You're crossing the line there, Assemblypeople. Take your heads out of your asses and understand that the answer to free speech is more free speech, not less. You are perfectly at liberty to point out that Coulter's book is vile hatemongering and even to ask people to boycott it. You have no more place trying to ban a book, any book, than anybody else does. If Coulter's insane ravings are not protected speech, then her victims can sue her for libel. But that's up to them.

Even I'm not going to buy it (she repeats herself a lot - her books could get the point across in 1/2 the time is she kept on message.), but I don't suggest that others not sell it.

I don't like broccoli but I don't suggest the stores stop selling it.

I certainly makes me think the legislators are arseholes. I think they accomplished their task.

Swift-boat is not a verb. There was an interesting piece in the current National Review about that. I doubt you get that at home though.

By all means, please explain the humor in what Coulter wrote? What exactly is funny about it?

Liberals are so humorless.

Evil Woman.

Ann Coulter and her ilk make me almost physically ill with their hypocracy and viciousness. 9/11 victims and the military are treated as almost venerated saints, as long as they toe the conservative Republican line. Should they choose otherwise, they are quickly lambasted and "swift-boated". Anyone who defended the Republicans who mocked wounded military personnel with their purple-heart bandaids or who defends Ann Coulter and her hateful attack on 9/11 widows has no love for this country, regardless of what they claim. All they care about is winning (because that's all politics is to them, a game) at any cost. Attack and destroy any opposition.

Ann Coulter knows how to hit a nerve. Cheers Ann! You speak I listen. Others can't seem to have a rational discussion about your ideas. How they hate to look in the mirror you create.

As Anonymous says: The politicians did NOT call for a ban; they suggested to booksellers that they not stock the book. The piece gets it wrong.

But also as Anonymous says, it's a dumb idea for politicians to argue that any book shouldn't be sold, no matter how vicious it is. (Coulter sure is a piece of work, though.)

If you read closely they're not advocating banning the book, but having retailers boycott it. They're not suggesting any legal measures or enforcement. Of course, having politicans advocating such behavior is perhaps not all that different from a ban.
A bad idea, and one that is likely to backfire politically anyway.

And this accomplishes what, now? Nothing. All it does, ultimately, is give Ann Coulter even more publicity, something she already has in spades, and sells more books for her.