By David Rice
UTurn in Education’s Logical Fallacies are legion as they attempt to explain why Sexually Explicit Materials belong in the Library. Their arguments support Government’s Control over Americans.
When debating library content policies, we often encounter several logical fallacies used to shut down community discussion. I have identified several fallacies in UTurn in Education’s Public Comments from Dr. Elizabeth Dudash-Buskirk. Understanding these fallacies can help us engage in public discourse and learn to ignore arguments that add little value to it.
Appeals to Authority Fallacies
The Supreme Court
"The Supreme Court decided this with the Miller Test."
"Legal experts have settled this matter."
Assumes court decisions are infallible and eternal
Ignores that courts regularly overturn precedents (like Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition modifying Miller)
I argued this before, but I will share it one more time. The Miller Test has been modified by the 2002 Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition. It made it legal to publish child porn as long as the images were hand-drawn or virtual. This created a boom in “legal” child porn that we now find in our libraries, curated by our librarians. It doesn’t make it right. It only makes it legal—and disgusting.
The Credentialed Expert
Using academic credentials (like a PhD) to lend weight to legal arguments
Implying expertise in one field transfers to expertise in constitutional law
Suggesting education trumps community standards is like stating the Director in Brave New World is always superior to John the Savage’s critiques. The irony of calling John a savage is that he’s not the savage. The director, with all their elitism and education, empowered by an oppressive world government, is the savage.
Appeals to Time and Tradition Fallacies
The Age
"The obscenity law has been in place since before I was born."
Suggesting longevity equals correctness
Using personal lifespan as a measure of legal validity
If this was a valid reason for a law, should we reinstitute Draconian Laws? Or what about the Rule of Thumb, where men could not beat their wives with a stick wider than their thumb (which was an improvement over beating them with a stick larger than their thumb at the time.) Old or new doesn’t guarantee the law is valid or good—you need more than tradition or novelty to determine the validity of a good law.
The Settled Law
The audience is left to assume her age, but let’s assume we've been using this standard for 50 years.
This implies older decisions are automatically better.
However, this ignores technological and societal changes.
Why should the Miller Test be valid considering the technological changes since it was first introduced in a Mail-Order world? The court which made this decision never imagined a world where porn could move around the world in seconds, much less days or weeks. The definition of community isn’t the tiny isolated hamlet it once was. Parents cannot fight against Sexually Explicit Materials that move faster than they can, and Publishers (which act as the gateway porn industry for young children) know that and count on it.
Circular Reasoning Fallacies
The Community Standards Loop
"It's acceptable because it's in the library."
"It's in the library because it's acceptable."
"The community accepts it because the Miller Test says they should."
The community isn’t allowed to decide whether they like it or not. The Library staff chose to buy the book without community input, and since the Publisher is permitted to publish, it is allowable for the Library staff to buy the book. The Community Standard of the Miller Test never even comes into play. There are no discussions about whether the Publisher should be allowed to publish it or not or if the government should change the law. Power is all there is, and the Marxists have it in abundance under this system.
The Legal Authority Loop
"It's acceptable because the Miller Test says so."
"The Miller Test says it's acceptable because communities accept it."
"Communities must accept it because it's legally acceptable."
Similar to the above loop. You cannot question this logic because we don’t want to admit its fragility. We don’t want you to realize that the communities might not accept it. We have determined that they do, despite all the people attending Library Board meetings nationwide fighting against these books. It’s not a problem; it’s a small group of radicals. Ignore the fact we are trying to use lawfare to sue into oblivion private citizens into silence. Ignore the fact we are using the power of the ALA and the ACLU to force our views onto the community and determine from the outside what the community’s standards should be.
False Equivalences Fallacy
The Legality Equals Morality
Equating legal permissibility with moral rightness
Treating court decisions as moral absolutes
Assuming what's legal is automatically good for the community
There is no obligation for someone to follow the law if it is morally reprehensible or if the law violates moral precepts. People must follow their conscience to do the higher good than the law allows. If one did not, one would never abolish slavery or fight against abortion. If we followed Dr. Dudash-Buskirk’s illogic, slavery would be forever institutionalized because the government was behind it. Women would never be allowed to vote under her logic. Nothing would change. It takes moral people to create change, and Dudash-Buskirk’s position is not ethical.
The Free Speech Absolutist Fallacy
Equating any content restriction with censorship
Ignoring community standards and local control
Treating all speech as equally protected
Free Speech, like all freedoms, has limits. It always has. There are limits to all of our rights when they begin to harm others—especially the innocent. Freedom of Religion has upper limits. I cannot sacrifice virgins to Apollo. I cannot use guns to murder. I cannot use speech to libel or slander. I cannot use my Free Speech rights to harm children with Sexually Explicit Material. All the research shows it harms children. There isn’t a single research article that shows something different.
False Dichotomies Fallacy
The Binary Choice
"Either accept Miller Test standards or oppose free speech."
"You're either for censorship or against it."
Ignoring nuanced positions between extremes
Only tyrants deal with absolutes. Only people who uphold systems of power want no compromises. Only when you refuse to see your position as fallible, do you think you can crush everyone else beneath you. Choosing Binary choices (ironic, ain’t it) shows a lack of really understanding the complexities of the situation and a desire to force your own beliefs on others.
The Expert
"Either you're a legal expert, or you can't understand this."
"Either accept professional librarians' decisions or be anti-library."
The lack of humility in this position is frustrating—more than frustrating. It demonstrates a desire to control and intimidate through ego. This fallacy states, “I know more than you do—more than you can hope to learn. You’re hopelessly out of your league, and you’ll never discover what I know. I’m far more brilliant than you.”
Creating false choices between extremes
Moving the Goalposts Fallacy
The Shifting Standards
Changing what constitutes "community standards" when challenged.
Adjusting the definition of "artistic value" to fit the desired outcome.
Redefining "prurient interest" based on convenience.
Because UTurn in Education refuses to have a standard, they can constantly move the goalpost about what is acceptable and what isn’t. They should be forced to admit what is too offensive and too obscene for children, and if they cannot answer, then they should not be considered serious public commenters. If they cannot determine if there is something that would be offensive to every family, then they have no standard at all, which means they don’t have any artistic value either.
The Evolving Definitions
Changing the meaning of "obscene" to protect certain content.
Shifting what counts as "educational material."
Altering interpretations of "age-appropriate"
As mentioned above, it is hard to understand what they mean. UTurn and its surrogates constantly change their definitions. They don’t say what they mean. They mean what they don’t say. Their words have no value. They want to use vague words they refuse to define to give the guise of import while communicating almost nothing.
Red Herrings Fallacy
The Constitutional Distraction
Shifting the discussion to broad free speech principles.
Avoiding specific community concerns.
Distracting from content issues with procedural arguments.
In her three-minute speech, she discussed concerns about attacks on her and UTurn. Dudash-Buskirk has, in the past, addressed concerns about Free Speech. She has tried to tie the hands of the board with procedural arguments. She refuses to deal with the concerns of the community.
The Censorship Panic
Raising specters of book burning
Comparing content concerns to historical censorship
Derailing discussion with extreme scenarios
Instead of accepting a reasonable approach, UTurn, on its website and in public discourse, speaks about the specter of Book Banning. They see any restriction on sharing Sexually Explicit Material with children as censorship equivalent to book banning or book burning. If you hold a Library Board Trustee responsible, you’re harassing them. Essentially, you’re not allowed to have a dissenting opinion. If you do, you’re the villain, and you must be described in the worst possible terms. These are ad hominem attacks, another fallacy. Look at my above article. I never call her names, insult her, or make ad hominem attacks against her character or her organization. I methodically examine her arguments and try to dismantle them one by one. Yet, there is no grace on their part to do the same.
Conclusion
Knowingly or unknowingly, when Dudash-Buskirk and UTurn in Education employ these fallacies, it does several harmful things to public discourse:
Shut down legitimate community discussion.
Prevent meaningful debate about content standards.
Protect institutional decisions from community oversight.
Maintain the status quo without proper scrutiny.
Replace community self-governance with institutional control.
Create systems resistant to democratic change.
Establish unaccountable "expert" authority.
Turn libraries from community institutions into ideological enforcers.
Reinforce tyrannical systems of oppression.
Attempts to scare people who don’t know how to argue against their fallacies from participating.
Understanding these fallacies helps communities:
1. Recognize invalid arguments
2. Respond effectively to dismissive tactics
3. Maintain focus on legitimate concerns
4. Engage in meaningful dialogue about community standards
The key is recognizing that community standards reflect actual community values, not institutional interpretations of decades-old legal tests. The Miller Test is invalid, immoral, and illogical.
UTurn’s insistence on staying married to it demonstrates that they have no arguments to make against these books because of logical fallacies. All they can say is, Government is good. Government approves Child Porn. Therefore Child Porn must be Good. If that argument works for you, then God help you.
If you prefer to hear logic, it would be best to ignore UTurn’s Public Comments until they learn to speak in the Public Interest.
Thank you, Dr. Dudash-Buskirk, for continuing to speak out and demonstrate your Free Speech rights. However, it is time to refine your public comments to actually add to the public discourse rather than to distract.
You can find Hick Christian HERE.
