隨著美國壓力團體的影響不斷擴大,英國圖書管理員越來越多地被要求下架圖書
Librarians in UK increasingly asked to remove books, as influence of US pressure groups spreads
譯文簡介
“誰來給JD萬斯打個電話!我肯定,鑒于他之前關(guān)于英國言論自由的聲明,他會想要站在保護這些書的可讀權(quán)一邊的?!薄缎l(wèi)報》報道。
正文翻譯
Librarians in UK increasingly asked to remove books, as influence of US pressure groups spreads
-Anecdotal evidence suggests a rise in requests to take books off shelves, particularly LGBTQ+ titles
隨著美國壓力團體的影響不斷擴大,英國圖書管理員越來越多地被要求下架圖書
——坊間證據(jù)顯示,圖書下架的請求有所增加,尤其是LGBTQ+類圖書
-Anecdotal evidence suggests a rise in requests to take books off shelves, particularly LGBTQ+ titles
隨著美國壓力團體的影響不斷擴大,英國圖書管理員越來越多地被要求下架圖書
——坊間證據(jù)顯示,圖書下架的請求有所增加,尤其是LGBTQ+類圖書

(Evidence suggests that the work of US action groups is reaching UK libraries.)
(有證據(jù)表明,美國行動團體的工作成果正在進入英國的圖書館。)
新聞:
Requests to remove books from library shelves are on the rise in the UK, as the influence of pressure groups behind book bans in the US crosses the Atlantic, according to those working in the sector.
圖書行業(yè)人士表示,隨著美國禁書活動背后的壓力團體的影響力跨越大西洋,要求英國圖書館下架圖書的請求數(shù)量正在上升。
圖書行業(yè)人士表示,隨著美國禁書活動背后的壓力團體的影響力跨越大西洋,要求英國圖書館下架圖書的請求數(shù)量正在上升。
Although “the situation here is nowhere [near] as bad, censorship does happen and there are some deeply worrying examples of library professionals losing their jobs and being trolled online for standing up for intellectual freedom on behalf of their users”, said Louis Coiffait-Gunn, CEO of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (Cilip).
英國特許圖書館與信息專業(yè)人員協(xié)會首席執(zhí)行官路易斯·科菲特-岡恩表示,雖然“這里的情況遠沒有那么糟糕,但審查制度確實存在,而且有一些令人深感擔(dān)憂的例子——圖書館專業(yè)人員因為代表用戶維護知識自由而失去工作,并在網(wǎng)上遭到騷擾?!?/b>
英國特許圖書館與信息專業(yè)人員協(xié)會首席執(zhí)行官路易斯·科菲特-岡恩表示,雖然“這里的情況遠沒有那么糟糕,但審查制度確實存在,而且有一些令人深感擔(dān)憂的例子——圖書館專業(yè)人員因為代表用戶維護知識自由而失去工作,并在網(wǎng)上遭到騷擾?!?/b>
Ed Jewell, president of Libraries Connected, an independent charity that represents public libraries, said: “Anecdotal evidence from our members suggests that requests to remove books are increasing.” The School Library Association (SLA) said this year has seen an “increase in member queries about censorship”.
代表公共圖書館利益的獨立慈善機構(gòu)“連接圖書館”的主席埃德·朱厄爾說:“來自我們成員的軼事證據(jù)表明,要求下架圖書的請求正在增加。”學(xué)校圖書館協(xié)會表示,今年“會員對審查制度的詢問有所增加”。
代表公共圖書館利益的獨立慈善機構(gòu)“連接圖書館”的主席埃德·朱厄爾說:“來自我們成員的軼事證據(jù)表明,要求下架圖書的請求正在增加。”學(xué)校圖書館協(xié)會表示,今年“會員對審查制度的詢問有所增加”。
Most of the UK challenges appear to come from individuals or small groups, unlike in the US, where 72% of demands to censor books last year were brought forward by organised groups, according to the American Library Association earlier this week.
英國遭遇的大多數(shù)挑戰(zhàn)似乎來自個人或小團體,不像美國,美國圖書館協(xié)會本周早些時候的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,去年有72%的圖書審查要求是由有組織的團體提出的。
英國遭遇的大多數(shù)挑戰(zhàn)似乎來自個人或小團體,不像美國,美國圖書館協(xié)會本周早些時候的數(shù)據(jù)顯示,去年有72%的圖書審查要求是由有組織的團體提出的。
However, evidence suggests that the work of US action groups is reaching UK libraries too. Alison Hicks, an associate professor in library and information studies at UCL, interviewed 10 UK-based school librarians who had experienced book challenges. One “spoke of finding propaganda from one of these groups left on her desk”, while another “was directly targeted by one of these groups”. Respondents “also spoke of being trolled by US pressure groups on social media, for example when responding to free book giveaways”.
然而,有證據(jù)表明,美國活動組織的工作也正在影響英國圖書館。倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院圖書館和信息研究副教授艾莉森·??怂共稍L了10位經(jīng)歷過圖書挑戰(zhàn)的英國學(xué)校圖書管理員。其中一人“談到在她的辦公桌上發(fā)現(xiàn)了其中一個組織的宣傳材料”,而另一人“直接成為其中一個組織的目標(biāo)”。受訪者“還談到在社交媒體上受到美國壓力團體的騷擾,比如在回應(yīng)免費贈送書籍時”。
然而,有證據(jù)表明,美國活動組織的工作也正在影響英國圖書館。倫敦大學(xué)學(xué)院圖書館和信息研究副教授艾莉森·??怂共稍L了10位經(jīng)歷過圖書挑戰(zhàn)的英國學(xué)校圖書管理員。其中一人“談到在她的辦公桌上發(fā)現(xiàn)了其中一個組織的宣傳材料”,而另一人“直接成為其中一個組織的目標(biāo)”。受訪者“還談到在社交媒體上受到美國壓力團體的騷擾,比如在回應(yīng)免費贈送書籍時”。
It is “certainly possible that the scale of censorship we’re seeing in the US will influence the debate over here”, said Jewell. However, the level of influence to date is far from clear, particularly because the nature of censorship requests in the UK seems to differ from those brought forward in the US.
朱厄爾說:“我們在美國看到的審查規(guī)模當(dāng)然有可能影響到這里的辯論。”然而,迄今為止的影響程度還遠不清楚,特別是因為英國審查要求的性質(zhì)似乎與美國提出的審查要求不同。
朱厄爾說:“我們在美國看到的審查規(guī)模當(dāng)然有可能影響到這里的辯論。”然而,迄今為止的影響程度還遠不清楚,特別是因為英國審查要求的性質(zhì)似乎與美國提出的審查要求不同。
Censorship by pupils in UK schools, including “vandalising library material, annotating library books with racist and homophobic slurs”, and damaging posters and displays was identified in Hicks’ study, which she wrote about in the spring issue of the SLA’s journal, The School Librarian. Such censorship “is not something I have seen in the US”, she said.
??怂沟难芯堪l(fā)現(xiàn),英國學(xué)校的學(xué)生進行審查,包括“破壞圖書館資料,在圖書館的書中注釋種族主義和恐同言論”,以及破壞海報和展覽。她在學(xué)校圖書館協(xié)會的雜志《學(xué)校圖書管理員》的春季刊上刊登了這篇研究文章。她表示,這種審查制度“我在美國從未見過”。
??怂沟难芯堪l(fā)現(xiàn),英國學(xué)校的學(xué)生進行審查,包括“破壞圖書館資料,在圖書館的書中注釋種族主義和恐同言論”,以及破壞海報和展覽。她在學(xué)校圖書館協(xié)會的雜志《學(xué)校圖書管理員》的春季刊上刊登了這篇研究文章。她表示,這種審查制度“我在美國從未見過”。
The types of books targeted may also differ. “Almost all the UK attacks reported in my study centred on LGBTQ+ materials, while US attacks appear to target material related to race, ethnicity and social justice as well as LGBTQ+ issues,” said Hicks.
針對的圖書類型也可能有所不同。??怂拐f:“在我的研究中,幾乎所有對英國的攻擊都集中在LGBTQ+材料上,而對美國的攻擊似乎都是針對與種族、民族、社會正義以及LGBTQ+問題有關(guān)的材料。”
針對的圖書類型也可能有所不同。??怂拐f:“在我的研究中,幾乎所有對英國的攻擊都集中在LGBTQ+材料上,而對美國的攻擊似乎都是針對與種族、民族、社會正義以及LGBTQ+問題有關(guān)的材料。”
While the study was small, the “LGBTQ focus of book challenges was undeniable”, wrote Hicks. Challenges were levelled against Alice Oseman’s Heartstopper series, about the love story of two British schoolboys, and “coded” narratives in books such as Billy’s Bravery by Tom Percival, about a boy who wants to dress up as his favourite superhero, Nature Girl.
??怂箤懙?,雖然這項研究規(guī)模很小,但“圖書挑戰(zhàn)對LGBTQ的關(guān)注是不可否認的”。愛麗絲·奧斯曼的《驚心動魄》系列小說講述了兩個英國男學(xué)生的愛情故事,湯姆·珀西瓦爾的《比利的勇敢》講述了一個男孩想打扮成他最喜歡的超級英雄“自然女孩”的故事。
??怂箤懙?,雖然這項研究規(guī)模很小,但“圖書挑戰(zhàn)對LGBTQ的關(guān)注是不可否認的”。愛麗絲·奧斯曼的《驚心動魄》系列小說講述了兩個英國男學(xué)生的愛情故事,湯姆·珀西瓦爾的《比利的勇敢》講述了一個男孩想打扮成他最喜歡的超級英雄“自然女孩”的故事。
This supports the findings of an Index on Censorship survey last year, in which 28 of 53 librarians polled reported that they had been asked to remove books from library shelves, many of which were LGBTQ+ titles. In more than half of those cases, books were taken off shelves.
這支持了去年一項審查指數(shù)調(diào)查的結(jié)果,在接受調(diào)查的53名圖書館員中,有28人報告說,他們被要求從圖書館書架上撤下書籍,其中許多是LGBTQ+的書。在半數(shù)以上的案例中,書被下架了。
這支持了去年一項審查指數(shù)調(diào)查的結(jié)果,在接受調(diào)查的53名圖書館員中,有28人報告說,他們被要求從圖書館書架上撤下書籍,其中許多是LGBTQ+的書。在半數(shù)以上的案例中,書被下架了。
However, a 2023 study by Cilip, which found that a third of UK librarians had been asked by members of the public to censor or remove books, did identify themes of race and empire as among the most targeted, along with LGBTQ+.
然而,英國特許圖書館與信息專業(yè)人員學(xué)會在2023年的一項研究發(fā)現(xiàn),三分之一的英國圖書館員曾被公眾要求審查或刪除書籍,并將種族和帝國主題列為最受攻擊的目標(biāo),還有LGBTQ+。
然而,英國特許圖書館與信息專業(yè)人員學(xué)會在2023年的一項研究發(fā)現(xiàn),三分之一的英國圖書館員曾被公眾要求審查或刪除書籍,并將種族和帝國主題列為最受攻擊的目標(biāo),還有LGBTQ+。
While there may be differences in how the challenges are playing out, “this should not take away from the huge impact these attacks are having” in the UK, said Hicks. “My research demonstrates that UK school librarians are facing equivalent levels of distress and hostility in the face of book ban challenges such as these.”
希克斯說,盡管這些挑戰(zhàn)如何發(fā)揮作用可能存在差異,但“這不應(yīng)抹掉這些攻擊在英國造成的巨大影響。我的研究表明,面對此類禁書挑戰(zhàn),英國學(xué)校圖書館員面臨著同等程度的痛苦和敵意?!?/b>
希克斯說,盡管這些挑戰(zhàn)如何發(fā)揮作用可能存在差異,但“這不應(yīng)抹掉這些攻擊在英國造成的巨大影響。我的研究表明,面對此類禁書挑戰(zhàn),英國學(xué)校圖書館員面臨著同等程度的痛苦和敵意?!?/b>
In the US, book banning measures have been enacted across a number of states in recent years. “Library leaders in the UK are paying close attention to what’s happening in the US and there’s definitely a strong feeling of solidarity with American librarians,” said Jewell. Coiffait-Gunn of Cilip added that the profession “l(fā)ooks on with deep concern at the increasingly polarised and political debate” in the US about “what people, especially children, are allowed to read”.
在美國,近年來許多州都頒布了禁書措施。朱厄爾說:“英國圖書館的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們正密切關(guān)注著美國正在發(fā)生的事情,他們與美國圖書館員們絕對有一種強烈的團結(jié)感?!?英國特許圖書館與信息專業(yè)人員學(xué)會的科菲特-岡恩補充說,該行業(yè)“深切關(guān)注美國關(guān)于人們,尤其是兒童,被允許閱讀什么的日益兩極分化的政治辯論”。
在美國,近年來許多州都頒布了禁書措施。朱厄爾說:“英國圖書館的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們正密切關(guān)注著美國正在發(fā)生的事情,他們與美國圖書館員們絕對有一種強烈的團結(jié)感?!?英國特許圖書館與信息專業(yè)人員學(xué)會的科菲特-岡恩補充說,該行業(yè)“深切關(guān)注美國關(guān)于人們,尤其是兒童,被允許閱讀什么的日益兩極分化的政治辯論”。
One cause for concern in the UK is the “l(fā)ack of robust evidence” about how widespread censorship is, said Coiffait-Gunn. “It’s hard to evidence what doesn’t happen and which books are not available.” The government does not tally how many school libraries or librarians there are, “l(fā)et alone track book bans”.
科菲特-岡恩說,英國擔(dān)心的一個原因是“缺乏強有力的證據(jù)”證明審查有多普遍?!昂茈y證明什么沒有發(fā)生,哪些書沒有。”政府沒有統(tǒng)計有多少學(xué)校圖書館或圖書管理員,“更不用說追蹤圖書禁令了”。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
科菲特-岡恩說,英國擔(dān)心的一個原因是“缺乏強有力的證據(jù)”證明審查有多普遍?!昂茈y證明什么沒有發(fā)生,哪些書沒有。”政府沒有統(tǒng)計有多少學(xué)校圖書館或圖書管理員,“更不用說追蹤圖書禁令了”。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Most UK libraries follow the Cilip ethical frxwork, which states that published materials should not be restricted on any grounds but the law, said Jewell. “That gives them the confidence and assurance to reject demands” for censorship.
朱厄爾說,大多數(shù)英國圖書館都遵循英國特許圖書館與信息專業(yè)人員學(xué)會道德框架,該框架規(guī)定,除了法律之外,出版材料不應(yīng)受到任何理由的限制?!斑@給了他們拒絕審查要求的信心和保證”。
朱厄爾說,大多數(shù)英國圖書館都遵循英國特許圖書館與信息專業(yè)人員學(xué)會道德框架,該框架規(guī)定,除了法律之外,出版材料不應(yīng)受到任何理由的限制?!斑@給了他們拒絕審查要求的信心和保證”。
“What we must guard against is a climate where libraries avoid stocking certain books – or holding talks or activities – for fear of negative publicity, threats or intimidation,” he added. “It’s vital that libraries feel able to provide access to a wide range of perspectives if they are to facilitate the free exchange of ideas.”
他補充說:“我們必須警惕的是,圖書館因為害怕負面宣傳、威脅或恐嚇而避免儲存某些書籍——或舉行講座或活動。如果圖書館想要促進思想的自由交流,那么讓它們覺得能夠提供廣泛的視角是至關(guān)重要的。”
他補充說:“我們必須警惕的是,圖書館因為害怕負面宣傳、威脅或恐嚇而避免儲存某些書籍——或舉行講座或活動。如果圖書館想要促進思想的自由交流,那么讓它們覺得能夠提供廣泛的視角是至關(guān)重要的。”
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
Not content with fucking up their own country Americans are trying to fuck up others too.
美國人不滿足于搞砸自己的國家,還試圖搞砸別人的國家。
Of course people have the right to request for certain books to be removed from library shelves.
Just as libraries have the right to tell these people to get fucked.
Banning books due to subject matter, or because they contain words that may challenge modern sensibilities, is always wrong.
當(dāng)然,人們有權(quán)要求將某些書從圖書館的書架上撤下。
就像圖書館有權(quán)對這些人說滾蛋。
因為題材,或者因為其中包含可能挑戰(zhàn)現(xiàn)代情感的詞語而禁止書籍,總是錯誤的做法。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
the LGBTQ obsession is crazy, having more openly gay people does not mean you have more gay people, just less living in fear/shame.
nobody is turning anybody gay, you are attracted to who you are attracted to, society and culture can make slight differences about a niche type that you may like or not, but watching a film or reading a book, is not going to turn you gay or a gay person straight
對LGBTQ的癡迷是瘋狂的,有更多公開的同性戀并不意味著有數(shù)量更多的同性戀,只是他們更少的生活在恐懼/羞恥中了。
沒有人會讓任何人變成同性戀,你會被你喜歡的人所吸引,社會和文化可能會對你喜歡或不喜歡的小眾類型產(chǎn)生細微的差異,但看一部電影或讀一本書,不會讓你變成同性戀,或讓同性戀變成異性戀
I find this so funny. Like, ask any straight person to decide to be gay for a day and they can't. Because it's not a choice. It's just so self-evidently not a choice that it's bizarre to me that anyone has convinced themselves it is.
我覺得這很搞笑。比如,讓任何一個異性戀者決定當(dāng)一天同性戀,他們都做不到。因為這不是一個選項。這如此不言自明的不是一個選項,以至于有人說服自己這(讓同性戀轉(zhuǎn)變成異性戀)是一個選項讓我覺得很奇怪。
Half the religious people who obsess over it are in the closet themselves. Deep down they are gay and are angry that they can't just openly be gay so they want nobody else to be gay either.
有一半癡迷于此的宗教人士自己都躲在壁櫥里。在內(nèi)心深處,他們是同性戀,他們對自己不能公開成為同性戀感到憤怒,所以他們也不想讓別人成為同性戀。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Stop trying to use rational thought with religious people. Its a waste of your time.
If they had the patience to analyse and make rational decisions they wouldn't be they people they are in the first place.
不要試圖對宗教人士進行理性思考。這是浪費你的時間。
如果他們有耐心分析并做出理性的決定,他們就不會成為現(xiàn)在這樣的人。
Turns out, kicking out a bunch of religious zealots to their own new land to discover and run was not the best long-term idea.
事實證明,把一群宗教狂熱分子踢到他們自己的新土地上去探索和經(jīng)營并不是最好的長期想法。
We really need to do more to protect our libraries in this country. If it's not government cuts then it's lunatic conservatives and far too many people just don't give a fuck. No wonder we are increasingly seeing kids turning up at school who don't know how to use a book.
我們真的需要做更多的事情來保護我們國家的圖書館。要么是政府削減開支,要么是瘋狂的保守派,并且太多的人根本不在乎。難怪我們越來越多地看到學(xué)校里的孩子不知道如何使用一本書。
I'm a librarian, public libraries are past the point of return unless local governments are told to spend a specific percentage on maintaining them. Across the whole country we've seen, what once were, pillars of the community fall into disrepair, operate increasingly underfunded and understaffed and dumped into 'charities' that are chronically underfunded themselves.
I recently visited a local public library and although the building exterior is beautiful, Victorian and impressive. Walking in felt like walking into an abandoned building with a dead interior, all whitewashed, crappy hand-written notes on the walls to tell people what to do or not do, and what I can only describe as a book-stock older and frankly more disgusting than that in most charity-shops.
It's no wonder folks don't use libraries anymore.
(Oh, and yes, it can be completely different, for evidence of how to do it, hop over to my native Netherlands and walk into any public library to see what keeping up with investment means for libraries)
我是一名圖書管理員,公共圖書館已經(jīng)過時了,除非地方政府被告知要花一定比例的錢來維護它們。在全國范圍內(nèi),我們看到,曾經(jīng)的社區(qū)支柱年久失修,越來越缺乏資金和人手,并被投入長期資金不足的“慈善機構(gòu)”。
我最近參觀了當(dāng)?shù)氐囊患夜矆D書館,雖然建筑外觀很漂亮,維多利亞式的,令人印象深刻。但走進去的感覺就像走進了一棟內(nèi)部死氣熏天的廢棄建筑,墻上都是被粉刷過的,蹩腳的手寫便條,告訴人們該做什么不該做什么,我只能用一種比大多數(shù)慈善商店更舊、更惡心的圖書庫存處來形容。
難怪人們不再使用圖書館了。
(哦,是的,它可以是完全不同的,要想知道如何做到這一點,就去我的祖國荷蘭,走進任何一家公共圖書館,看看資金到位對圖書館意味著什么。)
I wish there was a way to remove these US pressure groups from interfering in this country with their anti-everything that isn’t maga.
我希望有一種方法可以消除這些反對一切MAGA之外的東西的美國壓力集團對這個國家的干涉。
One way is that anybody complaining must be from the catchment area for that library and must make the request in person. Anyone making such a petition should be able to demonstrate why the book is obxtionable.
一種方法是,任何投訴的人都必須來自該圖書館的服務(wù)區(qū)內(nèi),并且必須親自提出要求。任何提出這種請愿的人都應(yīng)該能夠證明這本書為什么令人反感。
From the article it seems that libraries don’t have to remove books as long as they don’t violate UK law. What seems to be the problem is the pressure and intimidation librarians are facing to kow tow, some ‘losing’ their jobs according to this article. But it’s not clear if this is voluntary or forced. Either way it’s unacceptable.
從這篇報道看來,只要不違反英國法律,圖書館就不必下架圖書。問題似乎出在圖書館員面臨的壓力和恐嚇,根據(jù)這篇報道,一些管理員“失去”了工作。但不清楚這是自愿的還是被迫的。不管怎樣,這都是不可接受的。
The way to remove them is to just not listen to them or engage with them. If everyone did that they would have no power.
The weakness of this country is that people will put up with all kinds of bullshit and even roll over for people that are dangerous because "I don't want to be rude".
消除他的們方法就是不聽他們的,也不與他們接觸。如果每個人都這樣做,他們就沒有力量了。
這個國家的弱點是,人們會忍受各種各樣的扯淡,甚至?xí)驗椤拔也幌氪拄敗倍鴮ξkU的人置之不理。
Also I think we are a pretty tolerant country and that tolerance is exploited by these groups. But I don’t think ignoring them is a choice. They have an agenda, are incredibly rich and powerful, and are backed by the current US administration and increasingly by Conservative groups here.
而且我認為我們是一個相當(dāng)寬容的國家,這些團體利用了這種寬容。但我不認為無視他們是一種選擇。他們有自己的議程,非常富有和強大,并且得到了現(xiàn)任美國政府的支持,越來越多地得到了這里的保守黨團體的支持。
Any US wanker, who demands that books promoting people’s right to free speech and gender identity be removed from public access in England, deserves a kick in the balls and a demand to fuck off.
They have no right demanding to limit the resources of the LBGT+ community simply because of their own bigotry.
任何美國的混蛋,如果要求在英國把促進人們言論自由和性別認同的書籍從公眾視野中移除,就應(yīng)該被踢一腳,然后被要求滾蛋。
他們沒有權(quán)利僅僅因為自己的偏執(zhí)就要求限制LBGT+團體的資源。
Will pantomime dames be next?
LGBT people exist and banning books about them is never going to change that. Kids also need to learn that because they are going to see them out and about, some will be LGBT themselves, some will even be being raised by LGBT people (or have family members who are LGBT). You also are never going to put LGBT people back into the societal closet without a huge pushback from them, their loved ones and society in general.
If you want to hate LGBT people, that is your choice. You cannot shape society to your whim based upon a text that the majority of people now no longer subscribe to and use outdated in modern society.
下一個會是反串童話劇女主角嗎?
LGBT人群是存在的,禁止關(guān)于他們的書永遠不會改變這一點。孩子們也需要知道,因為他們會看到他們外出,有些人自己就是LGBT,有些人甚至是由LGBT人士撫養(yǎng)長大的(或者有家庭成員是LGBT)。如果沒有他們、他們的親人和整個社會的強烈反對,你也不會永遠堅持不把LGBT人群放回社會的壁櫥里。
如果你想憎恨LGBT人群,那是你的選擇。你不能根據(jù)一篇大多數(shù)人都不再認同和使用的文章來隨心所欲地塑造社會,這在現(xiàn)代社會已經(jīng)過時了。
So is anything actually going to be done about these anti-free speech, anti-abortion and anti-everything American freaks meddling in our country? Or is Starmer just going to keep accepting it?
那么,對于這些反言論自由、反墮胎和反一切的美國怪胎干涉我們的國家,我們真的會采取什么措施嗎?還是斯塔默會繼續(xù)接受現(xiàn)狀?
Someone get JD Vance on the phone! Surely given his previous statements about free speech in the UK he'll want to weigh in on the side of protecting access to these books.
誰來給JD萬斯打個電話!我肯定,鑒于他之前關(guān)于英國言論自由的聲明,他會想要站在保護這些書的可讀權(quán)一邊的。