@Violet Rose in The Rain
Morally-speaking, only the Holocaust and any such deliberate atrocity on any exactly similar scale should be warranted as being exempt from “impartial” discussion.
The reason is simple: save for those exceptions I mentioned, avoiding impartial discussion under any circumstances can put dissemination and depiction of historical topics at risk of being warped into borderline propaganda, with absolutely no uncompromising effort into always placing factual objectivity first and foremost (this isn’t something that only people on the right side of the political spectrum do, by the way).
It definitely will be used to prevent people from teaching about structural racism, because the existence of structural racism, at least on a national level, is explicitly listed as a divisive concept.
Depends on how you and others who promote the concept of ‘structural racism’ as being something that actually does still exist on a severe or significant enough level, today, define the term.
Also, there’s this:
Anything that is unconstitutional should absolutely be taken before the Supreme Court (even in the state that it appears to be in, now). No exceptions.
Other than that, I’m not too familiar of the details behind this situation.
And as for the fascism aspect, I don’t see anything really convincing as to how the more crazy and unfit senator and representatives of the GOP make up the entire party, whereas the likes of the Nazi Party and other fascist organizations have always been comprised of absolutely nothing but total crazies from day one of their existence (to act like that is the case is to completely ignore the overall state of the party as it existed and evolved throughout its entire history, since 1861).