Re: Libraries won't stand up for First Amendment

On 1/3/2025 12:42 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:25:59 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

 

The library has a diversity equity and inclusion statement about all
being welcome painted on a prominent wall near one of the entrances, but
it seems they don't mean it.

 

Just to be clear, mime: Just because I had no interest in seeing the
movie myself doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to see it.

 

If the $3k fee is legitimate, rather than a "poison pill" of
discouragement, the ACLU's constitutionality charge is bogus.

 

Would the argument be legit if the library had demanded $300k?

 moviePig is standing up for the censors, as always.
 The news reports did not state that those demanding that the movie not be
shown had made threats. There was just fear of potential violence based
on the political nature of the speech.
 moviePig actually understands why this is government censorship and
therefore unconstitutional. He just hates liberty.

The question (for a reasonable unbiased arbiter) is whether that "fear of potential violence" is both extraordinary and justified ...as the mere claim of having a "political nature" doesn't invoke a free ride.