Re: Libraries won't stand up for First Amendment

On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 04:34:41 -0800, NoBody wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 21:58:45 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com>  wrote:
>

Two suburban public libraries where I live discriminated against showing
the movie Israelism.
>
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2024/12/30/northbrook-highland-park-public-library-first-amendment-aclu-hecklers-veto
>
Its producers were two Jews whose views about Israel had changed, from
support to pro Palestinian. Mostly it's bren shown on college campuses
since it premiered in February 2023 (months before the October 7 2023
attack by Hamas) but it's now been distributed digitally by a Palestinian
company owned by the sister of fashion models Bella and Gigi Hadid,
becoming available to rent from various platforms since the end of
June 2024.
>
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-805145
>
The movie was supposed to be shown in one library in September 2024 but
cancelled because the library had demanded a $3,000 fee for security and
insurance. The library had received phone calls and email messages
demanding that the showing be cancelle.
>
And it was.
>
They then tried to show the movie at the other library which copied the
first library's demamds for security and insurance fees.
>
Both libraries heard from ACLU of Illinois pointing out the
unconstitutionality of charging fees based on the controversial nature
of political speech.
>
It sucks for the library because they'd have to eat the security and
insurance costs.
>
I've seen off-duty village police officers provide security for other
events at the library, like the local member of Congress's town hall
meeting as town halls have been disrupted elsewhere.
>
The library has a diversity equity an dinclusion 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.

>
First of all, the concept of a library is completely outdated in the
modern age and taxpayers should not be paying for them.

I read this as "the concept of liberty is completely outdated in the
modern age", as that's the sort of stuff 'smart people' like to say.

The concept of a library is a wonderful thing and the main
problem is there isn't enough of them and they don't have a
catalog large enough.

The public library is also a prime source of DVDs for
TV shows and movies, meaning that DVD and printed books
are *current* technology, not obsolete as I'd presume you
would say.

>
Secondly, libraries are not required to carry every book or show every
movie. BTW, when did libraries (which are supposed to be about books)
become "movie night". See my first point.

>
Lastly, if you demand that videoes that support terrorism be shown,
don't be shocked when you have to pay for extra security. It's kind
of a no brainer.

If they're showing movies glorifying Israel than they should
also show movies denouncing Israel. The right to denounce
Israel is a basic human right, that underlies all rights.