Re: Libraries won't stand up for First Amendment

On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:17:32 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:

On 2025-03-14 2:42 PM, suzeeq wrote:

On 3/14/2025 9:40 AM, Rhino wrote:

On 2025-03-14 12:15 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-03-14 2:19 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>

I went by the library a little after 4 pm. Its parking lot was
closed. The
street in front of the library was blocked off at the intersection
to the
north, and to the south between the library and village hall. There
were
four large public works trucks used to create the blockade, plus four
squad cars. I saw four police officers outside and one inside the
library.

>

I had a book to return, so I walked in. The west entrance was
closed amd
the book return bins were closed. The east entrance was open.

>

It finally dawned on me that Israelism was being shown, the
pro-Palestinian film made by two Jewish directors and sponsored by
several pro-Palestinian/anti-Netanyahu groups.

>

Last fall, they were opposed by Jewish groups that were either
pro-Netanyahu or didn't publicly object to Netanyahu. An 8,000 message
email campaign opposing the showing of this movie got its screening
cancelled at one library after it had been scheduled, and not
scheduled
at another library.

>

I asked both library staff and the cops but neither confirmed that
Israelism was to be screened.

>

The locked book bins? I'm guessing that's fear of pipe bombs.

>

I'm going to look into this further. Who ate the cost for security for
this event? Last fall, the library was slammed by the ACLU for
demanding
$3,000 for insurance and security costs to agree to re-schedule the
film. So who ate the cost of extra security?

>

It is my position that, even though the film was eventually screened,
the security burden is an unconstitutional abridgement of freedom
of the
press. Also, making the library appear to be closed despite being open
for business abridges freedom of the press too.

>

The First Amendment has no exception for fear of violence.

>

I called it in to Chicago Sun-Times and spoke to a reporter.

>

Good on you, Adam. I'm sure a part of your soul was screaming at the
thought of what the film was saying against Jews and Israel and in
favour of Hamas but you stuck to your rock-solid belief in the First
Amendment and acted to protect the filmmakers' (and library's) right to
show it.

>
The video is not pro-Hamas. I know of no serious Jewish groups that are
pro-Hamas.

>
Really? I saw a story yesterday about Jews flooding Trump Tower to
protest the detention/deportation of the Palestinian with the green
card, Mohammed Khalil, who was a prominent leader in campus protests.
I've also seen repeated assertions that (far left) Jewish students
have been active in the campus protests against Israel since Oct 7.

 
He's Palestinian, but that doesn't mean he's pro-Hamas/anit-Osrael.
 

The demonstrations seem to be awfully hostile to Israel and to Jews in
general....

And the White House said the demonstrators passed out pro Hamas propaganda.
Khalil claims he's just a mouthpiece to try and protect himsel from
repercussions.
 Some people prefer to keep their heads buried firmly in the sand.