Re: Libraries won't stand up for First Amendment

On 2025-03-14 1:45 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> 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.

 I guess they can be considered to be a group. I wasn't counting them as
serious or thoughtful. Even Jews can be morons.
 

Of course.

. . ,

 

The video was produced before the attack by Hamas.

 

I thought perhaps this was the documentary recently aired by the BBC
which became very controversial when it emerged that the children
depicted had Hamas leaders as parents but that one was apparently shot
during the current unpleasantness in Gaza.

 The two directors of Israelism are Jewish. Its distribution was funded
by fashion models Gigi and Bella Hadid, actually Americans but claim to
be Palestinians as that's where their father was born. It's nothing to
do with BBC. I don't think the sisters paid for production costs.
 

I've heard of them but I don't think I've seen either of them in anything.

It's about how miserable life is in the West Bank for Palestinians. I
have no objection to its production. I'm sure it's all full of political
spin and intended to be manipulative. It may even be good propaganda.

 

Any such documentary is surely designed to change minds. So I take it
you didn't actually see the film?

 No, and it's unlikely that I'm going to as I disapprove of the politics
of those helping to distribute and screen the video.
 My opinion isn't relevant. Other people may watch it if they like.
 

You're exactly right. You don't have to *approve* of what other people say, just defend their right to say it.

I have my own opinion on the West Bank and do not need to defend nor
criticize the government of Israel. It doesn't bother me at all that
there is criticism of Israel. Plenty of people believe falsehoods, but
that's on them.

 

That's what's important about liberty. No one need ask my permission for
what to say, write, or think. That puts the responsibility upon them for
what they believe, where it belongs.

 

Very well said!

 Thanks
 

Your very principled stands on free speech actually help me restrain
myself (to some extent) when I hear of very disturbing things said by
"activists" of one kind or another. There are things that *really* piss
me off but your stands help remind me that I ultimately believe in free
speech too, even if I am repulsed by some of the things said. As long as
I live in a society where I can refute the nonsense, things aren't too bad.

 "Shall we shoot them?"
-- Fiona
>

A Burn Notice reference! Very cool!

Oops. I don't really believe that. Liberty for all!

But don't try killing me or we're going to have a problem....
--
Rhino