When Librarians Are Silenced
nybooks.com
nybooks.com
I've noticed that no matter their personal political affiliations, they're generally extremely against any sort of censorship at all.
Most I've talked to believe that there are no bad ideas, and that if you ban ideas or books, more people will tend to want to read them.
Studies and real life incidents prove this to be true.
;-)
He was hired and acting under the orders of the Library's staff.
Though the Library is 'owned by the government' - it is not 'public property' - for example, you can't do or say anything you want, as you could on the sidewalk.
Though it seems one of the Library's staff was interceding on behalf of the accused - the cop (effectively acting as a cop - and he's hired to do security, so let's not refer to this as some 'random cop who was off duty and saw something) was acting in the interest of the Library - it's up to them who to eject and who not to.
I think the real question here is was the cop acting on his own initiative or at the best of the people that hired him.
If the Library's staff wanted the man out, then it's likely their issue.
If the cop was kicking some guy out wherein his employers wanted the person to stay - well then that's just weird.
But if a authorized security person for a private engagement asks you to leave - you definitely have to leave, and any kerfluffle you start is your escalation.
It seems that the library is intent on pressing charges? Did I read that correctly? In which case the cop was obviously acting on their regard, and perfectly within his right to eject someone.
I think that this guy's beef should be with the Library, not the cop, if that is indeed the case.
That one of the people with criminal charges is an employee of the library who tried to get the guard to stop assaulting a member of the public:
> Both the librarian and the patron face criminal charges.
That the guard had ignored their instructions about not interfering with people who pose no risk of harm to the other guests:
> According to the library, as part of the agreement nobody was to be prevented from asking a controversial question and the security team would consult with library officials before ejecting any nonviolent patrons.
That the question asker had offered to leave if asked?
> Rothe-Kushel can be heard saying, “Ask me to leave [and] I will leave.”
and so on.
I mean, this ...
> When he bounced out of the chair onto the floor, the guards forced him back into the chair, and handcuffed him.
... is a criminal offence in England.
No, it's not, it's not a criminal offence anywhere in the Western world for security guards to do such a thing.
I read the article - I didn't miss those quotes.
I think you are missing something important:
* charges laid *
Meaning that there are legal charges against those two - indicating they had possibly done something illegal.
While I agree it's 'confusing' that one of the library staff, for whom the security guard may have ostensibly been working - implored the guard to 'not kick the man out' - I don't this resolves the question.
"as part of the agreement nobody was to be prevented from asking a controversial question and the security team would consult with library officials before ejecting any nonviolent patrons"
I get that - but was the guard acting on his own here?
It remains unclear to me - which is my point.
If this security guard was acting entirely on his own initiative, and just kicking a guy out for asking 'controversial' (and let's be fair: insulting and stupid) questions, then yes - there's obviously something crazy going on. Why were they ejected?
But I'm not sure it's clear from the article, which is my point.
"Ask me to leave [and] I will leave.” - obviously someone was asking him to leave.
I think the writer did a poor job of articulating the situation.
See, that's precisely the problem. Cops don't act in anyone's interest, they act to enforce the law. Because they are bound by the law, they have a monopoly on the use of force. At least that's the theory. If you're the mafia and want someone to do the bone breaking for you, you can't hire a cop, you hire a thug. Such as this man.
Moreover, he was hired by the speaker, not by the library. He also didn't eject anyone, he choose to first intimidate, then injure someone. And he appeared thoroughly confused about what he was doing and on whose behalf. The library clearly isn't pressing charges for "resisting arrest", firstly because there was no attempted arrest that could have been resisted, and second because only the police state can press this particular kind of charge.
Repugnant.
The police don't have a monopoly on anything and are not a 'mafia' any more than Barack Obama is the head of a giant 'mafia'.
" And he appeared thoroughly confused about what he was doing and on whose behalf. " - this is the fault of the Library and the Speaker - not the cop.
"The library clearly isn't pressing charges for "resisting arrest"" - the Library can't 'press or not' for this kind of charge. It's not an offence against them, i.e. robbery.
"and second because only the police state can press this particular kind of charge." - no - every civilized nation in the world can 'press charges' for 'resisting arrest'.
There is a lot of ambiguity in this article, it's not clear what happened, and it only serves as fodder for cop-haters and anti-government lunatics to troll.
Very American approach. Visit Europe sometimes and watch how police operates there.
Or compare how long it takes to train police officer in EU countries and US.
Unless you immediately comply they will physically harm you. Until a few high-profile examples are made where this kind of behavior is harshly punished (dismissal, imprisonment, etc) they will not change.
The first amendment is meaningless if you get shot/beaten/jailed every time you speak aggressively in front of the Government.
The librarian while a Hero is largely collateral damage - this is story about Police brutality pure and simple.
Though I generally agree cops are not always the most normal citizens, the idea that you'll get beat up for taking assertively to a cop is false. If you did this while pulled over, 99% chance they ask you to 'get out of the car'. And that would be the end of the escalation.
"The first amendment is meaningless if you get shot every time you speak aggressively in front of the Government." - take this to TheBlaze or whatever.
I just don't hate cops.
But I do know that 99.999% of being a cop is boring, difficult and they put up with idiots and crazy people - and often 'actual mentally ill people' all day, every day, in often complex situations, and they almost overwhelmingly do a good job.
If you 'have a concern about free speech' - you should be far more concerned about the vast number of people who are 'banned form campus' for having relatively normal views, but which are inconsistent with those of the 'safe zone' generation of totalitarians.
The 'totalitarianism' is not in some random guy getting ejected - maybe on wrongful terms - out of a discussion for making frankly offensive statements - but the limits on who can speak and why, largely driven by zealot students and faculty on campus, who usually represent a tiny minority of students and yet get their way anyhow.
When there is agitation and confrontation - a cops natural response is to 'can it' - and I don't mind this at all - though I would hope that if there is no crime committed that no charges are validated. A judge will eventually look at this, and if there's no validity to the charges, then they will likely be tossed.
I agree cops can be corrupt, but they are just people.
There are a lot of police officers in America, I suggest they are a lot less corrupt than almost any other institution. The problem I guess is oversight, and trying to really assess the degree of the problem.
For example, when we see headlines of cops abusing Black potential criminals, we get upset, but the study by African America prof at Harvard revealed that cops were less likely to use weapons when dealing with Black people, though more likely to physically touch.
It's hard to take the headlines and put them into context.
Though they have a 'special place' in the sense that they are the front-line of the law and obviously a much higher standard of comportment that others ... I still believe that abuse is pretty rare.
Even if this cop was 'out of hand' ... I still don't see it as hugely problematic: a guy got kicked out of a session for doing some fairly controversial things - he was not asking a question so much as making a directly challenging political statement ... and it was likely his confrontation with the cop that got him the boot. It seems like he should not have gotten the boot. Fine. But it can be a confusing situation for security involved as well - and when it's like that, they're going to remove people from the situation. I seriously doubt the guy will be charged with anything. In the end - you have an individual antagonist / rabble-rouser who got kicked out of a lecture - when probably he shouldn't have. Big ff-ing deal. This is not high on the spectrum of 'problems'.
Cops rough-handling otherwise peaceful assailants etc., possibly being racist - this is possibly a very serious problem. But again, hard to put into context.
In terms of demonstrating 'police abuse' - this case simply doesn't register.
I think issues like police departments that get paid through their issuance of traffic tickets and seizures is probably a bigger problem than most other things.
I've never in my life witness a cop do anything that he really shouldn't and as far as I'm aware - nobody I know really has either, at least to the point wherein they feel it's important enough to share with me.
Anyhow - when it comes to this kind of stuff we need studies that can put things into context - not confusing anecdotal examples.
The Community Foundation says otherwise:
"May 9 Event
"The Jewish Community Foundation and the Truman Library Institute co-sponsored a program featuring Ambassador Dennis Ross on May 9, 2016 for which the Kansas City Public Library served as the venue. In the spirit of encouraging dialogue, the event included a live question-and-answer opportunity. During this period, a series of actions by a questioner and a library employee began that resulted in their arrests by local law enforcement. We take this situation very seriously.
"Although we were not consulted on the charges and are not a party to the court proceedings, for many weeks The Jewish Community Foundation has been engaged in the matter to encourage a resolution that would be acceptable to all parties. We continue to cooperate in this matter.
"Know that we respect and will always support First Amendment rights. While it is inappropriate for the Jewish Community Foundation to comment further because of pending legal proceedings, we will share additional information as opportunities arise."
https://www.jcfkc.org/content/statement
The Truman Library Institute doesn't seem to have anything, although their photos of the event do not show any of the events.
I don't care: I know where I stand. Free speech is a good thing, even with sites like 4chan, and if you don't wish people to speak freely within a website or location, make the rules for what they can say known ahead of time, and enforce them fairly.