Answer: Yes . . . and no. The interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights regarding hate speech vs. hateful conduct is not quite clear, or, at the very least, is open to interpretation.
 |
| School Library Journal logo |
Resource: Yoiro, K. & Peet,
L. (2018, July 10). Free Speech Debate Erupts with ALA's Inclusion of HateGroups in Revision of Bill of Rights Interpretation. School Library Journal.
What the
resource says (100 words or fewer): In 2018, the ALA amended the wording
in the LBOR to clarify
that “hate speech” is protected under the first amendment; and therefore, if libraries
allow charities and other groups to meet in the library, they also must allow
hate groups to use their meeting
rooms, unless their actions “disrupt” or “harass” other people in the library.
Many librarians disagree with the new wording because they see the inclusion of
hate groups in the library at odds with the goal of creating safe spaces for community
members. Intellectual freedom, they assert, should not be more important than diversity.
Memorable
quote from resource:
“Many of us serve communities that are already terrorized by these groups. Show
up for them. Be willing to fight back when they may not feel safe to do so.
Don't let this toxic worship of neutrality and inertia enable fascism in your
community."
 |
| American Libraries Logo |
What the resource says
(100 words or fewer): Since 2016, there have
been an increase of hate groups and “bathroom bills” as well as decreased
protections under the law for transgender Americans. All of these have created challenges
for librarians to create safe spaces for LGBTQ+ people, especially those who
are indigenous or of color. The article recommends utilizing ALA resources, collaborating
with LGBTQ+ organizations, providing space for LGBTQ+ dialogue, and advertising
support for the community on social media. The article also warns that
libraries should be prepared for opposition groups, political backlash, or
protests, but stresses the importance of keeping the library a safe space for
all.
Memorable quote from the
resource: “Engage with those who
need libraries the most and serve them when others will not. Stand by and live
up to our core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
 |
| Libraries are not neutral |
What
the resource says (100 words or fewer): This article about libraries choosing to neutral
mentions a notorious TERF,
Meghan Murphy,
who was allowed to host a discussion in a Toronto Public library about her transphobic
views—even though TPL’s policies state that meetings that promote discrimination
and hatred are not allowed. Farkas compares this to anti-Semites or racists
being allowed to have discussions in the library, giving them a platform to legitimize
their ideas. Allowing hateful speakers to have a platform, Farkas argues, is
the ultimate white privilege. She links to another
article she wrote and recommends
several more
by her colleagues
about making
libraries diverse.
Memorable
quote from the resource: “How can we say we welcome everyone into our libraries if
we welcome folks who explicitly make people from marginalized groups feel
unwelcome? . . . And hanging onto your
supposed neutrality only ensures that your behavior and choices are going to be
influenced by whiteness/patriarchy/cis-heteronormativity/ableism/etc.”
 |
| Right or wrong sign |
What
the resource says (100 words or fewer): Joseph makes the case for why anti-trans
Murphy should have not been allowed to speak at the TPL—just because the library
practices “free speech,” they should ignore the library’s other values, namely
making the space safe for the entire community. The interpretations of what
libraries stand for, Joseph argues, have changed with the times, and intellectual
freedom depends on context, and according to the LBOR: “few, if any rights are
absolute, unconditional, and universal, and trump everything.” Allowing Murphy to
speak and spread her hateful agenda harms the community more than a “loss” of “intellectual
freedom.”
Memorable
quote from resource:
“The values of librarianship are not sacred, they are not totally exclusive of
one another, they are enacted in ways that sometimes appear contradictory, and
they have always been variable and subject to interpretation.” Read more of
Joseph’s arguments in Part Two.
No comments:
Post a Comment