
When Librarians Are Silenced - todayiamme
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/14/kansas-city-librarian-arrest-for-defending-free-speech/
======
jimmywanger
Librarians are unsung heroes.

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.

~~~
Mz
_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.

~~~
ythl
"The forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest"

~~~
ZoF
Humans are meta.

~~~
Mz
Actually, Humans are meat.

;-)

~~~
ZoF
that too :^)

------
08-15
I don't see an issue of free speech here. All I can see is a thug using the
cover of a police uniform to beat up people he doesn't like with impunity. In
a just world, Hawkins would be charged with "inflicting grievous bodily harm"
(a torn ligament in your knee is no joke, it might never heal), be locked away
for a while and made to pay substantial restitution.

~~~
jomamaxx
Thug?

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.

~~~
08-15
> cop acting [...] at the best of the people that hired him

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.

~~~
jomamaxx
"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."

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.

------
0xCMP
I keep learning this lesson over and over again: never call police unless you
want them to silence someone or use force. Cause if you do anyways you're
gonna learn the hard way that's what they can do if they want and there is
little recourse.

~~~
r00fus
I've heard stories about people who call firefighters that would have instead
called police... because they fear the police would just show up and shoot
their way to a closed case.

~~~
noonespecial
A firefighter is a kind of engineer. A policeman is a kind of soldier. It
shows in how they approach problems.

~~~
llukas
> A policeman is a kind of soldier.

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.

------
suprgeek
Off-Duty or On-Duty Policemen are under the belief that any questioning -
"Aggressive Talk" i.e. even non-cursing but impolite language is grounds for
immediate "stomping".

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.

~~~
jomamaxx
This is false and insulting.

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.

~~~
M_Grey
Reading this and your other comment I have to ask, are you the cop, or is it
someone you're related to, friends with, or in a relationship with?

~~~
jomamaxx
I am not a cop, I don't know any cops, and none are in my family.

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.

~~~
M_Grey
I'm not concerned about college students, who have always been a mess, or
their fleeting obsessions and hackneyed philosophies. I am worried about
agents of the state who are armed and almost universally trusted by our
courts, and have a rich history of abuses and corruption. That's not hatred,
it's a study of our own history.

~~~
jomamaxx
'a rich history of corruption'.

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.

------
M_Grey
It's simple... police in this country need oversight, and not from within
their own departments or detached units like IA. Right now we're just fighting
to have some minimal oversight in the form of the public's right to record.

------
Overtonwindow
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12638913](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12638913)

------
mcguire
" _...But the prosecutor’s office has announced that it (in co-operation with
Hawkins’s employer, the Jewish Community Foundation) will go forward with the
cases against the both the librarian and the patron._ "

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](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.

[http://trumanlibraryinstitute.org/interview-dennis-
ross/](http://trumanlibraryinstitute.org/interview-dennis-ross/)

~~~
guelo
That statement doesn't actually say anything and is just insulting lawyer-
speak. Trying to read between the lines "engaged in the matter to encourage a
resolution that would be acceptable to all parties" to me sounds like they
have been pressing charges.

------
golergka
I find it curious how the same political forces can be on the offensive
against online trolling and 4chan culture and at the same time defend offline
trolling and harrasment as freedom of spewch. Regardless of my own opinion on
the matter, it's just illogical.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
I think the argument centers around the idea that hatespeech should be banned,
or something.

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.

~~~
golergka
I specifically didn't state my opinion on the matter here, because it's
irrelevant: I'm only highlighting the inconsistency of "left"'s position. Your
position doesn't have this inconsistency and therefore, is much more logical.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
I don't know about my position not being left. I mean, I am pretty left. I
think the difference is, I'm not insane, so you don't hear my position on the
nightly news. There are as many crazy leftists are there are crazy rightists:
the trick is to avoid both.

------
joesmo
White people are learning to never call/invite the police the hard way.
Fascinating.

