Chris Selley: Libraries feel the heat on freedom of speech

Freedom of Speech | Intellectual Freedom | Public libraries

Nobody wants Nazis in public libraries. But it's tough to find a coherent case to ban them without undermining libraries' most important function

Three masked people stand outside a memorial for Toronto lawyer Barbara Kulaszka at the Richview branch of the Toronto Public Library on July 12, 2017.Cole Burston for National Post 

 

by Chris Selley | September 26, 2017

 

The Canadian Federation of Library Associations’ position paper on intellectual freedom clearly lays out libraries’ “core responsibilities” in that regard. One is “to safeguard and facilitate access to constitutionally protected expressions of knowledge, imagination, ideas, and opinion, including those which some individuals and groups consider unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable.” Another is to “make available their public spaces and services to individuals and groups without discrimination.”

In an era when free speech scrambles for purchase on university campuses, one wonders how long it will last in libraries. In June, Toronto’s excellent public library system came under heavy fire for a paid room-booking that turned out to be a memorial event for Barbara Kulaszka, a lawyer best known for representing alleged Nazi war criminals in Canada and their supporters, notably Ernst Zundel.

An awful gang of bigots showed up, notably Marc Lemire and Paul Fromm. And while a library employee monitored the proceedings and apparently detected nothing untoward, the outrage came thick and fast. “It is truly shocking that individuals who spread hatred, deny the Holocaust and have ties to neo-Nazi groups are being provided a permit by the Toronto Public Library,” said Toronto City Councillor James Pasternak. “If (Fromm’s and Lemire’s histories are) not good enough for the Toronto Public Library to say ‘No thanks’ then what could be?” asked Ottawa human rights lawyer Richard Warman. Mayor John Tory asked the library to consider cancelling the event and, when it said it couldn’t, to reexamine its policies for future bookings. Read more...
 

Using Our Words : Getting it right on neutrality and libraries | American Libraries

Intellectual freedom |Libraries and neutrality

by Joseph Hanes | 09-01-17

I’ve always been a wordy sort of person. Yes, that too, but I mean word-y. I was the sort of kid who spent time with a thesaurus and dictionary as well as Tinkertoys and Matchbox cars. I was fascinated by words, their uses, and shades of meaning.

Even my amateur lexicographic interest ill prepared me for a world in which one of the more trenchant voices of political observation belongs to the Merriam-Webster Twitter feed (@MerriamWebster). If you don’t follow it yet, do so immediately, for its largely straightforward Word of the Day feature as well as its often wry and acerbic commentary on trending lookups based on “conversations” of the moment, not to mention words that aren’t really words (“covfefe”).

So the Webster’s dictionary has taken a side, or at least a perspective. Based on what I know of Noah Webster’s own colorful history and antipopulist views, I think he might approve. All of which puts an intriguing gloss on an emerging discussion within our own profession on what some may think a bedrock principle of librarianship: neutrality. This discussion includes my fellow AL columnist Meredith Farkas’s excellent piece on the critical librarianship movement (Jan./Feb., p. 70).

In one important sense, we aren’t neutral and never can be—nor should we be. Naturally, each of us has his or her own biases, prejudices, and preferences; we represent a sample of the breadth of society, so this is inevitable and necessary to avoid homogeneity of thought and action. Together, though, we advocate strongly on matters critical to our success. We fight in public for the rights of our patrons to read and think freely without fear of exposure, surveillance, or censure, as well as for open and equal access to a range of materials. We stand for the principle that government and public information shouldn’t depend on the whims of the moment. We are engaged with, represent, and fight for our communities and strive to improve them through our institutions and our work. Read more...

I want to be sure that we’re fighting the right fights on the right terms and, yes, using the right words.