Kathleen de la Pena McCook sends this article from the St.Peteresburg (FL) Times about a citizen who was told his grassroots group could no longer circulate petitions during meetings at Citrus County (FL) libraries. “If there is a remedy for this, I would think it might start with
small groups of Americans gathering in the community rooms of public
libraries. Even if their purpose isn’t ‘neutral.’ No, especially if it
isn’t.”
UPDATE Anon sent this “earlier story about this issue, which says that the library had to change its longstanding policy of prohibiting signature gathering.
Repression in Florida’s Libraries
Letter to St. Petersburg Times
Kathleen de la Pena Mccook.
March 30, 2004.
Re: Public Soil is the Place for Politics to Germinate (3/30/04; Tampa and State, p. 1B)
Public librarians have a long tradition of supporting free speech and public discourse. The Library Bill of Rights extends to meeting rooms. The decision to ban petitions at the Citrus County Public Library was a misinterpretation– but taken with meeting room policies in Dunedin and Tarpon Springs demonstrates a pattern of repression of discourse. Florida’s librarians have been engaged in a struggle over the public’s right to know and gather together for several years.
Public library administrators in Florida meet annually at the state capital at a conference sponsored by the State Library of Florida. The fall 2002 conference, held during the race for governor was to have included Lance deHaven-Smith, professor of public administration at Florida State University, as a speaker on Florida trends. However, in Sept. 2, 2002 the professor wrote a column saying that Al Gore would have been declared the winner if the state had been allowed to recount all uncounted ballots. Three days later, deHaven-Smith got word that he was out as a luncheon speaker for the librarian’s conference. [Martin Dyckman, “The Governor Plays Rough.� St. Petersburg Times. October 6, 2002].
Shortly after these events Jeb Bush attempted to close the state library. Legislators demonstrated great courage in standing up to him and the library remained open. However, libraries continue to be a target of repressive action. HB0899 and CS/SB1552 (Government Mandated Internet filtering) are unfunded mandates and would do irreparable harm to local libraries if implemented by further eroding already fiscally impacted budgets and curtailing valuable programs, services and purchase of library materials. The Florida Library Association passed a resolution March 10, 2004 in opposition to government mandated filtering.
Policies that limit Internet access, limit public discussion in public library meeting rooms, and limit the books that can be bought as precious public dollars are wasted on filtering combine to diminish the public sphere. New librarians are taught the importance of the public’s right to know. I teach new librarians at the University of South Florida. This commitment is part of the very first course in which graduates enroll. Sometimes this means we must confront our elected officials and remind them of the Bill of Rights.
(not speaking for the University of South Florida).
Re:Repression in Florida’s Libraries
Letter was published in the St. Pete Times April 5, 2004 section A.
It does appear that librarians need to go back to library school and take a refresher course in the public’s right to know and our duty to protect that right. Too many librarians are bowing to political pressure and thus the erosion of programs, services and materials to our patrons. Where is the equity of access? We should work to enlarge the public sphere instead of selling our souls to a devious and corrupt government hell-bent on destroying information access to the constituents.
I must be clueless
Okay, I just don’t see the issue here with applying the rule. I understand that there’s all sorts of political things that may lead to these rules, or that petition signing should be allowed, but let’s step back from those issues for a second.
I. Organizations can use the library’s rooms.
II. The library has a policy against petition signing.
III. A group violated the rule against petitions.
The library did not rule this way because it is against grassroots campaigns using their rooms. ‘enlarge the public sphere’? I just don’t see the correlation here. If the library had a policy against outside groups selling wares in the library, then a grassroots (or other) group that sold t-shirts or raffle tickets at the end of a meeting would be in violation. I don’t see how a rule that does not allow petition signing within the library suppresses the ‘public’s right to know and our duty to protect that right’.
If a rule is applied equally, and it does not infringe on groups using the library, how does this relate to a ‘public’s right to know’? How is the ‘public sphere’ suppressed by this rule (ignoring the political arguments about filtering, etc.)?