Article Review by
Melissa
Townsend-Crow
Although
James Kelly says in his article, “Barefoot in Columbus,” that the library is a
non-political entity, Librarians
are not neutral and are, in fact, advocates for the "underdog," the
unpopular ideas, etc. by supporting democratic principles in environments and
circumstances which are hostile to democracy such as the so-called “PATRIOT”
Act. This belief in service and the public good covers the values of access,
democracy, professionalism, and social responsibility.
As Kelly describes in his article, the case of Kreimer v Morristown is a landmark case
that re-defined the First Amendment for me in the following ways:
1.
The
First Amendment not only protects our freedom to express our ideas, it also
protects our right to access the knowledge that the expression of those ideas
creates – as in access to the Public Library
2.
The
First Amendment may protect the ideas being shared, but not necessarily the
means or method of the sharing
In Kreimer,
the federal circuit court ruled in favor of Kreimer. It seems that the
judge's ruling was a socio-political statement rather than an impartial
judgment – which is why it was probably overturned on appeal. What wasn't made
clear was the issue of whether it was Kreimer's disruptive behavior rather than
his odor or appearance that got him ejected from the library. Unfortunately,
the Library's insurance company paid Kreimer off. An internet search shows that
Richard Kreimer has been engaged in multiple unsuccessful litigations since,
perhaps hoping for another big pay off. In the end, it seems that (from this
article) people can be ejected from the library for hygiene that
interferes with the other patrons' ability to access information at the
library.
Armstrong
v. District of Columbia Public Library is another case discussed in
Kelly’s article and one which confirms the Third District Court's ruling that
people can indeed be ejected from libraries for "objectionable appearance
and/or hygiene." However, "objectionable" is a relative term, so
there has to be a specific protocol for ejecting people on this basis. The
criteria for such a protocol must support the overall public good. In other
words, if one person’s hygiene or behavior prevents access for a majority of
people, then it is in the public good’s interest to not just eject the
individual, but also to assist that individual in complying with the protocol
so that he or she, too, may have access to the information and services provide
by the library. Furthermore, as Kelly emphasizes in his article, immunity from liability does not
mean immunity from litigation.
My conclusion is that individuals may be temporarily ejected
if their presence or behavior interferes with others’ right to access, but
allowed back when problems are resolved.
No comments:
Post a Comment