Librarian arrested for standing up for free speech

[Archivist]

A librarian in Kansas City, Missouri was arrested simply for standing up for a library patron’s free speech rights at a public event. According to the article it was agreed in advance that "nobody was to be prevented from asking a controversial question and the security team would consult with library officials before ejecting any nonviolent patrons." The police officers who did this clearly overstepped their authority. They are scum, pure and simple.

The complete story can be found here: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/10/14/kansas-city-librarian-arrest-for-defending-free-speech/

 

[s_gunter]

You'd think there were hate-speech laws in the USA from the way these officers acted, but there isn't. I agree with the OP. The police over stepped their bounds in arresting assaulting a reporter for simply asking a question (which IS free-speech). These officers and the district attorney/the court itself should be sued for violation of civil rights...

 

[Inkfingers]

There is no video of the events so lets leave it the courts instead of speculating?

 

[Archivist]

There is no video of the events so lets leave it the courts instead of speculating?

So no one is to discuss the matter until after the court hands down a decision?

 

[Inkfingers]

So no one is to discuss the matter until after the court hands down a decision?

How can we discuss it without facts? All we have are a couple of reports on the internet with no corroborating evidence or video.

 

[Archivist]

How can we discuss it without facts? All we have are a couple of reports on the internet with no corroborating evidence or video.

So we base our discussion on what we have. If you don't feel comfortable doing that then don't participate in the thread.

And actually we do have a photo of the librarian being arrested. Further, the article--which was rather extensive--included the following:

"Cellphone and security videos corroborate Rothe-Kushel’s and Woolfolk’s version of events. Whether or not one agrees with the implications of Rothe-Kushel’s question, he posed no physical threat to either Ross or the audience, and was simply trying to speak. Woolfolk remained reasonable and polite. The guards’ rapid recourse to shouting and to physical violence to detain Rothe-Kushel and Woolfolk did not seem to have a basis other than that the guards were nervous in the presence of a former top US official and that Rothe-Kushel was a local activist who was well-known for asking confrontational questions at public events."

 

[redleghunter]

You'd think there were hate-speech laws in the USA from the way these officers acted, but there isn't. I agree with the OP. The police over stepped their bounds in arresting assaulting a reporter for simply asking a question (which IS free-speech). These officers and the district attorney/the court itself should be sued for violation of civil rights...

There are city, state and federal laws upheld by the SCOTUS limiting free speech and limiting protests to confined boundaries. They vary from state to state and usually are justified to keep traffic moving or people access to public buildings.

However, given what we know of the OP, it looks as if this venue welcomed any and all comments.

 

[Archivist]

Libraries and librarians are kind of big on free speech. Yet here we have a patron who was hauled off by off-duty police simply for asking questions. The librarian is then assaulted and arrested by these goons for coming to his defense. I stand by what I said--these police are scum.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Yes, they were treated horribly for asking questions. Scary what this country is starting to allow (or not allow). We've usually been proud that Americans have voices and can ask questions and report what they see/hear. Hopefully that doesn't keep changing - it slowly seems to be.

 

[pat34lee]

Libraries and librarians are kind of big on free speech. Yet here we have a patron who was hauled off by off-duty police simply for asking questions. The librarian is then assaulted and arrested by these goons for coming to his defense. I stand by what I said--these police are scum.

I don't agree with the police's actions either. But I don't
blame them exclusively. The person running the meeting
should have said something, not some librarian who was
not involved. Most likely this was arranged before the
meeting, that the police would step in at a certain point.

As for the free speech: accusing Israel of state sponsored
terrorism was meant to provoke a reaction, and he got one.

 

[Armoured]

I don't agree with the police's actions either. But I don't
blame them exclusively. The person running the meeting
should have said something, not some librarian who was
not involved. Most likely this was arranged before the
meeting, that the police would step in at a certain point.

As for the free speech: accusing Israel of state sponsored
terrorism was meant to provoke a reaction, and he got one.

Planing to ask a question before a meeting is hardly an arrestable offence. Nor is thinking poorly of Israel.

 

[Armoured]

How can we discuss it without facts? All we have are a couple of reports on the internet with no corroborating evidence or video.

Did you read the article?

 

[Inkfingers]

Did you read the article?

I not only read the article but also tracked down a second one and read that as well; neither of them being more than vague claims offereing no supporting evidence.

I also looked up the man that this librarian was supposedly protecting; Jeremy Rothe-Kushel.

 

[Archivist]

I don't agree with the police's actions ither. But I don't blame them exclusively. The person running the meeting should have said something, not some librarian who was not involved. Most likely this was arranged before the
meeting, that the police would step in at a certain point.

If you read the article you know that this librarian was the director of programming. I think he was one of the ones runniong the meeting.

As for the free speech: accusing Israel of state sponsored terrorism was meant to provoke a reaction, and he got one.

So free speech doesn't apply if you attack Israel?

 

[Hank77]

Has anyone that defended the Bundys commented in this thread?

 

[Hank77]

The person running the meeting
should have said something, not some librarian who was
not involved.

That librarian was not just a librarian but actually the Director of the Event. This event was put on by the library not some outside group.
If one cannot listen to others point of view without being so offended that they resort to violence, they should recuse themselves from the discussion and the event.
Hawkins works for the Jewish Foundation. He probably shouldn't have been hired to start with as he could very well be biased in support his employers, which it appears that he was.

 

[Hank77]

I also looked up the man that this librarian was supposedly protecting; Jeremy Rothe-Kushel.

Who says he was protecting Rothe-Kushel? There is a difference between protecting an individual person and defending their right to speak or to refrain from speaking.

The very people who think Christians, in a public business, should not have to write words that they do not agree with, think it is OK to suppress speech of others that they may not agree with?
That is not the way the Constitution works and I want to see our Constitution preserved, not torn apart by those who think it was written just for them and those who agree with them.

 

[Inkfingers]

Who says he was protecting Rothe-Kushel? There is a difference between protecting an individual person and defending their right to speak or to refrain from speaking.

The very people who think Christians, in a public business, should not have to write words that they do not agree with, think it is OK to suppress speech of others that they may not agree with?
That is not the way the Constitution works and I want to see our Constitution preserved, not torn apart by those who think it was written just for them and those who agree with them.

There is a difference between forced to write something you hold obnoxious and being refused a second question at a public meeting when you have a history of speaking on chem trails and 911 being an "inside job" (which I understand he has done).

 

[Hank77]

There is a difference between forced to write something you hold obnoxious and being refused a second question at a public meeting when you have a history of speaking on chem trails and 911 being an "inside job" (which I understand he has done).

If you have an article that says he posed a threat to anyone, that says that the Library gave the police the OK to remove him, etc.
please post it.

 

[Inkfingers]

If you have an article that says he posed a threat to anyone, that says that the Library gave the police the OK to remove him, etc.
please post it.

Considering I have not claimed that he was a threat to anyone, why would you ask that?

If someone stands up and keeps asking questions, does that not impede the freedom of speech of others by not allowing others a word in edgeways? Or does freedom of speech in America mean you can all stand up and shout over each other so that nobody gets heard?