Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Libraries won't stand up for First Amendment
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:25:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <vl5108$322fo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vl4dql$2v5nn$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 04:26:01 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="96f4c2cf3792f9661745e461f5b478b7";
	logging-data="3213816"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19k+ZNAsroLlsCiGDwR9R5c5zRTEkeKEAk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oWYicu5cr1d4KuR1KFNHtWNiJMI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vl4dql$2v5nn$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3239

On 1/1/2025 4:58 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Two suburban public libraries where I live discriminated against showing
> the movie Israelism.
> 
> https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2024/12/30/northbrook-highland-park-public-library-first-amendment-aclu-hecklers-veto
> 
> Its producers were two Jews whose views about Israel had changed, from
> support to pro Palestinian. Mostly it's bren shown on college campuses
> since it premiered in February 2023 (months before the October 7 2023
> attack by Hamas) but it's now been distributed digitally by a Palestinian
> company owned by the sister of fashion models Bella and Gigi Hadid,
> becoming available to rent from various platforms since the end of
> June 2024.
> 
> https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-805145
> 
> The movie was supposed to be shown in one library in September 2024 but
> cancelled because the library had demanded a $3,000 fee for security and
> insurance. The library had received phone calls and email messages
> demanding that the showing be cancelle.
> 
> And it was.
> 
> They then tried to show the movie at the other library which copied the
> first library's demamds for security and insurance fees.
> 
> Both libraries heard from ACLU of Illinois pointing out the
> unconstitutionality of charging fees based on the controversial nature
> of political speech.
> 
> It sucks for the library because they'd have to eat the security and
> insurance costs.
> 
> I've seen off-duty village police officers provide security for other
> events at the library, like the local member of Congress's town hall
> meeting as town halls have been disrupted elsewhere.
> 
> The library has a diversity equity an dinclusion statement about all
> being welcome painted on a prominent wall near one of the entrances, but
> it seems they don't mean it.
> 
> Just to be clear, mime: Just because I had no interest in seeing the
> movie myself doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to see it.

If the $3k fee is legitimate, rather than a "poison pill" of 
discouragement, the ACLU's constitutionality charge is bogus.