Trespassed

 The following essay was published in 2014 by the Journal of Information Ethics.

The Library: Defender of Freedom of Speech and Expression?

Patron Permanently Trespassed without Warning or Due Process—Civil Rights Denied

In associations and institutions that put a premium on niceness or even civility, you should probably never stop looking over your shoulder.  […] "People in power" are apt to be the enemies, not the friends of free speech. Who […] suppresses dissent—people without power?

—Wendy Kaminer, Worst Instincts:  Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU.  

In almost all the 45 libraries studied here, and probably hundreds and hundreds more across the country, we have failed our professional duty to seek out diverse political views. [...] These books are not expensive. Their absence from our libraries makes a mockery of ALA’s vaunted ‘freedom to read.’ But we do not even notice that we are censoring our collections. Complacently, we watch our new automated systems stuff the shelves with Henry Kissinger’s memoirs. 

—Charles Willett, Founding Editor, Counterpoise, and retired librarian [remarks presented at the Fifth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries]

Over the years, I have tried mostly in vain to get libraries to subscribe to the 501 c3 nonprofit journal I’ve been publishing on literature, democracy, and dissidence since 1998.  To date, I’ve managed to obtain 15 institutional subscriptions.  Compare that to the well over 500 obtained by Agni and Poetry magazine.  As a result of one attempt, Watertown Free Public Library ended up issuing a three-month trespass order without warning or due process.  That was the only time I’ve ever been to that library.  One would suspect I must have had done something terrible like issue violent threats, swear belligerently, or make sexual jokes.  But none of that occurred.  Hard to believe?  Perhaps not.

More recently, on June 19^th 2012, I was sitting in Sturgis Library (Barnstable, MA), described by former library trustee Kurt Vonnegut as a “clapboard tomb.”  There I was in a corner alone in a room quietly working on my laptop, something I’d been doing there about five times per week for a year and a half.  The director and no less than three police officers suddenly entered.  When I asked what I’d done, the director said:  “you’ve been critical of me, you don’t like it here, so now you can’t come here anymore.”  Actually, I did like the library, though did not like the director’s egregious violation of her own policy.      

One of the officers made the trespass announcement.  I asked for how long.  He asked the director, who responded, “permanently.”  I asked for a written document.  The director said there was none.  It was verbal.  I asked why three officers were necessary and mentioned I didn’t carry a weapon.  At that point, one of the other officers grabbed my arm, twisted it around my back, then frisked me.  I was not resisting arrest. I was not put under arrest.  Days later, I’d discover that officer was a training officer who was training one of the other officers present, using me as a live training dummy.  And that was that.  For me, what happened was unbelievable.  No warning at all!  And no due process whatsoever.  So, what was my “crime”?  

Outside, one of the officers told me to go to Town Hall, when I asked where I could go to lodge a complaint.   A day later, that’s what I did.  But Town Hall informed it had no jurisdiction over the library and that I should go to the police station or contact the president of the library committee.  Unsurprisingly, the president would not respond to my correspondence.  She was, after all, a good friend of the library director.  At the police station, I was able to obtain a written record of the police action.  But on it, there was no mention at all of the duration of the trespass order.  The officer, who had taken the director’s phone call, told me the director had said I “made her feel uncomfortable,” had “said inappropriate things,” and that it had been an “ongoing concern.”  And that was all.  The director hadn’t mentioned I was critical.     

If politically-correct proponents one day have their way, making someone feel uncomfortable might indeed become a criminal offense.  Fortunately, it is not yet thus.  Besides, shouldn’t a library director have a little spine?  Was her remark not a bit childish?  After all, I do not have a criminal record, have no tattoos or visible scars, and do not walk around naked.  In fact, over the year and a half I’d been going to Sturgis Library I rarely ever spoke to the director, though in the beginning of that period I’d asked her to consider subscribing.  She’d said, no, arguing the library was a “family friendly place” and that there was “too much negativity.”  So, is democracy now family unfriendly and negativity?  And what about all the sex and violence DVDs the director had been periodically purchasing for the library?  Well, people in power positions can often be impervious to logic and reason.  

During that earlier period, I’d placed one flyer on a car windshield in the library lot because that car had a bumper sticker:   “Everything I Learned Was from Reading Banned Books.  Celebrate Banned Books Week.”  The car belonged to a staff member who complained to the director.   Is it not mind-boggling that a staff member with such a bumper sticker would complain about a flyer that mentioned sarcastically that perhaps libraries should also celebrate periodicals they banned?  

The director then asked to speak with me in private.  She said that I was no longer permitted to leave flyers on library grounds, including the parking lot.  She also told me that I was not allowed to speak to staff about that.  So, I contacted one of the local papers, The Barnstable Patriot, which to my surprise interviewed me and published a story on my intellectual conflict with the director (see www.barnstablepatriot.com/home2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24417&Itemid=53).  

Nevertheless, I did not contravene the director’s orders, fearing indeed she’d resort to banning me from the library if I did.  Besides, I needed the library for the internet for my job as adjunct online instructor.  Over the year and a half that followed, I almost never spoke to the director.  Now and then, when she addressed me, it was brief small talk. 

So, what had I done to merit the sudden permanent trespass order without warning or due process?  Quite simply the week before I’d sent two open letters to about 25 of the library directors of the Clams Library System of Cape Cod in a last ditch effort to get just one of them to subscribe and thus get the journal into the system.  The only director to respond was the director of Sturgis Library, and as mentioned not in writing, but with three police officers.  How can such a thing happen in the year 2012, some 40 years after the great push for freedom during the Sixties?  

The argument I’d put forth in those two open letters was, as far as I can tell, fool-proof and quite simple.  Perhaps that’s why not one director responded with a reasonable point-by-point counter argument.    

A. The library’s own policy clearly stipulates in writing that “Libraries should challenge censorship […].” 

Sturgis Library banned my flyers and even rejected a free subscription offer. 

B. The library’s own policy stipulates in writing that “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view […]”.

Sturgis Library banned the “point of view” expressed in the journal I publish with regards poetry, a point of view that stood at direct antipodes to the point of view expressed in the one literary journal it subscribed to, Poetry Magazine.  And now it permanently banned my point of view, regarding the library, from the library.  

   

Was that so complicated?  One of my subscribers, Timothy Bearly, who does wear a lot of tattoos, understood it and noted perspicaciously:  

Unbeknownst to the library brass, this [the permanent trespass order] validates everything you have posted about them. They inadvertently proved your point by banning you from the library! As you said, how hypocritical for them to celebrate banned books week... then they ban you! Perhaps they became so enraged with the irrefutable logic [in the two open letters], they resorted to the only tactic they had at their disposal. 

Now, just how uncomfortable did the director make me feel by suddenly appearing with three police officers?  And just how uncomfortable does she make me feel now, knowing that in the town where I live I can no longer frequent the publicly-funded library and am forced to pay taxes that help fund it?  Arguing “uncomfortable” and “inappropriate things” clearly serves to divert attention away from the initial argument:  the library’s egregious hypocrisy regarding its own policy and actions.   

Finally, the American Library Association, which I contacted, responded that it had no jurisdiction over libraries.  Sadly, it was totally disinterested in what had happened.  In fact, its Office of Intellectual Freedom, which evokes Orwell’s 1984, didn’t even bother to respond.  PEN New England (“defending free expression everywhere”), as expected, did not respond.  The ACLUM did, however, respond, requesting further information without stipulating whether or not it would help.  Eventually, I spoke with its intake attorney Susan Corcoran.  A week later, she wrote:   

The legal team reviewed the information you gave me during our last conversation. With the permission you gave us, an attorney will talk to the Sturgis librarian. I will let you know the outcome. It will probably be next week.  Thanks for your consistent follow up.”  

Three weeks later, I wrote Attorney Corcoran since I hadn’t heard anything from her.  Oddly, she did not respond.  Prior to that, she’d responded almost immediately to my correspondence.  Again, I wrote and again she did not respond.  A week after that, I wrote and again no response.  In a post on my blog, I mentioned the library director, incorrectly stating she was still director of the local cultural council.  She wrote to tell me she no longer was.  I wrote back and asked if the ACLUM had contacted her.  She wrote back and said no.  So, what happened?  Did the ACLUM discover I had criticized it a decade ago?  Was I on some sort of ACLU blacklist?  Well, I’d probably never know for sure.  But perhaps it was time to re-read former ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer’s Worst Instincts:  Cowardice, Conformity, and the ACLU.  It is sad that ones civil rights are not assured, unless one is ready and willing to fork out a lot of money for legal assistance.  

Nine months after the truncation of my civil rights, the Secretary of Records of the State of Massachusetts ordered Sturgis Library to render within 10 days all documents concerning me open to public scrutiny.  Its reasoning was the following.  Note that Ted Lowrie is the president of the library’s trustees and Russell Streur is a subscriber to The American Dissident, who made the request to the Secretary.  

In a November 16, 2012 letter responding to this request, Mr. Lowrie stated that the
Library is an "independent, private, non-profit corporation that contracts with the Town of 
Barnstable to provide public library services." As such.Mr. Lowrie stated that the Library is
not a public entity and not subject to the Public Records Law. 

In determining whether an organization, the Library in this instance, may be
considered a public entity, this office will generally analyze the organization's structure and
character by utilizing a five (5) factor test developed by the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth.Retirement Bd. v. State Ethics Comm'n,
414 Mass. 582 (1993)(Board I; see also Globe Newspaper Co. v. Massachusetts Bay
Transp. Auth. Retirement Bd., 416 Mass. 1007 (1993) (Board II).

This office could certainly undertake that analysis of the Library with respect to Mr .. 

Streur's appeal. However, the basis for whether or not the requested records are considered public is not rooted in a determination of' the Library's status as a public or private entity. Instead, the Library's relationship with the Town of Barnstable (Town) supports the proposition that the requested records are public and subject to disclosure. 

Thanks then to Russell Streur I was finally able to look at written documents.  Sadly, however, not one document clearly stated why Loomis’ rash action was taken… one week after the written criticism I’d sent her and about 25 library directors in the Clams Library System of Cape Cod.  An email from Loomis to the trustees noted however:  

I called the police today and had a “no trespass” order issued against Mr. Slone.  He will no longer be able to come into the library or on the property.  Because of his behavior when the police were here they almost arrested him—he can go from calm to extremely agitated in a matter of seconds.  So I believe this is the correct decision for the safety of the staff and public.

So, the fact that I can get angry fairly quickly when interrupted by three policeman standing by a library director suddenly telling me I can no longer come to my very neighborhood library that my very taxes help support is a sad after the decision had already been made reason.  And, now I have an almost-arrested police record.  And now “for the safety of the staff and public,” yet I’d always been friendly with staff and have no record at all of making threats.to anybody.  

Finally, I sent the following proposal to the Barnstable Town Council in April 2013, which accords Sturgis Library a large sum of money each and every year.  Not one member expressed an iota of interest.  

To Town Manager Thomas K. Lynch and Town Attorney Ruth Weil, Barnstable County:
Since the Town is supplying the Town libraries with a lot of taxpayer money, some of it mine, please consider helping me institute the following proposal.  If you are not at all interested, please inform me how I might begin doing this without your assistance.  If you decide not to respond, then I will have to drive into town to knock on your doors.  Thank you for your attention.  

Proposal to Mandate Democratic Procedure and Public Accountability 

For Any Library Seeking Public Funding in the Town of Barnstable

Background
My tax dollars help support institutions that reject both democratic procedure and public accountability.  This is simply not acceptable.  Sturgis Library, which permanently banned me last June without warning or due process, serves as an egregious example.  The President of the Library Trustees, Ted Lowry, refused to even respond to my request for due process.  My “offense” comprised simple written criticism of the library’s own written policy, especially regarding censorship and openness to all points of view.  When I asked director Lucy Loomis why she made the decision to ban me, she said:  “You’ve been critical of me, you don’t like it here, so now you can’t come here anymore.”  Several days later, the police officer, who’d taken Loomis’ phone call, informed that Loomis had said, I’d made her “feel uncomfortable” and “said inappropriate things.”  The officer noted Loomis did not provide any further information or details.  Nothing is written about any of this in the police report, not even the precise duration of the trespass order.   Sturgis has refused to provide any written documentation regarding the trespass order.  

The Proposal

1. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall not punish patrons, who simply and peacefully criticize a library in writing—staff, policies, events, etc.   Such libraries should encourage criticism, not punish it.   

2.  Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall not be permitted to dismiss peaceful criticism as “harassment,” a term clearly and legally defined.  Instead, they should follow that legal definition.  

3. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable must provide a written warning to a patron, prior to punishment, noting the precise “offense” and precise punishment if said “offense” continues.   In fact, a list of punishable “offenses” should be posted on the bulletin boards of each publicly-funded library.    

4. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable must not only offer, but also clearly define, procedure for due process in a written document, so that punished library patrons have the opportunity to question and challenge the “offense” and penalty before an independent committee.  

5. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall hire library directors with the expectation they possess sufficient spine to be able to deal with criticism in a fully democratic manner, as opposed to in an authoritarian one.   

6.  Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable shall make their records available to the public.

7. Publicly-funded libraries in the Town of Barnstable that choose to ignore the above points will be excluded from further public funding, though given the opportunity to rectify errors in the framework of due-process procedure. 

Update
Russell Streur noted regarding Sturgis’ trespass order:  “I am outraged.  And I want to know how this can happen in the United States of America.  I filed the enclosed Public Access Records request to find out, citing 950 CMR 32.  I received the enclosed denial, claiming the library was not subject to the Regulation as it was not a Government Entity.”  

Streur then appealed the denial, to the Supervisor of Public Records, Office of the State Secretary, “on the grounds of 950 CMR 32.03, which defines a Governmental Entity as ‘any authority established by the General Court to serve a public purpose.’”  

Streur notes “The argument that the Sturgis Library is not subject to the Regulation is specious.  It is obvious that a town library serves a public purpose.  The authority of the Town of Barnstable devolves upon an entity to which it contacts to serve a public purpose.  The library cannot claim the rights of the public purpose and at the same time hide behind the skirts of its organizational structure to evade the responsibilities of the public purpose it undertakes.”  

Streur also notes:   “My purpose in filing this request is to discover the truth of this thing, how an individual can be permanently banned from a public library for no reason, with no hearing, and with no recourse; and how the individuals who have protested this action also end up without a voice in the matter.” 
Shawn A. Williams, Supervisor of Public Records, replied on January 4, 2013, “I have directed a member of my staff, Attorney Donald White, to review the matter.”  

Loomis’ arbitrary decision and the silence of her colleagues have served to reduce democracy in the publicly-funded libraries of the Town of Barnstable.  Why should taxpayer money be used to fund institutions that seem scornful of democracy and individual liberties?   Quite simply, it should not be used to do so!   

Over the course of a year and a half now, in vain I’ve contacted the following entities.  

-Town Manager (argued no jurisdiction/no interest)

-Town Attorney (argued no jurisdiction/no interest)

-ACLUM (interested at first, contacted Sturgis, then silence, then a simple, no)

-Police Station (paid 50 cents for the police report, which does not mention precise reasons or even the duration of the trespass order)

-Barnstable Patriot (no response)

-Barnstable Enterprise (no response)

-Cape Cod Times (no response)

-Eleanor Claus, President of the Town Library Committee at the time (no response) 

-Ted Lowry, president of the library trustees (no response)

-American Library Association (no jurisdiction over libraries and disinterest) 

-ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom (no response)

-ALA’s Freedom to Read Foundation “Defending the First Amendment in Libraries and Beyond” (no response)

-25 library directors in the Cape Cod Clams Library System (no response)

-Barnstable Council of Aging (no response)

-First Amendment Center (Northeastern University/called me/worked on the case, then slowly disappeared) 

-PEN New England “defending freedom of expression” (no response) 

-First Amendment Center, Nashville, TN (suggested Town Attorney)

-Institute for Justice—Arlington, VA (no response)

-State Senator O’Leary (presented Sturgis with a whopping check. no response)

-State Representative Sarah Peake (also presented Sturgis with a whopping check. no response)

-Elizabeth Hacala, Executive Manager, Massachusetts Library Association (no response)

-Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (no response)

-J. Gregory Milne, candidate delegate to the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates (waiting for a response)

-Ann Canedy, town council rep (would do nothing)

-State rep Cleon Turner (no help)

-State rep Brian Mannal (expressed interest, then no response)

-Massachusetts Secretary of Records (ordered the library to make public all documents with my regard, a minor victory)

-Cape Cod Poetry Journal, editor Bonnani (no response, held workshop at Sturgis)

-Cultural Center of Cape Cod, poetry curator Gouveia got angry because I questioned his sincerity

-Massachusetts Common Cause (11/14/13)  

-Freedom House (11/18/13)

-Cape Cod Community College English instructors- no response

-PEW Research Center

-Center for Individual Rights

-Center for Inquiry—Campaign for Free Expression

-Cape Cod Writers Center (Dir. Nancy Rubin Stuart)

-Barnstable Village Civic Association 

-Barnstable County Human Rights Commission (sent 12/27/13, no response yet)