Open Letter to the Public Librarians of Cape Cod

The following was written back in 2012 prior to the permanent banning decree.  I put it up now because I can't find it in this blog.

Open Letter to the Public Librarians of Cape Cod

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]

To Brenda Collins (Cape Cod Community College), Kathy Cockcroft (Brewster), Patrick Marshall (Bourne), Elizabeth Butler (Centerville), Irene Gillies (Chatham), Jennie Wiley (Cotuit), Nancy Symington (Dennis Memorial), Jessica Langlois (Dennis), Phil Inman (East Dennis), Cheryl Bryan (Eastham), Lisa Sherman (Edgartown), Leslie A. Morrissey (Falmouth), Ginny Hewitt (Harwich), Renee Voorhees (Marstons Mills), Kathleen Mahoney (Mashpee), Sondra Murphy (Oak Bluffs), Lee Ann Amend (Osterville), Cheryl Napsha (Provincetown), Lucy Loomis (Sturgis), Tricia Ford (Truro), Ann-Louise Harries (Hyannis), Amy Ryan (Vineyard Haven), Elaine McIlroy (Wellfleet), Kathleen Swetish (West Barnstable), Pamela Olson (West Falmouth), Shirley Barron (South Yarmouth), Anne Cifelli (Yarmouth Port):

Thanks to the Internet, this letter will form part of the public record, as it is now published on The American Dissident blog site (wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com). If none of you respond, as is perhaps likely, that shall be noted. By the way, it took me about an hour to locate and compile your names and email addresses. In fact, a few of you do not even list your names and email addresses on your library’s website. Why not? 

In any case, most of you, I’ve already contacted in vain, which is why I am writing this letter. A number of you have simply ignored my communications (e.g., Osterville, Falmouth, Brewster Ladies). Others simply greeted me with frowns, while a few actually banned my flyers on their public grounds (Sturgis and Yarmouth Port). In fact, the director of Sturgis Library even instructed me not to speak to staff with regards the banning and rejected a free subscription offer to The American Dissident, a 501c3 nonprofit journal devoted to literature, democracy, and dissidence, printed in Barnstable. And yet why should I even be offering a free subscription? Do Time, Poetry, People, and National Geographic do that? 

Not one of you to date has been willing to subscribe (only $20/year) to the journal or express an unusual openness to the ideas expounded in it. The Clams network of libraries on Cape Cod has consequently conveyed a uniform closed-mindedness with its regard. Why? Is it because the journal’s substance is DEMOCRACY and CRITICISM, as opposed to the sex and violence you tend to purchase in the form of DVDs? Is it simply a panem et circenses issue? 

What is therefore wrong with the libraries on Cape Cod? Why do they all seem to be staffed with chamber-of-commerce-friendly directors, instead of free-thinking citizens with a definite responsibility towards democracy? Why do you seem to fear and disdain criticism so much? Why do you seem so opposed to vigorous debate and freedom of speech, democracy’s cornerstones? On the one hand, you celebrate Banned Books Week while, on the other, you ban periodicals like The American Dissident. How do you manage to intellectually justify such egregious hypocrisy? 

In the case of Sturgis Library, the collection development policy clearly stipulates: “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view […],” “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval […], and “Libraries should challenge censorship […].” With that regard, Sturgis subscribes to Poetry magazine, which presents the established-order point of view on what constitutes good poetry, but refuses to subscribe to The American Dissident, which clearly presents an anti-established-order viewpoint regarding poetry. One might wonder how the director intellectually justifies such an evident breach of the collection development policy. “This is a family-friendly place” and “I think there’s too much negativity” constitute her rationale. Yet such remarks clearly skirt the issue entirely and do not, by any means whatsoever, constitute a valid explanation. Besides, since when did democracy and dissidence become family un-friendly, while sex and violence family friendly? Perhaps librarians need to take courses on logical argumentation. By the way, the staff at Sturgis have been friendly and quite helpful. Clearly, this letter is not directed at them. As for the two trustees, Ellie Claus and Betsy Newell, with whom I met, they proved as closed-minded as the director. Dan Santos, the third trustee, didn’t even bother showing up for the meeting. 

As you certainly must know, the above policy statements come directly from the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights.” Interestingly, or rather aberrantly, the ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom (Ministry of Intellectual Freedom in Orwell’s 1984) simply refuses to respond to my grievance regarding Sturgis. Not a word from it! Not even a lame rationalization, as in “we’re family friendly.” Silence seems to have become, for far too many librarians, the librarian’s modus operandi, the de facto “Library Bill of Rights.” Librarians on the Cape, rather than individuals, seem to move as a groupthink librarian herd. 

In any event, what good can it do the nation to have directors like you in charge of what the public may or may not read in its public libraries? What good can it possibly do for democracy? Why would not one of you likely accept a bulletin-board donation for a space devoted to DEMOCRACY? On top of such a board, one could write: WARNING: POSTINGS ON THIS BOARD MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO ADULT CHILDREN. 

As a tax-paying citizen, should I not be fully outraged that my voice is banned at one of your public libraries? Should I not be outraged that bed & breakfast brochures, Prime Time, and other free publications are permitted, but not my 501c3 nonprofit flyers? Even dogs have been permitted to run around inside the library! If one or even two of you do not believe in the curiosity-killed-the-cat dictum (it’s so much easier to be indignant!), read the article published in Counterpoise for Social Responsibilities, Liberty, and Dissent, regarding my struggle vis-à-vis democracy-scorning public librarians exterior to the Cape (www.theamericandissident.org/orgs/american_library_association.html). Thank you for your hopeful attention. 

The Barnstable Patriot Interview

 

The following was published in 2011 in The Barnstable Patriot.  I uploaded it here, since the latter has taken it off its website, and I'm writing an essay,  tentatively titled,  "In Vain, I Continue -- A Very Sad Synopsis and Conclusion:  Cape Cod Disdains Freedom of Expression."  And so, I wanted a link to the interview...

A Decade Later: No Longer Permanently Banned from Sturgis Library

The following is the recent email exchange that I had with the director of Sturgis Library, who had permanently banned me verbally in 2012.  

..............................................

From: George Slone

Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2022 10:49 AM

To: sturgislibrary@comcast.net <sturgislibrary@comcast.net>; sturgisreference@comcast.net <sturgisreference@comcast.net>

Cc: Bardetti, Andrew <abardetti@sccls.org>; edith@edithvonnegut.com <edith@edithvonnegut.com>

Subject: A citizen's request for an update

To Director Lucy Loomis, Sturgis Library:  

Ten years later and at age 74, I am left wondering if your no-trespass order is still in effect today.  Recall that your reason for issuing the order was “for the safety of the staff and public” (see theamericandissident.org/orgs/sturgis_email.html).  To this day, however, I have never made any threats and have no record of physical violence at all.  Nevertheless, I have been an open critic of librarians, libraries, and the American Library Association.  Is such criticism unsafe?  

When freedom of expression is punished, democracy dies.  Your mission statement seems to be in line with that thought:  “[Sturgis Library] Promotes the free exchange of ideas and serves as a community meeting place.”  However, how can it not be hypocritical when those like me, who openly express critical opinions, are not permitted at that “meeting place”?  Perhaps from your perspective, my criticisms might seem angry, but I certainly do not hate you or Sturgis Library.  I am a critic, not a hater. 

On another note, the email addresses of your trustees ought to be included on the Sturgis Library website.  I would have liked to have been able to cc this email to John Littlefield, President, Board of Trustees, and the others.  However, I cannot find their email addresses.  Perhaps those who wish to remain uncontactable ought to stay out of the leadership limelight.  

In any case, I shall wait a week and a half for your response.  If I do not hear from you, then I shall assume the trespass order is no longer in effect and shall then peacefully walk into Sturgis Library as a local taxpaying patron.  As you can see, however, I shall remain openly critical… in accord with your mission statement.  Thank you for your attention.  

....................................................

From: Lucy Loomis <sturgislibrary@comcast.net>

Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2022 9:18 AM

To: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Cc: Bardetti, Andrew <abardetti@sccls.org>

Subject: Re: A citizen's request for an update

 

Hello Mr. Slone: 

I received your recent email regarding returning to Sturgis Library, and shared it with the members of  the Executive Committee of our Board of Trustees.  I am copying this email to them.

The 2012 trespass order was officially issued by the Barnstable Police Department, and any questions about whether it is still applicable should be referred to them.

If you resume visits to the Library, please know that the following policies, adopted by the Board of Trustees, must be followed by all Library visitors.  

Acceptable Behavior Policy

https://www.sturgislibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Sturgis-Acceptable-Behaviour-Policy-final.pdf 

Posting of Non-Library Materials on the Bulletin Board

https://www.sturgislibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/DisplayandPostingofNon-LibraryMaterials.pdf

Thank you. 

Lucy Loomis, Library Director
Sturgis Library, Barnstable Village
An independent nonprofit library
http://www.sturgislibrary.org
508-362-8448
Please support Sturgis Library

..............................................................

From:George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 30, 2023 7:16 AM
To:Lucy Loomis <sturgislibrary@comcast.net>
Subject:Re: A citizen's request for an update

 

To Director Lucy Loomis, Sturgis Library: 

Thank you for the response… several months ago.At your suggestion, I finally went down to the police department and mentioned you now have given me permission to enter Sturgis Library.A woman there handed me a sheet of paper, the only thing in my file.And it was the same sheet I’d paid fifty cents for a decade ago.This time it was free of charge.Nothing on it mentioned permanent trespass at all.For a copy of that report, see https://theamericandissident.org/orgs/sturgis_library.htmlon the bottom of the page.The woman explained that the police do not even have to hand me a written document when they trespass a person. All they have to do is tell the person verbally, which they never did with my regard.And of course, since it’s not written, I can’t prove that.The woman also stated that such a verbal order would only be valid for two years.And yet you’d stated permanently.How sad that our laws in America are often vague to the point where they can work against common citizens… to the benefit of directors and, of course, the great legal industry. 

In any event, what you did with my regard was certainly not democratic in nature, but rather authoritarian: permanently banning me with no warning and no due process at all… and justifying your decision that somehow I was a public danger, as in “for the safety of the staff and public”?After all, never did I make any threats of violence and certainly do not have a police record with that regard.And how sad that your library trustees fully backed you on that authoritarian decision.Hopefully, former trustee Vonnegut is still rolling in his grave.Such authoritarianism seems to rule here on Cape Cod in the cultural sphere.Alas.

In any case, I am glad that you finally decided to permit me to enter Sturgis Library, my neighborhood library, once again.However, at this point in my life, I just might never do that for I have no desire whatsoever to see you again.Also, in contrast with Sturgis Library, the women at Yarmouth Port Library have been very kind.We have gotten along quite nicely over the past decade since your banning decree. 

Please forward this email to the Executive Committee of your Board of Trustees, including John Littlefield, President; Marcia Lay, Vice President/Secretary; and Paula King, Treasurer, since trustee email addresses, for some reason, are not publicly divulged on your website.As Chief Justice Brandeis had rightfully stated:“sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”Oh, well…

By the way, to this day, not one library on Cape Cod has been willing to subscribe to the nonprofit 501 c3 journal I publish on Cape Cod devoted to literature, democracy (i.e., freedom of expression and vigorous debate), and dissidence.What might that imply? 

Au plaisir,

G. Tod Slone (PhD—Université de Nantes, FR), aka P. Maudit, Founding Editor (1998)

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

www.theamericandissident.org

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 6:47 AM

To: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>; Lucy Loomis <director@sturgislibrary.org>

Subject: Re: A citizen's request for an update

 

Hello Mr. Slone:

I am glad you were able to clarify the trespass order with the police. To be clear, we never stated that the trespass order was permanent.  I have copies of all of our correspondence and  neither the Trustees nor myself ever declared it a permanent ban. That was an assumption you made at the time, and chose not to clarify with the police or legal counsel. 

It is therefore your choice to return to the Library or not, as long as you are willing to abide by our policies. At the time you asked to be reinstated in 2015 and 2017, our Board did not feel, from your correspondence with me and them, that you were willing to do that.  I hope that you will be going forward. 

Please be aware that if you visit this week and possibly next week we have limited services and hours  because we are getting new carpeting. If you plan to visit please enter through the front door. We’ll be open 10-3. We hope to resume regular services and hours next week. 

Thank you. 

Lucy Loomis

Library Director 

Sent from my iPhone

From: George Slone <todslone@hotmail.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:39 PM

To: Lucy Loomis <sturgislibrary@comcast.net>

Subject: A citizen's request for an update

 

To Lucy Loomis,

Confusion, lack of clarity, and absence of written documents always serve those in power.  Surely, you must know that… and have taken advantage of it.  

Again, the problem with verbal trespass orders like the one you issued with my regard in 2012 is that what was said cannot be proven.  My journal entry for that day (see below) does in fact note that you did say yes, when I asked if the trespass was permanent.  If you had taken five minutes to write the order on paper and give me a copy, then you could have proven you never stated such a thing.  

Also, the police report fails to mention at all the duration of your (or its?) trespass order.  See the actual report on the bottom of this webpage:  https://theamericandissident.org/orgs/sturgis_library.html.  

In an email, I’d written to Ted Lowry, president of Sturgis trustees, in 2013, I clearly stated “permanently banning me.”  Lowry responded, but did not argue the ban not to be permanent.  Why?  See the correspondence here:  http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2013/09/ted-lowry-enemy-of-first-amendment.html.   

In the email sent by you to Lowry, the only document made available to me thanks to the State Secretary of Records, you did not contradict my statement that the banning was permanent.  You failed to mention in it the duration of the banning. 

Moreover, in the 2015 email I sent you, again “permanently banned me” was mentioned.  Why did you not correct that statement?  

In 2017, Jeanie Hill, the new Sturgis trustee president, wrote:  “There is a no trespass order in effect; therefore your request to be reinstated at Sturgis Library is denied.”  How does that jive with the police argument that it can only trespass someone for two years?  

Again, confusion, lack of clarity, and absence of written documents serve those in power.  Below is the journal entry I made on the day you permanently trespassed me.  I asked you if it was permanent and you said, yes.  I certainly did not make that up.  Why would I? 
Hopefully, you will at least have learned that you should present a written document with precisions to any future trespassed patrons. They should certainly have the right to such a document! 
Anyhow, onwards…

Au plaisir,

G. Tod Slone

From my journal:  

June 19, 2012

Tues.  I work for Rob from 745 to 245.  Exhausting shit sanding a deck all day.  Then I nap for 20 min and head to the library somewhat dazed and confused.  I check out a couple of DVDs, set up the laptop and do my thing.  Then Lucy and a cop enter the room.  “I do not want you here anymore,” she says.  “This is a no-trespass,” says the cop.  Then two more cops enter the room.  Am I dreaming?  Is this America?  “What did I do?” I asked.  “You’ve been criticizing me and don’t like it here, so now you will not be able to come here.”  “Is that permanent?” I ask.  “Yes,” she says.  “And the no-trespass includes the parking lot,” she says to the other cop.  “Why three cops?” I say.  “I have no record.  I don’t have a weapon.”  Then one of them (Foley, I later find out), twists my arm, holds it, and searches me.  “Are you allowed to do that?  Are you going to arrest me now and put me in a cell?”  “As you soon as you mentioned weapon, we can do that,” he says.  “Keep your voice down.”  “I mean this is fucked up?” I say.  “Don’t use that word!” he says.  “Is fuck illegal here?” I say.  “Is this a democracy or fascism?”  “Do you understand you will be arrested if you come here again?”  “Yes, now where can I file a complaint?” I ask.  “Town hall,” says the first cop.  Then the three of them escort me out the door.  I know it would be easy as hell to get arrested.  Somehow I resist the temptation.  “This is why people don’t have confidence in the police,” I say.

Kevin Carey, Anne Pluto, Lloyd Schwartz, Daniel Tobin

The following is the front cover for the next issue of The American Dissident due to be published later this month (October, 2022).  Below it, appears the email sent to the 4 prof/poets depicted on the front cover and invited by Sturgis Library to read.  I, a poet/editor, was NOT permitted to attend the reading.  Not one of the prof/poets deigned to respond.  In essence, not one of them gives a damn about vigorous debate and freedom of expression, the two prime cornerstones of a thriving democracy.  They do incarnate the sad state of America today...

...........................................

.........................................

To Prof Poets Kevin Carey (Salem State University), Anne Pluto (Lesley University), Lloyd Schwartz (University of Massachusetts), and Daniel Tobin (Emerson College):  

Are you perchance aware that I, as a dissident poet and editor, was not permitted to attend your reading at Sturgis Library, my very neighborhood library?  If not, now you are fully aware!  From my decades-long experience with poets and academics, however, I doubt very much that any of you will stand up for freedom of speech and actually write a letter decrying library director Lucy Loomis’ autocratic decision to permanently ban me in 2012 for the crime of having disseminated written criticism of her egregious hypocrisy, regarding the library’s (and the American Library Association’s) collection development statement, in particular, “libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view."  Read the letter from the State Secretary of Records of Massachusetts demanding Loomis open her records to public scrutiny, so that I might at least examine what she wrote about me... nine months after the banning.  

Evidently, my point of view and the points of view of all the poets I’ve published since the 2012 banning are NOT permitted at Sturgis Library, one of the oldest in the country.  Loomis refused a free subscription offer!  Likely, I am very, very different from each of you because, as a poet, essayist, cartoonist, and editor, I tend to speak truth openly, especially regarding the multitude of well-fed academic/literary (and librarian!) establishment cogs serving to undermine freedom of speech and vigorous debate, democracy’s very cornerstones.  From the inevitable resultant dross (e.g., pathetic apathy and/or ad hominem), I create!  Would the Cultural Center of Cape Cod open its doors to my critical aquarelles?  Of course not!  PROHIBITED! 

Currently, I am contemplating an idea using the four of you for the front cover of the next issue, #44, of The American Dissident.  As a highly unusual literary editor, I not only brook harsh criticism (unlike Loomis and most others in power positions), but encourage it especially regarding the journal and me... and publish the harshest received in each and every issue.  Is there another literary journal that does that… in the name of democracy, as opposed to groupthink wokidiocy?  Well, I have yet to find one!  

So, I encourage you to respond.  And yes, I too was once a professor, but, for me, speaking truth openly always took precedence over climbing the see-no-evil, speak-no-evil ladder to tenure.  Attached is my Curriculum Mortae for your perusal.  Now, would Salem State University, Lesley University, Emerson College, and University of Massachusetts ever consider hiring someone like me?  Certainly not!  As a side note, how not to LOL regarding Schwartz’ "Pulitzer Prize for Criticism."  Yes, anything but criticism of the dubious Pulitzer and all the other hands feeding him!  Be curious!  Check out the links in this email!   

Why are the bulk of poets and poet organizations so incapable of dealing with criticism?  Why is Loomis so incapable?  Why does she feel compelled to ban criticism of her?  Never have I made any threats!  I have no criminal record!   It has reached the point where criticism (with the exception of samizdat) simply does not exist with her and their (the poets’) regard.  

As another side note, shame on Edie Vonnegut for using his family name to become a library trustee censor.  For him, I attach the cartoon I sketched in 2014, depicting what his relative Kurt had said about Sturgis Library, where once he too served as a trustee.  

One day, in the brave new world of the Loomis’s, someone like me will be cuffed, arrested, and incarcerated for simply disseminating an email like this one… and thanks to those like you... and, of course, in the name of democracy.

Au plaisir,

G. Tod Slone, Ed.

The American Dissident

Sturgis Library

The following is a list of the pathetic/apathetic people and organizations I contacted over the past decade regarding the permanent banning without warning/without due process of an American citizen (me!) from his neighborhood library, Sturgis Library in Barnstable, Massachusetts on Cape Cod (see  http://theamericandissident.org/orgs/sturgis_library.html).  

Organizations et al Contacted RE Sturgis Library’s Removal of My Civil Rights

-The Massachusetts State Secretary of Records (contacted by a friend, Russell Streur) forced Sturgis Library to open its records so that I could examine what was written about me (see sturgisbansdissident.blogspot.com).  

-Town Manager (argued no jurisdiction and no interest, though the former was false considering he was forced to contact the library by the State Records chief)

-Town Attorney (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… and now defunct)

-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 at first, then the new director responded and a rather lengthy back and forth proceeded [see http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/04/james-larue.html])

-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)  Dan Santos, Sturgis Library trustee, responded to the directors, but not to me, and argued my argument was mere “intellectual masturbation”

-Barnstable Council of Aging (No response)

-New England 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… who said it was out of her jurisdiction!)

-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 (No response)

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

-State rep Cleon Turner (got angry, labeled me impolite, then no response) 

-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 Review, editor John Bonanni (held a workshop at Sturgis)

-Cultural Center of Cape Cod, poetry curator Gouveia got angry because I questioned his sincerity (otherwise no response from the director)

-Massachusetts Common Cause (11/14/13)   [No response]

-Freedom House (11/18/13) [No response]

-Cape Cod Community College English instructors- one puerile, indirect response from Prof. John French “Hi Sally, I suppose I will be a target soon...LOL  I hope he brings it on while I am at 60mg of Prednisone.  John” [Pathetic non-response]

-PEW Research Center [No response]

-Center for Individual Rights [No response]

-Center for Inquiry—Campaign for Free Expression [No response]

-Cape Cod Writers Center (Dir. Nancy Rubin Stuart) [3 or 4 different times and never a response]

-Barnstable Village Civic Association [No response]

-Barnstable County Human Rights Commission (sent 12/27/13) (Zero interest)

-Library Journal (1/09/14) Irrelevant, evasive response

-Center for Civic Media, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chris Peterson, Research Assistant [No response]

-Social Justice Committee of the Unitarian Church of Barnstable (3/28/14).  Apathetic response.

-Brandeis Center for Human Rights (3/30/14)  No response.  

-Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (May 2014) No response.

-National Coalition Against Censorship (June 2014) No response.  

-Banned Books Sponsors (July 2014):  NCAC, National Council of Teachers of English, American Book Sellers Association, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Society of Journalists and Authors, Association of American Publishers, Freedom to Read Foundation, National Association of College Stores, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Project Censored, and Center for the Book at the Library of Congress.  No response.

-Adam Kessel, Principal in the Boston office of Fish & Richardson (July 2014) No response.

-Dr. Nancy Dempsey, Professor and Coordinator of Criminal Justice, Cape Cod Community College, organizer of the local National Human Rights Day forum [No response]

-sunshineweek@asne.org. Requested sunshine success stories, so I sent mine.  [No response]

-NPR (Cape Cod) WCAI (Woods Hole) [No response]
-National Endowment for Democracy (No response)

—Cape Cod Art

—Cape Cod Art Center

—Cape Cod Museum of Art

—Cape Cod Today

—Cape Cod Magazine

—Cape Cod Community College

—Provincetown Arts

—Provincetown Banner

—Fine Arts Work Center of Provincetown

—Cape Cod Voices for Peace Poetry

—Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce

—FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) [Not enough resources]

Cape Cod Poetry Review

The following is the correspondence I had with the editor of Cape Cod Poetry Review in 2013.  Note how utterly apathetic poet/editor Bonanni is to the truncation of the freedom of expression of a fellow poet/editor (me!).  Sadly, most poets today are of the Bonanni establishment-cog ilk:  fully coopted, castrated, and corralled.  I post this correspondence now because I just learned that the new editor of the Review, Corey Farrenkopfis, is also the Assistant Director at Sturgis Library, which permanently banned me in 2012 (see theamericandissident.org/orgs/sturgis_library.html.  Might he be concerned?  Well, I shall find out!  

..................................................

From: todslone@hotmail.com

To: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com

Subject: Censorship at Sturgis Library et al...

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:36:34 -0400

To John Bonanni, Editor-in-Chief, Cape Cod Poetry Review:

Yesterday, I bumped into your site accidentally… didn’t know you even existed here on the Cape.  Anyhow, I’d like to accord you the opportunity to respond, prior to satirizing you and your new review.  Director Lucy Loomis of the publicly-funded Sturgis Library, permanently trespassed and censored and otherwise banned me and my ideas and poetry without warning or possibility of due process in June 2012.  What had I done?  Well, I criticized in writing the hypocrisy of her adopted library policy that stipulates libraries should be open to all points of view and fight censorship.  The permanent trespass order clearly underscores that egregious hypocrisy.  In fact, the very photo of you posing in front of your cardboard FanGirl CENSORED sign also underscores that hypocrisy.  What ever is in the mind of a little Caesar like Loomis is beyond my comprehension.  Celebrate Banned Books Week, while banning books.  Yes.  Nice.  Only a little Caesar could do that!  

Your non-response would further underscore that hypocrisy… and the great taboo in poetry:  thou shalt not criticize the hands that feed poets.  My very civil rights are being denied by Loomis because I, a local poet, would have been arrested if I’d attended your poetry workshop this past summer… or any other cultural and political event held at Sturgis.  How can you, a poet, possibly accept such a thing?  (Hopefully, you cannot.)  To date, not one person on Cape Cod has been willing to stand up for Freedom of Expression on Cape Cod.  The Cape Cod Times and Barnstable Patriot both refuse to even report on the incident (Loomis had no less than three armed police officers to escort me out of the library without even first informing me of her intention.  Yes, there I was quietly sitting alone in a room working on my laptop!  Yes, a dangerous criminal in the library!).

The directors of the Mid-Cape Cultural Council and Clams Library System of Cape Cod will not respond.  Only the student editor of The Main Sheet (CCCC) responded and published my letter to the editor, though regarding the treatment I received when standing in Wilkens Library holding a sign CELEBRATE THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.  The local English instructors at CCCC will not respond, nor will the local political hacks and town council members.  My assumption is that you, as a local poet, will not give a damn either, whether or not you even respond.  But, as mentioned, I’d like to at least give you the opportunity prior to finalizing my conclusion.  If you do give a damn, you would be doing what 99% of poets would never do:  bite the hands that feed.  If you want to climb the poesy ladder, then you too will not give a damn.  

Finally, of course, I’d love to get published in your new magazine, BUT I would never, never, never unlike 99% of poets, suppress truth and submit the innocuous in that effort.  How can you possibly justify carrying around your cardboard FanGirl CENSORED and not fight against censorship?  That too would be beyond my comprehension.  Hope to hear from you!  

Sincerely,

G. Tod Slone, PhD and Founding Editor (1998) 

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

www.theamericandissident.org

wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630

From: todslone@hotmail.com

To: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com

Subject: Arts Foundation of Cape Cod

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:11:51 -0400

PS:  I really have my doubts about your responding.  No matter.  You incite thought, malgre toi.  

 

Notes from a Poet Non Grata

What do public-money granting machines like the Arts Foundation of Cape Cod and the Mid-Cape Cultural Council do to art and writing?  They create restrictive taboos, enforce vague rules of propriety, stifle critics and criticism, vital to intellectual growth and improvement, and generally feed, grow, and proliferate innocuous, safe art and writing, friendly to the intellectual established order of corruption and business as usual.  

.................

Now for the cartoon.  I shall contemplate it a bit further.  But you've already helped with that FanGirl CENSORED.  Attached is a watercolor I did on the Arts Foundation of Cape Cod a year or two ago, which I sent to the diverse parties depicted in it.  Was there a response?  Certainly not!  The question remains:  Is the watercolor NOT an example of art?  And what does the suppression of such critical art do to the art scene on Cape Cod? 

G. Tod

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:34:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Censorship at Sturgis Library et al...
From: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com
To: todslone@hotmail.com

Hi George,

Fan Girl Poems was a small chapbook of student work created at a workshop at Sturgis Library this summer. The illustration of the streaking cartoon character with CENSORED written across his genitals was done by one of my students as a joke. I didn't tell her to write CENSORED, she just drew it while we were workshopping some pieces. It was funny. We were all able to laugh at it. I'm sorry you weren't able to attend, but if it makes you feel any better, the workshop was designed specifically for teens.

In terms of what you've sent us, we're in the stages of designing a new issue, but our submission period has been closed since last May, until we can get this one edited and to the printer. I think your political cartoons are really strong. If you have more, feel free to send along, and maybe we can use one in a future issue.

It appears you take nonresponse as a personal attack. To be honest, George, a lot of us are busy and your emails come across as rants. Perhaps if you organized your arguments and made your grievances more fact-related, and by extension, more succinct, you might have better success. I can see you take issue with the Sturgis Library, but my experience has been that Lucy Loomis has been very kind to me, and has even encouraged edgier work for display at the library. I feel like she may have even hung your watercolors at one point? If she didn't choose to carry some of your work, I wouldn't get too discouraged. I've had libraries that didn't want to purchase our lit journal either. I didn't view it as censorship, I viewed it as financial and/or overstock issues.

Hope that clarifies some things for you. The response has taken awhile because I run a poetry journal, I go to graduate school, and I have a full-time job teaching children with emotional, behavioral and developmental difficulties--not as any personal attack on your issues or character, George, though it's always good to see sensitive artists on the Cape.

Best wishes,
John Bonanni

From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com
Subject: CAPE COD POET BANNED FOR LIFE!!!
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:30:58 -0500

To John Bonanni,

How easy for you to dismiss censorship, viewpoint discrimination, and permanent banning on Cape Cod!  Bravo! 
Allow me, just the same, to simplify what happened, since you apparently had great difficulty comprehending:   I, a Cape Cod poet, was permanently trespassed from Sturgis Library without warning or due process because of written criticism regarding librarian hypocrisy.  

Now, was that really too long for a graduate student like you to grasp?  Was it really a “rant” or a simple FACT?  Please respond!

My civil rights are being denied today because I am not permitted to attend any political or cultural events held at my neighborhood library.  

Now, was that really too complicated for you to understand?  Is that “rant” or FACT?  Please respond!  

Written library policy stipulates:  “Libraries should challenge censorship […]” and “should provide materials and information presenting all points of view”.  

Now, how does permanently eliminating my point of view fit that library policy?  Is that also too complex for you to fathom?  Is that why you have a need to dismiss it as RANT?  Or is the need really coming from intrinsic cowardice, where TRUTH must be subverted to protect the frail ego?

Whether or not Loomis was “very kind” to you and “encouraged edgier work,” implying that your work was even too lame for her, is immaterial vis-a-vis the above FACTS.  Your twisted, diversionary reasoning is akin to that used by a would-be apologist for a Hitler or a Stalin.  “Well, Adolf was ‘very kind’ to me and even ‘encouraged edgier work.’  Ergo, even if he had your family incinerated, he’s still a cool guy.”  If you cannot comprehend that, you do not belong in graduate school.  Period.  

Not one library in the Clams Library System will subscribe to The American Dissident.  That is a FACT, not RANT, and has nothing to do with “financial and/or overstock issues.”  It has everything to do with viewpoint discrimination, a form of censorship, like it or not.  Now, how many libraries in the system are going to subscribe to your journal?  

What have your grad school professors been teaching you?  How to be indifferent to civil rights and the First Amendment?  How not to care when a fellow poet is banned for life?  Well, I shouldn’t be at all surprised if you’re attending the University of Massachusetts with its PC-perverted sense of INCLUSION and DIVERSITY.  

Finally, what your response “clarifies” is that indeed you are just another cowardly poet, sucking on the teat of public funding and friendly autocrats.  All of your arguments are non-arguments, certainly not worthy of a graduate student.  Your response is not the response of a courageous individual willing to stand up for FREEDOM OF SPEECH and EXPRESSION and is sadly typical of poets and academics in general.  Cowardly.  You do not deserve to have the First Amendment.  I expect you will have nothing more to say, or at best will simply continue to divert attention away from the above FACTS by dismissing them as RANT.  How creatively original!  

Sincerely,

 

G. Tod Slone, PhD (universite de Nantes, France), Founding Editor (1998) 

The American Dissident, a 501c3 Nonprofit Journal of Literature, Democracy, and Dissidence

www.theamericandissident.org 

www.wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com   

todslone@hotmail.com

217 Commerce Rd.

Barnstable, MA 02630

 

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:23:27 -0500
Subject: Re: CAPE COD POET BANNED FOR LIFE!!!
From: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com
To: todslone@hotmail.com

You sound very angry, George.

And attacking. If you could discuss the issue without resorting to personal attacks on people (faulting one's education and art for their opinions about others you don't like), you would probably gain a lot more support. When you enter into these periods, they absolutely come across as rants because you make large assumptions about people while clearly knowing very little about them. Based on the way you address people, I'm really not that surprised you've seen so much resistance.

Is it me you take issue with or the Sturgis Library? What exactly would you like me to do to support your free speech? I run a poetry journal, with two other editors. Once a year, we all look at poetry together and decide if we can piece together a journal. I've already welcomed you to submit some of your own work for our next submission period. 

John

From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com
Subject: RE: CAPE COD POET BANNED FOR LIFE!!!
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:47:32 -0500

John,

Now, why didn’t it take two months to respond again?  No longer busy?  Anyhow, thanks for the initial LOL RE “angry.”  I needed that.  Yes, in today’s smiley-face society, it is indeed a sin to be “angry.”  Also, in the absence of cogent point-by-point counter-argumentation, it is advisable to dismiss the opponent as “angry” and “attacking” (a personal attack in itself, no?)!  Are you perchance taking a grad course in how to dimiss uncomfortable criticism, truths, and logic?  Your response is very common.  It is an established-order, cookie-cutter response.  That’s exactly what Loomis had to say or at least imply.  Yes, just call him “angry” to justify eliminating his very civil rights!  A-men.   How easy!  Sounds like something out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  But now the radicals are the established-order.  Do you really believe the American revolutionary patriots were not in the least “angry”?  Hmm.  I suppose calling them “angry” would have been the response of the British occupiers, no?   Think!  And besides, wouldn’t you be pissed off angry if your public library truncated your civil rights?  ANGRY.  Think about it.  

Actually, I am not looking for support per se, but rather for poets, writers, journalists, and artists who possess a fervent appreciation for Freedom of Speech.  I am looking to live in the truth, not climb some literary ladder to dubious success.  I am looking to defend the FIRST AMENDMENT.  

Since you ask.  If I were you (a poet) and you were me (a poet), I would stand up and write a letter to Loomis expressing my support for FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION and request her to rescind her trespass order, or provide proof of her assertion that I am somehow a danger to staff and the public.  I of course have no record whatsoever of violence or threat making.  Period.  And I wouldn’t care if you were a right-wing nutcase or a left-wing nutcase, angry, gay, black, stupid, PC to the gills, teabagger, or whatever, as long as you had not made threats or run around in the library hollering like a nutcase.  That’s clear.  In other words, unlike most other poets, I would stand up for FREEDOM, and not just freedom for those who I know and think like me.  To date, I have not found one person on Cape Cod sufficiently interested in FREEDOM of SPEECH to stand up for it.  Not one instructor at CCCC and not one writer at CCWC.  Not one poet.  Not one artist.  Period.   Off Cape, however, a dozen people have sent letters to Loomis in protest.  

Finally, if I were to send your magazine something, it would not be in an effort to bow-wow get published.  It would be to test the waters of democracy, push the envelope to determine just how restrictive your magazine is regarding poetry and freedom.  Does it knee-jerk reject any criticism of its editors, for example?  If you are dependent on public monies, then you will have to restrict freedom.  You will end up as just another gatekeeper of propriety, rather than freedom.  Period.  Vacuous propriety is always used to stifle freedom.  If you’re studying at U Mass in Dartmouth, you’ll find instances of it all over the place, that is, if you open your eyes and ears.  U MASS is rated amongst the worst of universities in the country for freedom of speech… thanks to its professors (your professors) and administrators.  See thefire.org for details on that.  And again, arguing your professors are nice guys is immaterial to whether or not they punish freedom of speech.  Can you comprehend that?  You ignored in my last email.

Now, how about publishing an essay on what can happen to a poet/artist on Cape Cod who exercises his right to freedom of expression?  Can one criticize on Cape Cod without being kneejerk ostracized on Cape Cod?  I don’t think so.  Business, commerce rules the arts on Cape Cod, not freedom.  And if you don’t know that, then you need to open your eyes.  

Is it really possible that both you and your friend Gouveia are blind to the reality of just how restrictive established-order poetry, organizations, etc. have gotten?  What you both need to do in an effort to open your restricted horizons is test the waters of democracy therein.  But that would be RISKY, and most poets abhor RISK.  That is their shame.  Most poets are gregarious, herd followers lacking in courage and dissident spirit.  Until you test the waters you will have a false, but very comfortable, sense of reality.  If you wish to grow, then that is your direction.  If so, on my website, check out the essays by famous people you will likely not be reading in your grad classes.  Try Solzhenitsyn’s “Living in the Truth.”  If you wish to climb the ladder, then that is not your direction.  Do not examine the points made by dissident poets like me.   Just dismiss them as “angry.” 

G. Tod

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:25:08 -0500

Subject: Re: CAPE COD POET BANNED FOR LIFE!!!

From: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com

To: todslone@hotmail.com

My point is that your anger still seems very misdirected, George. 

Joe and I have both attended occupations, sat in administration buildings, and banged our pots and pans... but in order to do these, we were able to organize with others, not just attack everyone who didn't initially respond to pleas for support. That's a really good way to alienate would-be supporters--compare them to Nazis, make assumptions about who they are and what they do because they're deciding whether or not they agree with your cause. Direct your anger appropriately. If it's at the Sturgis Library, then it's at the Sturgis Library. 

You want me to write a letter to Lucy? If I do that, I need to know what your written criticism said, exactly? Was it criticism for not carrying your book? Welcome to the world of literature. Send me the letter you sent her, and maybe I'll throw her a line supporting you, if I agree with it. Doing so initially probably would have been a much more effective plea for support--rather than a demand. 

You want me to publish an essay of yours? Submit it like you would with any other lit journal. Like I said, I'm one of three editors. We'll all take a look at it when we re-open for submissions. Push whatever boundaries you need to--If it's well-written, maybe we'll all want to publish it.

Best wishes,

John

From: todslone@hotmail.com

To: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com

Subject: RE: CAPE COD POET BANNED FOR LIFE!!!

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 10:59:55 -0500

Hi John,

Glad you’ve decided to enter into a mini-dialogue, even if quite brief, with perhaps a person who is your opposite.  Most people would simply keep the doors slammed shut.  That is my long experience.  

Your remark on anger certainly got me thinking.  I will perhaps do a cartoon on it because it encompasses a fundamental principle.  

Angry.  You wrote that  I seemed angry.  Well, shouldn’t I be angry that I am no longer permitted to step foot into my neighborhood library, which my taxes help pay for?  Yet now you call my anger “very misdirected.”   Rather than ANGRY, I am DISAPPOINTED .  There is perhaps a difference, no?  

You write, regarding the criticism I wrote that provoked a permanent ban:  “Was it criticism for not carrying your book? Welcome to the world of literature.”  So, is that the real world of literature that you espouse?  Shouldn’t you be fighting against it, rather than simply stating, well that’s out it is, so if you don’t like it, too bad?

The problem with the group demonstrations that both you and Joe partake in is that you’ve got the group as support.  Would either of you dare stand up as individuals without such support to do what is right?   Have you or him ever done that?  Will you respond?

Again, you seem to conveniently confuse ANGER with RUDE TRUTH TELLING.  In fact, as mentioned, labeling someone as ANGRY is an example of ad hominem and demonizing in an effort to dismiss all of the opponent’s arguments.   He is angry; ergo his arguments are without merit.  It’s quite that simple.  I wish I could get you to contemplate that point.  Loomis used it.  You use it.  It is a very common tactic, as mentioned.  Again, in the documents provided by Sturgis, not one of them mentions an iota of the criticism that sparked Loomis’ autocratic decree.  Both letters were sent to Loomis and about 25 other library directors in the Clams Library System of Cape Cod, one week prior to the sudden unannounced trespass order.  Now, that’s quite a coincidence, eh?  In fact, one ought to wonder why the letters are not included in Sturgis’ files.  Both were posted on The American Dissident blog site prior to the trespass order.  If you’re really interested, you can read them here.  Can you not grasp the egregious hypocrisy that they pointed out regarding written library policy?  So far, you have not been able to do that.

Open Letter I:

http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2012/06/lucy-loomis.html 

Open Letter II:

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=239569862679528067#editor/target=post;postID=8867821344219052401;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=6;src=postname

Do you believe that publicly-funded institutions like Sturgis Library should be able to keep their records concealed from the public and stifle the FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION of any citizens criticizing—not threatening or hollering and making a public disturbance, but criticizing—those institutions by permanent trespass without due process?  You don’t seem able to grasp that simple question, which is critical to a thriving democracy.  Loomis and her librarian trustees all believe the answer is YES.  In fact, all of the directors of the libraries on Cape Cod believe the answer to be YES.  And all the cultural and arts council members believe it to be YES.  So, my question is whether or not one poet or one artist on all of Cape Cod believes the answer should be a resounding NO.  To date, I have not yet found one such poet or artist.  And believe I have been searching!  

So, what do you and Joe believe?  Please respond.  Please take the time to tell me why those letters merit my permanent banning.  I’m really quite curious how other minds operate.  Also, I could not find the purported reference to my comparing you and Joe with Nazis.  Where did you get that from?  If you can show me, then I will have to re-contemplate the remark.  But can you show me?

It is not really a question of my wanting you to write a letter to Sturgis.  It is a question of your being or not being an advocate of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.   If you are such an advocate, then you would write a letter irrespective of my wanting or not.  Is that clear?  Because I don’t think you understood.   This is fundamental.  It is also fundamental that serious advocating of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION will inevitably put one in confrontation with gatekeepers, including those who provide public monies and public venues to poets and artists.  Do you understand that?  Please respond.

You’ve ignored my points regarding UMass.  Why? Please respond.  

BTW, Loomis is the type of person (like Obama, for that matter) who will NOT back down, no matter how wrong she is.  She will NEVER admit wrong.  She is an autocratic LEADER.  Try talking reason to a Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or again, for that matter, Obama.  Good luck to you.  So, any letter that you might write will not change anything at all.  Only an expensive lawyer could do that.  Yes, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION can cost a lot of money in America.  The only reason you’d write a letter is not for me, but for you.  Do you understand that?  It is key.

As for a possible submission to CCPR, “well-written” and “quality” are terms used by established-order literati to stifle uncomfortable truths.  Can you fathom that?  In essence, if the truths written in an essay prove to be uncomfortable for those reading it, then the latter will reject it as “poorly written” and not of “quality.”  Do you follow this or not?  It is basic.  The NEA dismissed my request for a grant for The American Dissident, for example, almost with those precise words and refused to provide any further information whatsoever.  Shame on the NEA, which seems to have become intrinsically corrupted by left-wing ideologues!  Recall the Great NEA Obama Scandal!  What if I were to write an essay on Cape Cod and the iron grasp of the Chamber of Commerce on art and literature on Cape Cod?  Would that be uncomfortable for CCPR editors?

Finally, you ignore much of what I write to you.  Yet I always respond point by point regarding what you write to me.  Why?  No time… or rather no counter-arguments?

G. Tod

From: todslone@hotmail.com
To: capecodpoetryreview@gmail.com
Subject: Educated to respond with faulty, diversionary reasoning
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:15:41 -0500

PS: I found the Nazi comment.  Your response with its regard illustrates how you’ve been “educated” not to think critically with sound logic.  The comment was not comparing you to a Nazi, but rather pointing out that your comment regarding Loomis’ banning was superficial and immaterial to the fact.  Your faulty logic was:

Loomis was nice to you, therefore Loomis is nice to everyone and would not ban people from her library.

My point, since you were incapable of focusing on it (why?) was:  Hitler was nice to many people in Germany, therefore your comment is immaterial.  I think now you probably (hopefully!) understand.  I did not imply that you were a Nazi.  Period.  The implication, however, is that Loomis has fascist tendencies, since she opposes transparency, due process, and freedom of expression.  

1.        Transparency.  It took 9 months for the State Secretary of Records to force her to release documents with my regard

2.       Due process.  Due process was not an option for me.

3.       Freedom of Expression.  My criticism of library policy resulted in permanent banning.

For you, I am trying to simplify as much as possible.  Can you really not understand these things?