I've noticed that no matter their personal political affiliations, they're generally extremely against any sort of censorship at all.
Most I've talked to believe that there are no bad ideas, and that if you ban ideas or books, more people will tend to want to read them.
He was hired and acting under the orders of the Library's staff.
Though the Library is 'owned by the government' - it is not 'public property' - for example, you can't do or say anything you want, as you could on the sidewalk.
Though it seems one of the Library's staff was interceding on behalf of the accused - the cop (effectively acting as a cop - and he's hired to do security, so let's not refer to this as some 'random cop who was off duty and saw something) was acting in the interest of the Library - it's up to them who to eject and who not to.
I think the real question here is was the cop acting on his own initiative or at the best of the people that hired him.
If the Library's staff wanted the man out, then it's likely their issue.
If the cop was kicking some guy out wherein his employers wanted the person to stay - well then that's just weird.
But if a authorized security person for a private engagement asks you to leave - you definitely have to leave, and any kerfluffle you start is your escalation.
It seems that the library is intent on pressing charges? Did I read that correctly? In which case the cop was obviously acting on their regard, and perfectly within his right to eject someone.
I think that this guy's beef should be with the Library, not the cop, if that is indeed the case.
See, that's precisely the problem. Cops don't act in anyone's interest, they act to enforce the law. Because they are bound by the law, they have a monopoly on the use of force. At least that's the theory. If you're the mafia and want someone to do the bone breaking for you, you can't hire a cop, you hire a thug. Such as this man.
Moreover, he was hired by the speaker, not by the library. He also didn't eject anyone, he choose to first intimidate, then injure someone. And he appeared thoroughly confused about what he was doing and on whose behalf. The library clearly isn't pressing charges for "resisting arrest", firstly because there was no attempted arrest that could have been resisted, and second because only the police state can press this particular kind of charge.
Unless you immediately comply they will physically harm you. Until a few high-profile examples are made where this kind of behavior is harshly punished (dismissal, imprisonment, etc) they will not change.
The first amendment is meaningless if you get shot/beaten/jailed every time you speak aggressively in front of the Government.
The librarian while a Hero is largely collateral damage - this is story about Police brutality pure and simple.
Though I generally agree cops are not always the most normal citizens, the idea that you'll get beat up for taking assertively to a cop is false. If you did this while pulled over, 99% chance they ask you to 'get out of the car'. And that would be the end of the escalation.
"The first amendment is meaningless if you get shot every time you speak aggressively in front of the Government." - take this to TheBlaze or whatever.
The Community Foundation says otherwise:
"May 9 Event
"The Jewish Community Foundation and the Truman Library Institute co-sponsored a program featuring Ambassador Dennis Ross on May 9, 2016 for which the Kansas City Public Library served as the venue. In the spirit of encouraging dialogue, the event included a live question-and-answer opportunity. During this period, a series of actions by a questioner and a library employee began that resulted in their arrests by local law enforcement. We take this situation very seriously.
"Although we were not consulted on the charges and are not a party to the court proceedings, for many weeks The Jewish Community Foundation has been engaged in the matter to encourage a resolution that would be acceptable to all parties. We continue to cooperate in this matter.
"Know that we respect and will always support First Amendment rights. While it is inappropriate for the Jewish Community Foundation to comment further because of pending legal proceedings, we will share additional information as opportunities arise."
https://www.jcfkc.org/content/statement
The Truman Library Institute doesn't seem to have anything, although their photos of the event do not show any of the events.
I don't care: I know where I stand. Free speech is a good thing, even with sites like 4chan, and if you don't wish people to speak freely within a website or location, make the rules for what they can say known ahead of time, and enforce them fairly.
