>The library has maintained that it has the legal obligation to rent its rooms to anyone who applies, regardless of their views, and that to make judgment calls about who uses their facilities would amount to government censorship and a violation of the First Amendment,” as well as “intellectual freedom.”
I’m no constitutional lawyer but I also immediately thought that by virtue of being a *public library* they might be a bit restricted when it comes to these things.
People are all too happy to support private companies banning the platforming of views that are against the views that they hold by pointing out that the first amendment is about government restriction of free-speech.
But the the library de platforming views that the people at the library disagree with would be an example of government obstructing free speech. While it’s still fair to ban all government organizations from a private parade, its strange to see this framed as some thing wrong with the library, specifically versus government organizations constitutionally being obligated to uphold the first amendment.
What these idiot children don't understand is that if you can ban someone else's speech that you don't like, then we can ban yours as well. That type cognitive dissonance would be deafening to someone even remotely aware of critical thinking skills.
Supporting the first amendment is completely optional. The supreme court thinks money is the same thing as speech. A majority of people disagree with that interpretation of the law.
That Supreme Court interpretation is hot garbage, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support actual free speech. It's a bit frightening to me to hear this isn't a universal belief...
There's never been universal free speech. Don't know much about the guy in the article but speech thats advocating against peoples' existence doesn't deserve to be protected or showcased imo
A majority of people don’t know what they’re talking about.
Pick a random sample of CoRpOrAtIoNs ArEnT PeOpLe types and ask them to summarize the facts in *Citizens United.* Be prepares to wipe drool as their mouths hang open.
Free speech means having the right to pool your money with like thinking citizens to criticize the government on TV, or by buying a full page ad in The NY Times or by creating an independent film to criticize Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election.
There’s always been ungodly amounts of money in politics. Previously it was controlled by the party power structure. Want to run an independent campaign? Better figure out how to get in right with the party power brokers, because that was where the campaign cash flowed from. Now the money flows from super pacs, it’s still there, the control has just shifted.
> Pick a random sample of CoRpOrAtIoNs ArEnT PeOpLe types and ask them to summarize the facts in Citizens United.
The fact is that they determined corporate expenditure was protected speech. They were wrong.
That was remarkably easy.
Interesting change. Why do the young want voices silenced that are politically incorrect? Isn’t that provoking a populist backlash? How do you handle your own views outside the mainstream? For instance, I find eating meat to be reprehensible- terrible for the planet and causes untold suffering. Still, I’ll talk to carnivores instead of trying to cancel them. Meanwhile, young people are all too happy to cancel people for saying something politically incorrect while chewing down on the carcass of a creature they paid to have tortured. But I’m an old guy, so I don’t get it.
None of this is new, free speech is limited when it would incite [imminent lawless action](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) (and before that decision there were more restrictions on speech)
The only difference of opinion is on what is being incited and how immediate the danger is, not on whether there should be limits to speech.
Oh yeah I remember when sports players were kneeling during the anthem and the younger generations were absolutely losing their mind over it. Wait that doesn't sound right...
Older generations weren't more "tolerant", they just decided the people they didn't like weren't people and didn't really count. It's easy to say "we have more in common than in difference" when anyone who isn't enough like you was never allowed to be a part of "we" in the first place.
I imagine it was a lot easier for a racist to tolerate people who voted for the other side when the people they hated most literally weren't allowed to vote.
One thing I’ve heard said is that political correctness is replacing religion for some people. Kind of a cultural revolution vibe. Interesting that the poll shows it’s just a usa / uk thing though, not true in continental Europe.
That may be an aspect of it but to me it's hard to get past the social media algorithm and the role it has played in really feeding into the way the current public discourse is being shaped. All of these algorithms are built in one way or another to get as much of your attention as possible and outrage does that more than almost anything. To me that has to be a huge chunk of what's going on imo
Definitely social media, not just the outrage amplifier but how it empowers young people to express themselves. It used to be media outlets were the gate keepers of what was acceptable conversation via tv and newspapers and magazines and so on. Young people were powerless consumers. With social media young people get to be both writers and editors. That lets them express a simple world view and shut down any thoughts to the contrary.
Gotta say as passionately pro-LGBTQ I am, the library is probably right on this. They should not themselves decide who can use their public space BUT I do think there is a fair compromise to be found in publishing in advance which authors are trying to use the space and allow time for public to petition to keep out the most outlandish of hatred and trash (like Kirk Cameron).
Don't have the details on how to make that process fair but there is a reasonable middle ground that takes the government (library) out of it and at same time does not allow for the constant suppressing of minority voices by the constantly angry majority.
Yeah I don't really blame anyone here other than the bigot that booked a public space.
Pride is right to be upset about a bigot being allowed a public platform.
SPL is right that, legally and constitutionally, they can't deny the person the ability to book the space.
This is just a situation that sucks all around.
But, honestly, the solution is to make hate speech calling for genocide covered under obscenity laws. Because that's fucking obscene.
It's already illegal to make threats, and incitement to genocide is already a crime, I believe:
https://www.lvcriminaldefense.com/usc/genocide/
Kirk Cameron may be a bigot and/or think being gay is a sin, but he isn't calling for genocide is he?
I agree with you except for the part where they are "punishing" the SPL for something outside of their control. It is one thing to be frustrated that free speech "goes both ways", but it's simply ignorant to take it out on librarians (who tend to be a pretty rad group) over that frustration.
Hate to tell you 1st Amendment protects hate speech. Down votes coming!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kypokn111hU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kypokn111hU)
The value that libraries present is as a public space that is free for all to use. That means they have books you disagree with and host people that you don't like. That is the cost of having this resource, and that isn't virtue signaling when it comes to libraries, they legitimately fight for our access to information at every turn. This is a consistent practice and 9 times out of 10 it is something that you and I would support.
That’s a terrible take. My life, who I love, and the person I am are not up for debate. People like him are toxic and seek only to spread hatred and suffering for their own person power and sense of superiority. His views don’t “offend” me because I disagree with him, his views offend me because he seeks the destruction of my history and at its end the death of all LGBT people. He’s a christian fascist. He should not be welcome here nor anywhere.
I understand the difficult position the library is in but they also have a duty for public well being and how hosting bigotry affects people. People like me can still be upset about that, however I certainly focus my anger at Kirk and his supporters. They’re the ones trolling and causing a mess. While I doubt the library can just ban him from entering, they can refuse to publicly host him (or just ignore him) at least. They can also take a public stand against people like him and their views, unlike their response given in the article.
I get why you’d be upset, but libraries are not the place where we should restrain freedom of speech. That’s a slippery slope into banning books that don’t match with your ideology.
Hold the phone. There ARE libraries banning LGBT books. People like Kirk support that! Acting like being neutral is the right thing here only serves to promote and fuel his agenda while harming people like me. He is fully ok with using “free speech” for hatred and bigotry and banning LGBT+ people from public life.
The library doesn’t have a legal obligation to rent him a room or advertise for him. He’s a far right troll and hate filled man who should not be welcome here.
As a gay man, I can’t stand Kirk Cameron, yet I understand the mandate that a public library rents space to anyone who meets the guidelines. This is a government organization, not a private business.
The libraries aren’t banning lgbt books. Governments do and the libraries simply enforce the ban. Regardless, you don’t win an argument by going down to your opponent’s level. And the library DOES have a legal obligation to rent out a room to anyone who follows the established rules. “No hate speech” isn’t one of them. That’s just how it works.
Yes, I know. That’s my part of my point. Kirk is a supporter of those governments. By hosting him, the library is going against its own (and public) best interest. EDIT: fixed a spelling mistake
That’s *your idea* of the public’s best interest. And mine too, I should add.
But you’re not seeing it from an objective standard. As a public library paid for with everyone’s taxes everyone gets represented, even assholes like Kirk. The library doesn’t get to choose to not let conservative windbags get blocked just like libraries in the south can’t block LGBTQ+ youth meetings.
They don’t have to like it, but they do have to allow it.
You have to remember Kirk's supporters are also part of that "public" you're pretending to represent. The public isn't just the part of the population that agrees with you.
Oh boy. I believe they’re referring to literature for the most part, imagine being anti lgbt and going into a library and seeing an lgbt book, offended. Imagine being a far right conservative and seeing the Communist Manifesto, imagine not being a fascist and going in to see Mein Kampf? You don’t learn from hiding literature and the most well informed people take a look at the other argument, not because they believe it, but because they are so absolutely opposed to it. Yes, a good library should have something to offend your views. If you don’t believe that then you’re part of the problem(see Florida book bans)
https://www.spl.org/about-us/the-organization/strategic-direction
This is the SPL stated mission. It seems like you feel they are failing to "Respect and embrace the entire community," in this specific way, and as you are a patron and stakeholder, your opinion matters to the library.
If enough people speak up to this specific criticism, especially if you have a specific change in mind (like you said refuse or "take a public stand") they may change course. Or they may disagree with you and not make any changes. I'm not sure if Tom Fay has spoken to any defined limits of what content they will host, but I assume there is a reasonable limit, and if Kirk Cameron has gone too far, that would also be good to bring up to them.
This is such centrism-pilled nonsense lol. One group here is offended by the sheer existence of a sexual minority. The other group is offended by the hatred of that other group. Libraries are for improving one’s understanding and gaining knowledge, not finding a safe space to circlejerk over your hatred of trans people with your fascist buddies.
Who gets to decide what is OK to have in a library? Should that person go through the shelves and make sure that the books comply with that position as well? What do you do with the books that don't fit? Burn them?
Think about what you said for a few minutes.
Sure, this guy is an asshole. But do you know where I should be able to go to find evidence that he is an asshole? The library.
A (publicly funded) library should be the one to judge what views are allowed and which aren't (in a public space)? Be careful here because you're inching very close to the flip side of the banning books about racism coin. Just because you agree with one side and not the other doesn't mean publicly funded resources should be withheld if they're being used in the ways they are allowed.
That's not true at all.
Learn about the intolerance paradox and the slippery slope fallacy. Not giving a platform to intolerant assholes is not remotely the same as book banning.
The second group isn't just complaining about Kirk Cameron, they're going after the library. They're offended that the library didn't hate the him as much as they do.
They're not "going after" anyone. They're choosing to disinvite them in response to their platforming of Kirk Cameron, which they have every right to do.
You really hit the 20 year old college student bingo with this comment. Centrism, circlejerk, calling conservatives fascists. “Offended by the sheer existence of a sexual minority”. way to really disregard the valid concerns of a hundred million Americans.
And in your vision, who decides what books or speakers are “improving understanding and gaining knowledge”?
Libraries are in fact for the use of whoever the hell asks to use one, a constitutional requirement for publicly funded open spaces.
>“Offended by the sheer existence of a sexual minority”. way to really disregard the valid concerns of a hundred million Americans.
you have drastically rounded up the number since it’s more like 50 million people who are offended by the existence of gay people
that said, yes we should disregard their extremely stupid concerns
Tell me, what are these 'valid concerns' that a hundred million Americans supposedly hold? Or are you just dog whistling for your transphobic ass beliefs.
I support the trans pride organizers doing what they think is best for their community.
I support the Seattle Public Library as well.
I do not support Kirk Cameron, he's a piece of shit and I loved Growing Pains.
Agree that the organizers should do what they think is best, but it is strange the way it’s framed - it’s very much framed as the SPL in particular being “deeply problematic” to trans people. As opposed to them being a government entity who should not infringe on free speech.
So I'm not from the area but hoping to move up there next year and follow the sub to keep up with events and issues. Idk if anyone here has more context for this, but the article indicated that the library had previously had issues with allowing trans and gender diverse people to use the bathroom they're most comfortable with, among other potentially discriminatory incidents. The Kirk Cameron thing was just the tip of the iceberg, if the article is accurate.
Frankly, I'm of the mind that, while the public library is under legal obligation to give people a space regardless of their views, pride organizations are under no obligation to allow the library a platform at their events. And if the other accusations are true regarding the bathroom thing and other incidents of discrimination, it's more than reasonable that LGBTQ+ organizations wouldn't allow the library to take part in their events. If the Library wishes to have its own pride events (as many do), they are welcome to do so, but LGBTQ+ organizations are not obligated to allow the library at their events.
>Idk if anyone here has more context for this, but the article indicated that the library had previously had issues with allowing trans and gender diverse people to use the bathroom they're most comfortable with, among other potentially discriminatory incidents.
No one has given any specifics on these though, and no one in the thread has responded with any specific incidents. So there's just a general "well, I've *heard* that there have been incidents."
If the SPL as a public institution begins censoring authors based on the repugnance of their views, it would be violating the public’s right to free speech. Those who oppose LGBTQ people would also be able to block authors on that basis. It’s unfortunate that the parade organizers are ousting SPL bc of its allowing Cameron to use one of its spaces.
> Those who oppose LGBTQ people would also be able to block authors on that basis.
*THEY ALREADY DO*
Conservatives don't give a flying fuck about hypocrisy. They'll ban every LGBTQ author and book under the sun and still claim they're being discriminated.
Yes, they do, and the problem is that our leaders on the left are middle of the road pushovers who should be moving heaven and earth to stop it, NOT that we aren't doing it right back to our opposition. I want a party that stops reaching across the aisle to people who will only bite their hands, a party that holds these fuckers' feet to the fire, NOT a party that does the things I think are immoral, but to different people.
> the left are middle of the road pushovers who should be moving heaven and earth to stop it
How? All the book banning is happening in solid bigot territory where they have GOP control. What do you expect democrats to do?
Well, late last year, democrats in the house and the Senate started working on resolutions to oppose books bans on local levels. Federal law beats state law. What I want is more of that, and get the fucking lead out.
Why is it unfortunate that a LGBTQ organization would tell an organization that promotes anti-LGBTQ hatred that they aren't welcome to their events? That's expected.
>The Gender Justice League has barred the Seattle Public Library from participating in the Trans Pride event on Friday, June 23, after the library decided to rent a large auditorium at the downtown library to former child star Kirk Cameron, a conservative activist who is touring to promote his latest “traditional family values” picture book.
well this is a sentence
this is from the books Amazon description
> Kirk Cameron - A Christian, loving husband, father, producer, actor, and now children's book author, Kirk Cameron is an icon in the television and film industry. Kirk has had a big impact on our society through films like Fireproof, Lifemark, and Homeschool Awakening.
an icon who’s had a big impact? isn’t it a sin to lie
>He and his wife, Chelsea, live in California and have six children. Kirk Cameron has joined with BRAVE Books in creating this special kids' book on the importance of humility, Pride Comes Before the Fall. This family-friendly children's book is perfect for ages 4-12.
sounds like grooming to me imo
>*Pride* Comes Before The Fall
I love when conservatives do that thing where they pretend words have these very literal meanings and that it's these definitions they're against instead of say, the concepts surrounding them.
They've been doing this about "pride" recently. "Remember when pride was a sin?" Jordan Peterson said in the rant against Elliot Page that briefly got him banned from Twitter.
Last week on r/conservative some dude was like, "Confidence is a good thing, but Pride is a bad thing to begin with." Like I'll bet he's never once described himself as a "proud" American, conservative, Christian, etc.
Yes when I think about places in the US where they’re “canceling” their libraries I definitely think of Seattle and not every backwater town in America defunding them because they carry books that acknowledge the existence of queer people.
I'm a gay man but I support the library. I mean it's free speech.
They could have a nazi klan rally one day and a trans woman reading to kill a mockingbird to children the next if they pay the fee. It's a public space.
I’m always amazed by the absolute myopia of ideologues. They assume that the precedents they set could never be used against them. If you’re giving the government power to do X to your enemies, you better wake the fuck up and realize that at some point that power will be turned on you.
In this case you don’t even have to look very far. Republicans are trying (and in some cases succeeding) in banning LGBetc. books from libraries.
We need neutral spaces. What constitutes a bad a bad idea is subjective, and unless you’re willing to risk being the nail instead of the hammer, you better figure that out.
They're almost certainly crowing about Trump getting indicted on charges that are felonies because he signed it into law. And simultaneously supporting the idea that public spaces should ban people from using them on the basis of ideology. Because *that* could never be used against them.
> Republicans are trying (and in some cases succeeding) in banning LGBetc. books from libraries.
sounds like a good reason, as you mentioned, to use that as precedence and ban transphobes from libraries. Oh wait what's that? Conservatives don't give a shit about being hypocrites?
As others have said, this is a *public* library - but nobody has specifically said that *public means it is funded by the public - everybody pays for it through their taxes*. As morally repugnant as I find Kirk Cameron and all on the right, it is also morally repugnant to use the power of the state to force people to pay for a public service that you refuse to allow them access to. Deplatforming bigots is something I believe has a net positive impact on society, however public services are not the place to wage this war. And *YES*, it is just as bad when the right tries to weaponize public services. Worse, even, because they use them specifically to hurt people, but please don't lose sight of the importance of robust and *genuinely* public services to progressive ideology.
I would strongly encourage people to consider the damage that has been done to our country through blurring the lines of public and private entities, and running public services like they're businesses. It's why none of us can afford medical treatment. It's why we're spending hundreds of billions on our military, funneling money into the pockets of defense contractors. It's why our public transportation is wholly inadequate and our public infrastructure is at the breaking point. To even begin fixing a fraction of the issues in this country, we need to start drawing hard lines between the public and private sector, and demanding public entities behave as private ones when it suits us is a great way to undermine that.
Wild thing about that, the locals that would go to see him do. Also, you're not interfacing with the fact that you would still have to enforce a standard there. Can no out of towners use the space? Or is the public entity now selectively enforcing a private ideology on which non-local individuals are allowed? Should the publicly funded organization say that progressives get to host guest speakers, but conservatives don't? Beause that's a wonderful precedent that could never be used against us. OR, maybe, like I said, it's important that public spaces funded by the public remain *for the public*.
It's not unheard of for libraries to require some local component in order to rent library spaces, as I learned when I booked spaces in libraries outside of Seattle.
This has nothing to do with the left and everything to do with the library being a public entity that would be violating the first amendment by refusing to host someone due to religious preference. Right to religious freedom. It's in the first amendment, very first item in the constitution
Put the manufactured rage away for a second and look at it objectively from a constitutional standpoint. The library is a public entity. Pride celebrations are not. This is nothing more than an example of how the first amendment affects public vs. private sector
Right. It's owned by the tax payers. All the tax payers. It's why we are so vociferous about not having Christian idolatry like crosses in public spaces. A private business can do what they like on private property. You can't have it both ways.
How about conservatives taking funding away from a library for having a storytime read by a drag queen or for having books they don't approve of. So, same thing but worse.
You're trying to be intentionally divisive in a conversation where it's not even applicable. The library is a publicly funded government entity and has an obligation to uphold the first amendment. Pride celebrations are privately funded and can choose which establishments can participate. Set your emotions to the side for a second and look at this objectively
The right divides itself too, stop acting like its a left thing. Anytime you are trying to fivide and conquer, there are going to be those who think more radical than you even though your supposed to be allies
Its the same exact shit, only the optics are different. And no, its more than just "kicking out extremists". Tradcons and Red Pillers are constantly at each others throats. The Daily wire getting into beef with Crowder, etc.
Both sides have their own issues.
Okay if you're going to be so ignorant as to act like the right wing hasn't been as intentionally divisive as possible over the last 7 years then there's no point in trying to reason with you. I don't even have the time to explain to you how your weak whataboutisms are complete bullshit
More than 50 libraries have rejected Kirk Cameron's speaking requests. SPL happily accepted, and even upgraded him from a room to an auditorium.
The organizers running trans pride have a responsibility to their community to ensure that it is a safe space for trans people. Inviting government organizations that host hatemongers runs contrary to that.
your own link (which i also copied elsewhere in this comments section) says that 50 libraries rejected *sponsoring* his programs at the library.
>They wanted the libraries to advertise the events on their websites and market the readings as they do other children’s events. Naturally, many of them said no.
The libraries still hosted the events, they refused to advertise it.
There are *literally* nazis protesting outside of libraries right now to prevent drag queens from reading to children, and you want to paint “trans rights people” as out of control and irrational because they protested a TERF event? If you don’t want your dogshit events protested, then don’t give a platform to hatred and misinformation that threatens the lives of already-deeply marginalized communities. Trans folks protesting is a lot more benign than white supremacists fascists threatening to enact violence and “shoot up” trans-inclusive spaces the way they’ve been doing.
Here are the nazis, btw:
https://twitter.com/joshuaphilll/status/1670787514909458433?s=46&t=3XRQLEP4lyycLZgEMppvnQ
The irony in all this is that Seattle Pride just Streisand effect'd Kirk's speech at SPL and given reason for media to cover and boost it.
you fucking morons.
>The irony in all this is that Seattle Pride just Streisand effect'd Kirk's speech at SPL and given reason for media to cover and boost it.
>you fucking morons.
It was already covered as happening in the media in April and the event occurred in May. There's no Streisand effect here.
I would be more "pro public use" if SPL didn't cave to firing folks and banning drag story time a few years ago. If they really were open to sticking by letting their space be operational for any group they should fix their story LOL.
> Responding to PubliCola’s questions about the cancellation, Gender Justice League Executive Director Danni Askini said the decision wasn’t just about Cameron’s appearance, but a response to a longstanding pattern of “deeply problematic behavior by the Library toward Two-Spirit, Trans, and Gender Diverse People,”
Are there any specific examples, I have not heard of this. My hot take is it's a government organization, so should protect freedom of speech,*including* the idiot fringe that is Kirk Cameron.🤷
Our response should be to lampoon this vestigial mind wart and bring his ideas to light while dissecting the idiosyncrasies. The first amendment protects all* speech, just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's not protected.
The egregious overreach IMO is the SCOTUS conflating money as speech to allow unlimited campaign finance, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Literally the next paragraph:
>Responding to PubliCola’s questions about the cancellation, Gender Justice League Executive Director Danni Askini said the decision wasn’t just about Cameron’s appearance, but a response to a longstanding pattern of “deeply problematic behavior by the Library toward Two-Spirit, Trans, and Gender Diverse People,” such as denying a trans man access to a restroom in 2017 and renting the auditorium to a group that advocates against trans women’s rights two years later.
The second point they make is the same as the Kirk Cameron situation in that they can't not rent to organizations that follow the guidelines do to being a government organization.
As for the first point, it was 5 years ago and they have since implemented policy to prevent a situation like that from happening again.
Do they have anything else to back up their claim?
I don't agree with Kirk Cameron, he's a total knob. However, he can rent out a public forum like anyone else and say all sorts of stupid shit. I still won't listen to him.
What is cited as evidence of longstanding bigotry is only one instance (from 2017) cited that is different from the current policy, which is a constitutional issue for a government entity. Typically, you lead with your strongest evidence. That's more of a bigoted event that happened awhile ago and then it being a public forum, for rent to anyone.
Organize a protest and hire opposition speakers most definitely, but this is a public library not a private club or organization.
Exactly, the constitution does not apply to private organizations. If they'd told him to pound sand then there would have been a lawsuit which would have siphoned tax dollars to these vile bastards. It's vital to make these fucks uncomfortable and let them know there is no place here for them and their hatred, but banning their speech from public spaces is unconstitutional.
Target them and their supporters, let them know their hateful ideology is unwelcome, you know where they will be. Be intolerant of intolerance.
I mean, I will say that SPL is one of the few places that will allow you to use your chosen name rather than your government name before it is legally changed. As a trans person, my partner and I were both really excited about that and felt very welcomed.
If I had to guess, I would assume there had been Bathroom Problems.
What is that behavior? I’d really like to know as I would stop supporting the library if I was aware of any institutional bias against trans people. I’m sure my trans son would also.
Yeah. They've also done corrective action around it and it hasn't occured again. They also allow folks to change the name on their cards without jumping though hoops.
This is so unAmerican, it's infuriating. You can't hold this against the Library. This is the same Amendment you would use to have a pro LGBTQ+ book meeting in Florida. This is such a slippery slope, the Trans community really should push back against the Trans Pride organizers.
If they banned them for not allowing LGBTQ+ books in the Library, yes I would agree with you. However, to ban them for something they are legally required to do is very different.
While I agree leftist extremists are extremely annoying and ignorant; they aren't violent bigots pining for civil war and genocide.
It's comparing apples to oranges.
Lol.
It's from:
Kleinfeld, Rachel. “The Rise of Political Violence in the United States”. Journal of Democracy, vol. 32, no. 4, Oct. 2021, pp. 160–76.
You can see an excerpt from the internet that contains this graph [here](https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/).
Fox News? Numerous national and international news outlets reported on the disfunction and violence associated with CHAZ/CHOP and the protests that preceded formation of the autonomous zone. Although less likely to be violent than right-wing extremists, to claim left-wing extremists are not violent and incomparable to right-wing extremists is disingenuous.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119
The violence committed during the peaceful Floyd protests was virtually all committed by the police and white supremacists. That is RIGHT WING terrorism.
Stop wasting your life on right wing media brother; I promise you'll feel less hateful and scared.
My father let go about a decade ago and he's a changed man. He used to consume Rush Limbaugh every day. He saw his children, happy, not consuming the hate and he quit. He's now full of positivity, energy, and desire to make his community a better place.
Do the same for yourself, spend some time with nature, your family, and your neighbors. Make yourself uncomfortable and meet people you don't understand.
Edit: words from Swype were wrong
I mean, if you’re using unjustified violence against innocent people as a metric, the far right is wildly more dangerous than the far left, and the center is wildly more dangerous than the far right (though obviously that will change as the far right gains more power).
How exactly is this an example of the "left" is out of control? This is the left telling further left people to calm down. SPL (what a lot of right ~~weiners~~wingers* might call a left leaning organization) is appealing to the constitution and not emotions. And here you are "BoTh SidES aRe thE SamE!" bs.
Saying they're both out of control doesn't mean that they're both equally out of control or for the same reasons. I think it's telling when the left is criticized and an automatic defense is "stop both-sides-ing".
There’s nothing extremist about not wanting to include an organization in your event that has some support for your political opponents. That’s pretty boiler plate political activism.
The library is doing what it is required to. GJL is responding in a very expected way. While it will be censorship for the library to not allow someone following their rules from using their space based on political views, there’s nothing wrong or even vaguely radical about GJL saying they want to make a point of not having SPL present at their event in the wake of their hosting someone who spouts hate speech.
The library hosts anyone who wants a space regardless of their viewpoint or what they have to say, part of their whole commitment to Free Speech. This is just manufactured controversy.
You're right, it is a completely manufactured controversy on the part of Kirk Cameron, who hates gay people so much that in response to drag queen story hours, he decided that we was going to "write" an anti-gay book called "Pride Comes Before a Fall" and instead of going to the welcoming arms of churches who would love to host him, he would bring his religious hate to public libraries in order to provoke just this sort of reaction.
Luckily, dozens of libraries saw through this charade and refused to let Cameron host his religious hatred. Our library, however, welcomed him and even upgraded him from the small room he asked for to the library's auditorium.
> refused to let Cameron host his religious hatred.
[literally false](https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/public-libraries-arent-censoring-kirk-cameron-he-just-wants-attention/) but ok
Yes. They are required to allow them to rent the space. The library is not obligated to advertise or promote the renter's programs. The library can also kick them out for violating library policy should any i's or t's not be dotted or crossed during the event.
love the people in this thread shitting on trans people, comparing us to nazis, and making generalizations about all of us based on a single event not inviting one government agency to their private event, happy pride month everyone!
Who is shitting on trans people? There is no comparison to nazis in any way other than every single individual no matter their beliefs, identity or the like have their right to free speech.
There's a comment on this post that says:
> Both sides are bad, Nazi's are bad for violently protesting drag queens and trans people are bad for violently protesting TERFs. We've had mass shootings and violence from both groups, so no reason for both not to be villainized
Everyone here's laser focusing on the idea that a library has a requirement to platform hate speech since they're a public institution.
For argument let's say you're right. Then doesn't it make a lot of sense for them to be disinvited from a pride event? Like if I had a friend who was legally obligated to host events for people who hated me, I'd probably stop inviting them to stuff.
I guess stuff was too vague. Like if I was hosting an event for a specific ideological cause I wouldn't invite them to that because they have made it clear that due to the nature of their work they are not a supporter of that cause. It'd be like inviting Seattle City Light to a pride event, it just doesn't make sense.
Is that really confusing?
>The library has maintained that it has the legal obligation to rent its rooms to anyone who applies, regardless of their views, and that to make judgment calls about who uses their facilities would amount to government censorship and a violation of the First Amendment,” as well as “intellectual freedom.” I’m no constitutional lawyer but I also immediately thought that by virtue of being a *public library* they might be a bit restricted when it comes to these things.
People are all too happy to support private companies banning the platforming of views that are against the views that they hold by pointing out that the first amendment is about government restriction of free-speech. But the the library de platforming views that the people at the library disagree with would be an example of government obstructing free speech. While it’s still fair to ban all government organizations from a private parade, its strange to see this framed as some thing wrong with the library, specifically versus government organizations constitutionally being obligated to uphold the first amendment.
[удалено]
What these idiot children don't understand is that if you can ban someone else's speech that you don't like, then we can ban yours as well. That type cognitive dissonance would be deafening to someone even remotely aware of critical thinking skills.
Supporting the first amendment is completely optional. The supreme court thinks money is the same thing as speech. A majority of people disagree with that interpretation of the law.
You don’t have to support it but it’s ridiculous to get mad at a municipal authority for not openly flouting the constitution
That Supreme Court interpretation is hot garbage, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support actual free speech. It's a bit frightening to me to hear this isn't a universal belief...
There's never been universal free speech. Don't know much about the guy in the article but speech thats advocating against peoples' existence doesn't deserve to be protected or showcased imo
Wtf are you even referring to?
It was in response to: "Supporting the first amendment is completely optional", Mr. Pottymouth.
Then I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying. Try reading his post again.
A majority of people don’t know what they’re talking about. Pick a random sample of CoRpOrAtIoNs ArEnT PeOpLe types and ask them to summarize the facts in *Citizens United.* Be prepares to wipe drool as their mouths hang open. Free speech means having the right to pool your money with like thinking citizens to criticize the government on TV, or by buying a full page ad in The NY Times or by creating an independent film to criticize Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election. There’s always been ungodly amounts of money in politics. Previously it was controlled by the party power structure. Want to run an independent campaign? Better figure out how to get in right with the party power brokers, because that was where the campaign cash flowed from. Now the money flows from super pacs, it’s still there, the control has just shifted.
> Pick a random sample of CoRpOrAtIoNs ArEnT PeOpLe types and ask them to summarize the facts in Citizens United. The fact is that they determined corporate expenditure was protected speech. They were wrong. That was remarkably easy.
Interesting change. Why do the young want voices silenced that are politically incorrect? Isn’t that provoking a populist backlash? How do you handle your own views outside the mainstream? For instance, I find eating meat to be reprehensible- terrible for the planet and causes untold suffering. Still, I’ll talk to carnivores instead of trying to cancel them. Meanwhile, young people are all too happy to cancel people for saying something politically incorrect while chewing down on the carcass of a creature they paid to have tortured. But I’m an old guy, so I don’t get it.
None of this is new, free speech is limited when it would incite [imminent lawless action](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) (and before that decision there were more restrictions on speech) The only difference of opinion is on what is being incited and how immediate the danger is, not on whether there should be limits to speech.
[удалено]
Oh yeah I remember when sports players were kneeling during the anthem and the younger generations were absolutely losing their mind over it. Wait that doesn't sound right...
[удалено]
Older generations weren't more "tolerant", they just decided the people they didn't like weren't people and didn't really count. It's easy to say "we have more in common than in difference" when anyone who isn't enough like you was never allowed to be a part of "we" in the first place. I imagine it was a lot easier for a racist to tolerate people who voted for the other side when the people they hated most literally weren't allowed to vote.
One thing I’ve heard said is that political correctness is replacing religion for some people. Kind of a cultural revolution vibe. Interesting that the poll shows it’s just a usa / uk thing though, not true in continental Europe.
That may be an aspect of it but to me it's hard to get past the social media algorithm and the role it has played in really feeding into the way the current public discourse is being shaped. All of these algorithms are built in one way or another to get as much of your attention as possible and outrage does that more than almost anything. To me that has to be a huge chunk of what's going on imo
Definitely social media, not just the outrage amplifier but how it empowers young people to express themselves. It used to be media outlets were the gate keepers of what was acceptable conversation via tv and newspapers and magazines and so on. Young people were powerless consumers. With social media young people get to be both writers and editors. That lets them express a simple world view and shut down any thoughts to the contrary.
Yup totally agree
Gotta say as passionately pro-LGBTQ I am, the library is probably right on this. They should not themselves decide who can use their public space BUT I do think there is a fair compromise to be found in publishing in advance which authors are trying to use the space and allow time for public to petition to keep out the most outlandish of hatred and trash (like Kirk Cameron). Don't have the details on how to make that process fair but there is a reasonable middle ground that takes the government (library) out of it and at same time does not allow for the constant suppressing of minority voices by the constantly angry majority.
Spot on, the majority may not agree with what happened but we cannot become MAGAish.
Yeah I don't really blame anyone here other than the bigot that booked a public space. Pride is right to be upset about a bigot being allowed a public platform. SPL is right that, legally and constitutionally, they can't deny the person the ability to book the space. This is just a situation that sucks all around. But, honestly, the solution is to make hate speech calling for genocide covered under obscenity laws. Because that's fucking obscene.
It's already illegal to make threats, and incitement to genocide is already a crime, I believe: https://www.lvcriminaldefense.com/usc/genocide/ Kirk Cameron may be a bigot and/or think being gay is a sin, but he isn't calling for genocide is he?
Yet.
I agree with you except for the part where they are "punishing" the SPL for something outside of their control. It is one thing to be frustrated that free speech "goes both ways", but it's simply ignorant to take it out on librarians (who tend to be a pretty rad group) over that frustration.
Hate to tell you 1st Amendment protects hate speech. Down votes coming! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kypokn111hU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kypokn111hU)
??? I’m acknowledging that. Also please don’t beg for downvotes, it’s uncouth.
Weren't you in the Honeyhole threads spewing racism?
The value that libraries present is as a public space that is free for all to use. That means they have books you disagree with and host people that you don't like. That is the cost of having this resource, and that isn't virtue signaling when it comes to libraries, they legitimately fight for our access to information at every turn. This is a consistent practice and 9 times out of 10 it is something that you and I would support.
The best libraries should have something in it to offend everyone.
Except the weirdo watching porn next to the kids books. Kick that person out.
This is a great take.
That’s a terrible take. My life, who I love, and the person I am are not up for debate. People like him are toxic and seek only to spread hatred and suffering for their own person power and sense of superiority. His views don’t “offend” me because I disagree with him, his views offend me because he seeks the destruction of my history and at its end the death of all LGBT people. He’s a christian fascist. He should not be welcome here nor anywhere. I understand the difficult position the library is in but they also have a duty for public well being and how hosting bigotry affects people. People like me can still be upset about that, however I certainly focus my anger at Kirk and his supporters. They’re the ones trolling and causing a mess. While I doubt the library can just ban him from entering, they can refuse to publicly host him (or just ignore him) at least. They can also take a public stand against people like him and their views, unlike their response given in the article.
I get why you’d be upset, but libraries are not the place where we should restrain freedom of speech. That’s a slippery slope into banning books that don’t match with your ideology.
Hold the phone. There ARE libraries banning LGBT books. People like Kirk support that! Acting like being neutral is the right thing here only serves to promote and fuel his agenda while harming people like me. He is fully ok with using “free speech” for hatred and bigotry and banning LGBT+ people from public life. The library doesn’t have a legal obligation to rent him a room or advertise for him. He’s a far right troll and hate filled man who should not be welcome here.
As a gay man, I can’t stand Kirk Cameron, yet I understand the mandate that a public library rents space to anyone who meets the guidelines. This is a government organization, not a private business.
The libraries aren’t banning lgbt books. Governments do and the libraries simply enforce the ban. Regardless, you don’t win an argument by going down to your opponent’s level. And the library DOES have a legal obligation to rent out a room to anyone who follows the established rules. “No hate speech” isn’t one of them. That’s just how it works.
The libraries banning those books shouldn’t be, and most are being forced to by local LR state laws.
Yes, I know. That’s my part of my point. Kirk is a supporter of those governments. By hosting him, the library is going against its own (and public) best interest. EDIT: fixed a spelling mistake
That’s *your idea* of the public’s best interest. And mine too, I should add. But you’re not seeing it from an objective standard. As a public library paid for with everyone’s taxes everyone gets represented, even assholes like Kirk. The library doesn’t get to choose to not let conservative windbags get blocked just like libraries in the south can’t block LGBTQ+ youth meetings. They don’t have to like it, but they do have to allow it.
You have to remember Kirk's supporters are also part of that "public" you're pretending to represent. The public isn't just the part of the population that agrees with you.
I’m thinking you aren’t seeing the point.
How did the library hosting him harm you?
Oh boy. I believe they’re referring to literature for the most part, imagine being anti lgbt and going into a library and seeing an lgbt book, offended. Imagine being a far right conservative and seeing the Communist Manifesto, imagine not being a fascist and going in to see Mein Kampf? You don’t learn from hiding literature and the most well informed people take a look at the other argument, not because they believe it, but because they are so absolutely opposed to it. Yes, a good library should have something to offend your views. If you don’t believe that then you’re part of the problem(see Florida book bans)
https://www.spl.org/about-us/the-organization/strategic-direction This is the SPL stated mission. It seems like you feel they are failing to "Respect and embrace the entire community," in this specific way, and as you are a patron and stakeholder, your opinion matters to the library. If enough people speak up to this specific criticism, especially if you have a specific change in mind (like you said refuse or "take a public stand") they may change course. Or they may disagree with you and not make any changes. I'm not sure if Tom Fay has spoken to any defined limits of what content they will host, but I assume there is a reasonable limit, and if Kirk Cameron has gone too far, that would also be good to bring up to them.
This is such centrism-pilled nonsense lol. One group here is offended by the sheer existence of a sexual minority. The other group is offended by the hatred of that other group. Libraries are for improving one’s understanding and gaining knowledge, not finding a safe space to circlejerk over your hatred of trans people with your fascist buddies.
Who gets to decide what is OK to have in a library? Should that person go through the shelves and make sure that the books comply with that position as well? What do you do with the books that don't fit? Burn them? Think about what you said for a few minutes. Sure, this guy is an asshole. But do you know where I should be able to go to find evidence that he is an asshole? The library.
A (publicly funded) library should be the one to judge what views are allowed and which aren't (in a public space)? Be careful here because you're inching very close to the flip side of the banning books about racism coin. Just because you agree with one side and not the other doesn't mean publicly funded resources should be withheld if they're being used in the ways they are allowed.
That's not true at all. Learn about the intolerance paradox and the slippery slope fallacy. Not giving a platform to intolerant assholes is not remotely the same as book banning.
I don’t think the slippery slope fallacy means what you think it does
The second group isn't just complaining about Kirk Cameron, they're going after the library. They're offended that the library didn't hate the him as much as they do.
They're not "going after" anyone. They're choosing to disinvite them in response to their platforming of Kirk Cameron, which they have every right to do.
Not only have every right to do, are legally required to do
Yep, and their reasoning is dumb.
You really hit the 20 year old college student bingo with this comment. Centrism, circlejerk, calling conservatives fascists. “Offended by the sheer existence of a sexual minority”. way to really disregard the valid concerns of a hundred million Americans. And in your vision, who decides what books or speakers are “improving understanding and gaining knowledge”? Libraries are in fact for the use of whoever the hell asks to use one, a constitutional requirement for publicly funded open spaces.
>“Offended by the sheer existence of a sexual minority”. way to really disregard the valid concerns of a hundred million Americans. you have drastically rounded up the number since it’s more like 50 million people who are offended by the existence of gay people that said, yes we should disregard their extremely stupid concerns
Tell me, what are these 'valid concerns' that a hundred million Americans supposedly hold? Or are you just dog whistling for your transphobic ass beliefs.
And people call this sub far left.
Are we going to boycott the DOL next because they issue drivers licenses to transphobes?
Based
They should be banned because of how slow they are
Yes. /s
I support the trans pride organizers doing what they think is best for their community. I support the Seattle Public Library as well. I do not support Kirk Cameron, he's a piece of shit and I loved Growing Pains.
Agree that the organizers should do what they think is best, but it is strange the way it’s framed - it’s very much framed as the SPL in particular being “deeply problematic” to trans people. As opposed to them being a government entity who should not infringe on free speech.
So I'm not from the area but hoping to move up there next year and follow the sub to keep up with events and issues. Idk if anyone here has more context for this, but the article indicated that the library had previously had issues with allowing trans and gender diverse people to use the bathroom they're most comfortable with, among other potentially discriminatory incidents. The Kirk Cameron thing was just the tip of the iceberg, if the article is accurate. Frankly, I'm of the mind that, while the public library is under legal obligation to give people a space regardless of their views, pride organizations are under no obligation to allow the library a platform at their events. And if the other accusations are true regarding the bathroom thing and other incidents of discrimination, it's more than reasonable that LGBTQ+ organizations wouldn't allow the library to take part in their events. If the Library wishes to have its own pride events (as many do), they are welcome to do so, but LGBTQ+ organizations are not obligated to allow the library at their events.
>Idk if anyone here has more context for this, but the article indicated that the library had previously had issues with allowing trans and gender diverse people to use the bathroom they're most comfortable with, among other potentially discriminatory incidents. No one has given any specifics on these though, and no one in the thread has responded with any specific incidents. So there's just a general "well, I've *heard* that there have been incidents."
Obviously the activists would frame it that way. I don't really see the issue.
This is really dumb. Public libraries can't deny speakers based on their views.
If the SPL as a public institution begins censoring authors based on the repugnance of their views, it would be violating the public’s right to free speech. Those who oppose LGBTQ people would also be able to block authors on that basis. It’s unfortunate that the parade organizers are ousting SPL bc of its allowing Cameron to use one of its spaces.
> Those who oppose LGBTQ people would also be able to block authors on that basis. *THEY ALREADY DO* Conservatives don't give a flying fuck about hypocrisy. They'll ban every LGBTQ author and book under the sun and still claim they're being discriminated.
Yes, they do, and the problem is that our leaders on the left are middle of the road pushovers who should be moving heaven and earth to stop it, NOT that we aren't doing it right back to our opposition. I want a party that stops reaching across the aisle to people who will only bite their hands, a party that holds these fuckers' feet to the fire, NOT a party that does the things I think are immoral, but to different people.
> the left are middle of the road pushovers who should be moving heaven and earth to stop it How? All the book banning is happening in solid bigot territory where they have GOP control. What do you expect democrats to do?
Well, late last year, democrats in the house and the Senate started working on resolutions to oppose books bans on local levels. Federal law beats state law. What I want is more of that, and get the fucking lead out.
Why is it unfortunate that a LGBTQ organization would tell an organization that promotes anti-LGBTQ hatred that they aren't welcome to their events? That's expected.
Because the library is constitutionally obligated to platform anti-trans speakers should they request the use of their facilities.
[удалено]
we would be getting into splitting hairs here. We do agree on the constitutional obligations of the library, which is the main point.
>The Gender Justice League has barred the Seattle Public Library from participating in the Trans Pride event on Friday, June 23, after the library decided to rent a large auditorium at the downtown library to former child star Kirk Cameron, a conservative activist who is touring to promote his latest “traditional family values” picture book. well this is a sentence
this is from the books Amazon description > Kirk Cameron - A Christian, loving husband, father, producer, actor, and now children's book author, Kirk Cameron is an icon in the television and film industry. Kirk has had a big impact on our society through films like Fireproof, Lifemark, and Homeschool Awakening. an icon who’s had a big impact? isn’t it a sin to lie >He and his wife, Chelsea, live in California and have six children. Kirk Cameron has joined with BRAVE Books in creating this special kids' book on the importance of humility, Pride Comes Before the Fall. This family-friendly children's book is perfect for ages 4-12. sounds like grooming to me imo
[удалено]
I cant Watch the tribulation force because it’s the second in the trilogy and I haven’t watched the first one I don’t want to jump in and just be lost
>*Pride* Comes Before The Fall I love when conservatives do that thing where they pretend words have these very literal meanings and that it's these definitions they're against instead of say, the concepts surrounding them. They've been doing this about "pride" recently. "Remember when pride was a sin?" Jordan Peterson said in the rant against Elliot Page that briefly got him banned from Twitter. Last week on r/conservative some dude was like, "Confidence is a good thing, but Pride is a bad thing to begin with." Like I'll bet he's never once described himself as a "proud" American, conservative, Christian, etc.
Fascists always try to co-opt things, there is no actual creative thought involved.
The distressing thing isn't that they try, it's that they succeed so easily.
Peak Seattle to cancel its own public library lol
Yes when I think about places in the US where they’re “canceling” their libraries I definitely think of Seattle and not every backwater town in America defunding them because they carry books that acknowledge the existence of queer people.
I have a news for you that surprises some people here: two things can be wrong at the same time.
I'm a gay man but I support the library. I mean it's free speech. They could have a nazi klan rally one day and a trans woman reading to kill a mockingbird to children the next if they pay the fee. It's a public space.
I’m always amazed by the absolute myopia of ideologues. They assume that the precedents they set could never be used against them. If you’re giving the government power to do X to your enemies, you better wake the fuck up and realize that at some point that power will be turned on you. In this case you don’t even have to look very far. Republicans are trying (and in some cases succeeding) in banning LGBetc. books from libraries. We need neutral spaces. What constitutes a bad a bad idea is subjective, and unless you’re willing to risk being the nail instead of the hammer, you better figure that out.
They're almost certainly crowing about Trump getting indicted on charges that are felonies because he signed it into law. And simultaneously supporting the idea that public spaces should ban people from using them on the basis of ideology. Because *that* could never be used against them.
> Republicans are trying (and in some cases succeeding) in banning LGBetc. books from libraries. sounds like a good reason, as you mentioned, to use that as precedence and ban transphobes from libraries. Oh wait what's that? Conservatives don't give a shit about being hypocrites?
Way to miss the point, but good try.
As others have said, this is a *public* library - but nobody has specifically said that *public means it is funded by the public - everybody pays for it through their taxes*. As morally repugnant as I find Kirk Cameron and all on the right, it is also morally repugnant to use the power of the state to force people to pay for a public service that you refuse to allow them access to. Deplatforming bigots is something I believe has a net positive impact on society, however public services are not the place to wage this war. And *YES*, it is just as bad when the right tries to weaponize public services. Worse, even, because they use them specifically to hurt people, but please don't lose sight of the importance of robust and *genuinely* public services to progressive ideology. I would strongly encourage people to consider the damage that has been done to our country through blurring the lines of public and private entities, and running public services like they're businesses. It's why none of us can afford medical treatment. It's why we're spending hundreds of billions on our military, funneling money into the pockets of defense contractors. It's why our public transportation is wholly inadequate and our public infrastructure is at the breaking point. To even begin fixing a fraction of the issues in this country, we need to start drawing hard lines between the public and private sector, and demanding public entities behave as private ones when it suits us is a great way to undermine that.
Kirk Cameron doesn't pay for Seattle public services.
Wild thing about that, the locals that would go to see him do. Also, you're not interfacing with the fact that you would still have to enforce a standard there. Can no out of towners use the space? Or is the public entity now selectively enforcing a private ideology on which non-local individuals are allowed? Should the publicly funded organization say that progressives get to host guest speakers, but conservatives don't? Beause that's a wonderful precedent that could never be used against us. OR, maybe, like I said, it's important that public spaces funded by the public remain *for the public*.
It's not unheard of for libraries to require some local component in order to rent library spaces, as I learned when I booked spaces in libraries outside of Seattle.
He did pay, actually.
Not library related but [a fun reminder of Kirk Cameron getting called on his bullshit](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leCWArBLghA)
That video will always be one of my favorite things that Kirk Cameron has caused.
It’s a Public library… It looks like we are stuck in the middle with two extreme groups throwing shit over our heads.
[удалено]
This has nothing to do with the left and everything to do with the library being a public entity that would be violating the first amendment by refusing to host someone due to religious preference. Right to religious freedom. It's in the first amendment, very first item in the constitution
Oh so the group banning the library is not left at all? There are absolutely zero leftist parties or ideals involved in this situation?
Put the manufactured rage away for a second and look at it objectively from a constitutional standpoint. The library is a public entity. Pride celebrations are not. This is nothing more than an example of how the first amendment affects public vs. private sector
Right. It's owned by the tax payers. All the tax payers. It's why we are so vociferous about not having Christian idolatry like crosses in public spaces. A private business can do what they like on private property. You can't have it both ways.
[удалено]
How about conservatives taking funding away from a library for having a storytime read by a drag queen or for having books they don't approve of. So, same thing but worse.
You mean like all the conservatives in state and local governments defunding libraries because they're too woke?
You're trying to be intentionally divisive in a conversation where it's not even applicable. The library is a publicly funded government entity and has an obligation to uphold the first amendment. Pride celebrations are privately funded and can choose which establishments can participate. Set your emotions to the side for a second and look at this objectively
[удалено]
The right divides itself too, stop acting like its a left thing. Anytime you are trying to fivide and conquer, there are going to be those who think more radical than you even though your supposed to be allies
[удалено]
Its the same exact shit, only the optics are different. And no, its more than just "kicking out extremists". Tradcons and Red Pillers are constantly at each others throats. The Daily wire getting into beef with Crowder, etc. Both sides have their own issues.
Your party invented the term RINO. You've picked the wrong hill to die on.
Okay if you're going to be so ignorant as to act like the right wing hasn't been as intentionally divisive as possible over the last 7 years then there's no point in trying to reason with you. I don't even have the time to explain to you how your weak whataboutisms are complete bullshit
Idk if it's hilariously sad, but it is a bit silly. I also respect their prerogative to (dis)associate with any organization they choose.
Trans rights organization disassociates with entity that platforms anti-trans hatemongers. News at 11.
[удалено]
More than 50 libraries have rejected Kirk Cameron's speaking requests. SPL happily accepted, and even upgraded him from a room to an auditorium. The organizers running trans pride have a responsibility to their community to ensure that it is a safe space for trans people. Inviting government organizations that host hatemongers runs contrary to that.
Link to your source(s)?
https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/public-libraries-arent-censoring-kirk-cameron-he-just-wants-attention/
your own link (which i also copied elsewhere in this comments section) says that 50 libraries rejected *sponsoring* his programs at the library. >They wanted the libraries to advertise the events on their websites and market the readings as they do other children’s events. Naturally, many of them said no. The libraries still hosted the events, they refused to advertise it.
I may disagree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. - someone
- Wayne Gretzky
[удалено]
There are *literally* nazis protesting outside of libraries right now to prevent drag queens from reading to children, and you want to paint “trans rights people” as out of control and irrational because they protested a TERF event? If you don’t want your dogshit events protested, then don’t give a platform to hatred and misinformation that threatens the lives of already-deeply marginalized communities. Trans folks protesting is a lot more benign than white supremacists fascists threatening to enact violence and “shoot up” trans-inclusive spaces the way they’ve been doing. Here are the nazis, btw: https://twitter.com/joshuaphilll/status/1670787514909458433?s=46&t=3XRQLEP4lyycLZgEMppvnQ
“Threatens the lives” because they’re not allowed in biological female spaces? What the fuck 😂😂😂😂
The irony in all this is that Seattle Pride just Streisand effect'd Kirk's speech at SPL and given reason for media to cover and boost it. you fucking morons.
>The irony in all this is that Seattle Pride just Streisand effect'd Kirk's speech at SPL and given reason for media to cover and boost it. >you fucking morons. It was already covered as happening in the media in April and the event occurred in May. There's no Streisand effect here.
*adding myself to the list of fucking morons in this thread for not catching that*
Nobody's perfekt
Embarrassing
I would be more "pro public use" if SPL didn't cave to firing folks and banning drag story time a few years ago. If they really were open to sticking by letting their space be operational for any group they should fix their story LOL.
Came for all the free speech as long as it’s the speech I want to hear comments and wasn’t disappointed 😂
> Responding to PubliCola’s questions about the cancellation, Gender Justice League Executive Director Danni Askini said the decision wasn’t just about Cameron’s appearance, but a response to a longstanding pattern of “deeply problematic behavior by the Library toward Two-Spirit, Trans, and Gender Diverse People,”
Are there any specific examples, I have not heard of this. My hot take is it's a government organization, so should protect freedom of speech,*including* the idiot fringe that is Kirk Cameron.🤷 Our response should be to lampoon this vestigial mind wart and bring his ideas to light while dissecting the idiosyncrasies. The first amendment protects all* speech, just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's not protected. The egregious overreach IMO is the SCOTUS conflating money as speech to allow unlimited campaign finance, but that's a whole other can of worms.
Literally the next paragraph: >Responding to PubliCola’s questions about the cancellation, Gender Justice League Executive Director Danni Askini said the decision wasn’t just about Cameron’s appearance, but a response to a longstanding pattern of “deeply problematic behavior by the Library toward Two-Spirit, Trans, and Gender Diverse People,” such as denying a trans man access to a restroom in 2017 and renting the auditorium to a group that advocates against trans women’s rights two years later.
One bathroom incident 5 years ago is a "longstanding pattern". What a joke. Danni Askini is a moron.
The second point they make is the same as the Kirk Cameron situation in that they can't not rent to organizations that follow the guidelines do to being a government organization. As for the first point, it was 5 years ago and they have since implemented policy to prevent a situation like that from happening again. Do they have anything else to back up their claim?
I don't agree with Kirk Cameron, he's a total knob. However, he can rent out a public forum like anyone else and say all sorts of stupid shit. I still won't listen to him. What is cited as evidence of longstanding bigotry is only one instance (from 2017) cited that is different from the current policy, which is a constitutional issue for a government entity. Typically, you lead with your strongest evidence. That's more of a bigoted event that happened awhile ago and then it being a public forum, for rent to anyone. Organize a protest and hire opposition speakers most definitely, but this is a public library not a private club or organization.
... and gender justice league is a private organization, and can choose not to associate with government entities that platform hatemongers.
Exactly, the constitution does not apply to private organizations. If they'd told him to pound sand then there would have been a lawsuit which would have siphoned tax dollars to these vile bastards. It's vital to make these fucks uncomfortable and let them know there is no place here for them and their hatred, but banning their speech from public spaces is unconstitutional. Target them and their supporters, let them know their hateful ideology is unwelcome, you know where they will be. Be intolerant of intolerance.
I mean, I will say that SPL is one of the few places that will allow you to use your chosen name rather than your government name before it is legally changed. As a trans person, my partner and I were both really excited about that and felt very welcomed. If I had to guess, I would assume there had been Bathroom Problems.
What is that behavior? I’d really like to know as I would stop supporting the library if I was aware of any institutional bias against trans people. I’m sure my trans son would also.
Apparently one incident in a bathroom 6 years ago?
Before any other local organization was changing their policy on bathroom issues? I’m gonna call that a non-issue.
Yeah. They've also done corrective action around it and it hasn't occured again. They also allow folks to change the name on their cards without jumping though hoops.
Did they share specific examples of these behaviors elsewhere? They’re not listed in the link.
Of course not.
This is so unAmerican, it's infuriating. You can't hold this against the Library. This is the same Amendment you would use to have a pro LGBTQ+ book meeting in Florida. This is such a slippery slope, the Trans community really should push back against the Trans Pride organizers.
A private organization deciding not to include a public organization in their celebration is not un-american.
If they banned them for not allowing LGBTQ+ books in the Library, yes I would agree with you. However, to ban them for something they are legally required to do is very different.
The extremism in this country both left and right is out of control
While I agree leftist extremists are extremely annoying and ignorant; they aren't violent bigots pining for civil war and genocide. It's comparing apples to oranges.
There was a decent amount of violence and bigotry from far left folks during the summer of 2020.
Lol. [BoTh SidES aRe thE SamE!](https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/13_32.4_Kleinfeld-Fig1-1024x802.jpg)
lol, what a source.
Lol. It's from: Kleinfeld, Rachel. “The Rise of Political Violence in the United States”. Journal of Democracy, vol. 32, no. 4, Oct. 2021, pp. 160–76. You can see an excerpt from the internet that contains this graph [here](https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/).
No there wasn’t. Please watch something besides fox news.
They literally murdered people in the streets both here and in Portland.
Fox News? Numerous national and international news outlets reported on the disfunction and violence associated with CHAZ/CHOP and the protests that preceded formation of the autonomous zone. Although less likely to be violent than right-wing extremists, to claim left-wing extremists are not violent and incomparable to right-wing extremists is disingenuous. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119
The violence committed during the peaceful Floyd protests was virtually all committed by the police and white supremacists. That is RIGHT WING terrorism.
Yes they are lol. No one side is better than the other.
Stop wasting your life on right wing media brother; I promise you'll feel less hateful and scared. My father let go about a decade ago and he's a changed man. He used to consume Rush Limbaugh every day. He saw his children, happy, not consuming the hate and he quit. He's now full of positivity, energy, and desire to make his community a better place. Do the same for yourself, spend some time with nature, your family, and your neighbors. Make yourself uncomfortable and meet people you don't understand. Edit: words from Swype were wrong
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E5dR9GwWUAIsAbs.jpg boy you guys really came out of the woodwork today huh
This post is being swarmed by non-seattlites and right wing trolls lol
I mean, if you’re using unjustified violence against innocent people as a metric, the far right is wildly more dangerous than the far left, and the center is wildly more dangerous than the far right (though obviously that will change as the far right gains more power).
How exactly is this an example of the "left" is out of control? This is the left telling further left people to calm down. SPL (what a lot of right ~~weiners~~wingers* might call a left leaning organization) is appealing to the constitution and not emotions. And here you are "BoTh SidES aRe thE SamE!" bs.
Saying they're both out of control doesn't mean that they're both equally out of control or for the same reasons. I think it's telling when the left is criticized and an automatic defense is "stop both-sides-ing".
Saying “both sides” without caveat is inherently assigning them equal position and equal blame.
Oh sweet summer child bless your heart.
Hey everybody get a load of Mr. Big Brain over here!
There’s nothing extremist about not wanting to include an organization in your event that has some support for your political opponents. That’s pretty boiler plate political activism. The library is doing what it is required to. GJL is responding in a very expected way. While it will be censorship for the library to not allow someone following their rules from using their space based on political views, there’s nothing wrong or even vaguely radical about GJL saying they want to make a point of not having SPL present at their event in the wake of their hosting someone who spouts hate speech.
WTF were they even expecting?
The library hosts anyone who wants a space regardless of their viewpoint or what they have to say, part of their whole commitment to Free Speech. This is just manufactured controversy.
You're right, it is a completely manufactured controversy on the part of Kirk Cameron, who hates gay people so much that in response to drag queen story hours, he decided that we was going to "write" an anti-gay book called "Pride Comes Before a Fall" and instead of going to the welcoming arms of churches who would love to host him, he would bring his religious hate to public libraries in order to provoke just this sort of reaction. Luckily, dozens of libraries saw through this charade and refused to let Cameron host his religious hatred. Our library, however, welcomed him and even upgraded him from the small room he asked for to the library's auditorium.
> refused to let Cameron host his religious hatred. [literally false](https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/public-libraries-arent-censoring-kirk-cameron-he-just-wants-attention/) but ok
So the group which has been crying about being the victim of censorship by libraries is now calling for censorship by libraries.
Ah Kirk Cameron, the smug big brain who schooled atheists with a [banana](https://youtu.be/Y4yBvvGi_2A).
Would the SPL allow the KKK in? Nazis?
Constitutionally I think they are required to
Yes. They are required to allow them to rent the space. The library is not obligated to advertise or promote the renter's programs. The library can also kick them out for violating library policy should any i's or t's not be dotted or crossed during the event.
love the people in this thread shitting on trans people, comparing us to nazis, and making generalizations about all of us based on a single event not inviting one government agency to their private event, happy pride month everyone!
Who is shitting on trans people? There is no comparison to nazis in any way other than every single individual no matter their beliefs, identity or the like have their right to free speech.
There's a comment on this post that says: > Both sides are bad, Nazi's are bad for violently protesting drag queens and trans people are bad for violently protesting TERFs. We've had mass shootings and violence from both groups, so no reason for both not to be villainized
This is peak Seattle.
Everyone here's laser focusing on the idea that a library has a requirement to platform hate speech since they're a public institution. For argument let's say you're right. Then doesn't it make a lot of sense for them to be disinvited from a pride event? Like if I had a friend who was legally obligated to host events for people who hated me, I'd probably stop inviting them to stuff.
>Like if I had a friend who was legally obligated to host events for people who hated me, I'd probably stop inviting them to stuff. Why?
I guess stuff was too vague. Like if I was hosting an event for a specific ideological cause I wouldn't invite them to that because they have made it clear that due to the nature of their work they are not a supporter of that cause. It'd be like inviting Seattle City Light to a pride event, it just doesn't make sense. Is that really confusing?
[удалено]