Dear Prof. Dudash-Buskirk,
I am writing in response to your Facebook comments following the Feb. 25, 2025 meeting of the Christian County Library Board of Trustees. You incorrectly ascribed the comments of a member of the public to the library board. I attempted to correct your statement above.
Instead of acknowledging the error and correcting it, you doubled down:
First, since you mentioned the First Amendment, I will quote it here:
Nowhere does the Constitution limit speech to "good" or "ethical." Indeed, to suggest that "Free speech is intended to protect speech of goodwill for the betterment of community" is to insert a censorship point of view into the equation.
Frankly, this is the type of teaching that encourages censorship of individuals, groups and ideas. Who shall determine what is "good" or "ethical" or "speech of goodwill?" Is it you? Is it me? Is it the government?
The library board's agenda always includes a public comment portion, which incidentally has been expanded by the new board in order to allow the public more opportunity to speak.
Second, you aver that the library board--an arm of our representative government--should take control of the public's speech. Indeed, you go so far as to blame the board for a citizen's words because they did not censor the content.
No one "screamed we are going to hell." The reference to USAID's transgender expenditures was used to correlate spending taxpayer dollars in our own library district. The public comment portion of the meeting is distasteful to you because speech can be uncomfortable and insulting when you do not agree with the content.
Elizabeth, I understand perfectly.
Being doxxed, called a bigot, a Nazi, a book banner and so on is par for the course in our free speech society when one stands for something. But I would never attempt to censor your right to speak things that make me uncomfortable or angry.
I vehemently disagree with the American Library Association's stance that minor children should have access to all materials in the library. I have written extensively on that very subject. I have not seen you engage with the actual argument: Do children have the right to access ALL materials in the library?
You do not engage because you cannot. There are many books in the library that are not suitable for minors. Minors do not enjoy full rights as citizens until they reach the age of majority. You refuse to engage with the materials that are right now in our library's children and teen sections. You fail to reference the vile pictures, the early sexualization, the stories of incest and rape, the how-to scenarios and so on. And, you refuse to address the fact that parents have a right to curate--in taxpayer-funded schools and libraries--what materials are accessible to their children. It doesn't mean other parents are denied the right of access; it means the materials are restricted from the hands of children unless and until their parent agrees to provide them access.
It is ironic that you think nothing of publishing scurrilous articles on your website in the name of free speech, but would not grant your opposition the same right to speech with which you disagree. I have to conclude that you are falling back on pseudo-intellectual arguments about "ethical" and "good" speech because you have lost the high ground.
Third, you mention the separation of church and state. The library board, rightfully executing its constitutional duty not to censor speech, listened to a citizen speak of the eternal consequences of the decisions we make in this world. Every citizen, of whatever religion, has a right to speak about their faith in public spaces. The government has no business regulating such speech. What few restrictions there are on speech--such as threatening the life of others--is most certainly in place to protect the community from harm--but not offense.
It apparently bothers you greatly to hear fervent religious speech. I would suggest it discomforts you because your conscience has been pricked. And that is a very good thing. Whenever my conscience troubles me I see it as an indication I need to reflect on my thoughts and actions.
Fourth, to call for the suppression of free speech by our representative library board is antithetical to the rights of citizens and the lawful execution of the board's duties. Surely you see how ironic it is that you and your friends are insisting vulgar, age-inappropriate books be made available to children, yet in the next breath call for the censoring of adult citizens who disagree. This smacks of an indoctrination agenda because it is specifically aimed at vulnerable children.
Every single citizen who spoke at the library meeting was talking about the library. In the end, it was a certain type of speech with which you disagreed. No amount of couching the argument in terms of ethics or the common good can church up your intention to shut down speech you don't like. I urge you to rethink your position. The library board is not responsible for the speech of citizens during public comment, nor are they responsible for suppressing that speech.
Respectfully,
Gretchen Garrity
You know she won't see this.
ReplyDeleteYou could share it with her. ;-)
ReplyDelete