By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – The likely pretext for the bomb threat to the library was the action by Librarian Scott Love to shut down a public meeting by Moms for Liberty.
On Monday, Fox 40 in Sacramento received an anonymous message that they passed on to authorities. While Police Chief Darren Pytel declined to release the message, citing an ongoing investigation, he did vaguely describe the contents of the message.
The message was filled with derogatory terms for gays and directed at a specific individual, complaining it seems about the First Amendment violation that took place at the library.
The threat itself was “more incidental in the colorful language used,” the chief explained.
The Vanguard spoke with Beth Bourne, the organizer of the event. However, she told the Vanguard that, given there was now a pending legal action potentially against the library for a violation of free speech, she could only comment on factual occurrences, which were fully recorded on video.
Scott Love gave, according to Bourne, Allie Snyder permission to record his conversation with herself and Kim Jones, ICONS co-founder, on the phone.
Bourne provided the Vanguard with a copy of that recording.
“California state law recognizes transgender as a protected class,” Love explained according to the recording that was reposted on Twitter. “So, I was telling her, if you are speaking about a transgender or female, they need to be referred to as a female. Transgender male needs to be referred to as a male. And if there’s any misgendering, we will ask… If it’s by any of the organizers, they will be asked to leave. There’s no exceptions.”
He added that “this is under treating people with respect. If you are, if you’re referring to a transgender female as a male’s protected in the state of California.”
The Vanguard asked Bourne for a copy of the contract they signed in order to use the facility—but the contract makes no reference to it.
Nor does the library’s “code of behavior.” The closest thing we could find was, “Treat people, materials and furniture with respect.”
That appears to be what Love was referencing in his comment.
Video from the event then shows what transpired about 20 minutes later.
Sophia Lorey, one of the speakers, said they would hear about “the physiological advantage of male athletes and the emotional and psychological impact on girls when men play on their sports teams.”
An audience member then said, “Are you going to misgender people throughout the entire thing?”
At this point Love interceded, again noting California state law “recognizes transgender women as women.”
“This is a library. I don’t want any transgender females being called males in sporting events with females,” Love said. “If that happens, it’s not following our code of conduct and we will ask the person to leave immediately.”
Once again Lorey referred to “biological men,” and Love again referred to the library’s code of conduct. Love then asked her to leave “or we’ll shut the entire program down. …You were misgendering.”
After some more back and forth, Love eventually shut down the media and the incident has since gone viral, on national right-wing media in particular.
But the library’s code of conduct makes no specific reference to misgendering.
The Vanguard reached out to Dwight Coddington throughout the day on Tuesday for clarification—three times by phone and once by email, and got no response.
The closest the Vanguard could find referencing misgendering in California law, was the 2017 law, SB 219, authored by Senator Scott Wiener. Among the purposes of the law was to “prohibit staff from willfully and repeatedly misgendering a resident due to the harassing, discriminatory, or insulting nature of that speech; in other words, its communicative effect.”
The Third Appellate Court noted, “If an employee’s speech repeatedly and willfully misgenders a long-term care facility resident, the speech is criminalized. If an employee’s speech does not misgender a resident, or if the employee misgenders the resident only once or unintentionally, the speech is not criminalized.”
Then the AG argued that “the law is content neutral because it does not dictate speech; employees remain free to avoid using the pronouns at issue entirely.”
However, while the court agreed, “The pronoun provision does not compel speech in the same way that the government compelled students to recite the pledge of allegiance and salute the American flag,” nevertheless the court ruled that the provision “violated staff members’ rights to free speech…” and “is a content-based restriction of speech that does not survive strict scrutiny.”
While the case has been appealed to the California Supreme Court, the court has not ruled on it.
Julie Hamill, an attorney, also noted on Twitter that there is no such law (and cited the same court decision).
“Telling a speaker they cannot use language aligned with a particular viewpoint is the opposite of a viewpoint-neutral restriction,” she tweeted.
The Vanguard spoke to a number of sources that wanted to remain off the record, and none were familiar with any law that would make it illegal to do this—and most agreed that the librarian, in their view, overstepped their authority by shutting down a public meeting.
“However, she told the Vanguard that given there was now a pending legal action potentially against the library for a violation of free speech, she could only comment on factual occurrences, which were fully recorded on video.”
After getting incalculable publicity for their cause now they contemplate litigation that will cost the library how much money? No doubt the library employee overstepped his authority and I thought that employee went too far but resource draining litigation as a response is reprehensible. Wouldn’t a simple apology be enough?
In my opinion the answer to that is no. This is happening way too much and a clear message has to be sent.
What clear message Keith?
I’m sorry, Keith, but what exactly is happening too much? You really need to provide specific examples and quantify “too much” if you are going to blithely toss off statements like this.
Ron, it is worth stating again what I said in the other article’s comments. Your suggestion makes logical sense. You (and I) are looking at this issue and it’s related actions logically. We are thinking about it and coming to a conclusion that appears to us, after that analysis, to have the greatest good for the greatest number of people in our society as a whole. That thought process produces questions like the ones you asked yesterday, “Are there any trans kids playing sports in DJUSD? In Yolo County? At UCD?”
Wouldn’t an apology solve this? is another such logical question.
But logical questions like those don’t figure into the minds of the the organizers of this event. They aren’t following a thinking process. Their consideration of this issue is focused on and all about feelings. They also do not care about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. They only care about themselves and their own personal comfort. They want to make anything that makes them feel uncomfortable go away.
Are you referring to the audience that complained about the speakers not using their preferred terms for trans athletes?
No, but that is not a surprising interpretation. I was referring to the willful choice by the speaker(s) to be unwilling to utter the words “transgender women” or “trans women.”
To put that into context, how do you feel if someone talking to you or interacting with you is unwilling to utter the words “Keith Olsen,” but instead refers to you as “ex-convict”?
The reaction of the members of the audience certainly could have been more restrained, but there is a huge difference between someone who is being proactively confrontational and someone who is reacting to the fact that they are being unnecessarily confronted.
Which brings me to two important questions, (1) “Why do you think the speaker(s) actions of confrontation are necessary?” And (2) “Why do you think the words “transgender women” and/or “trans women” make the speaker(s) (and/or you) uncomfortable?”
Assuming that Keith is not an “ex-convict”, I would think that this could drift into slander.
I don’t think this would apply regarding misgendering issues, but I suppose someone might challenge it. I suspect it could come down to whether or not a court agrees that someone’s reputation suffered as a result.
Ron, you are spot on with your comment. A trans woman is no more a man than Keith is an ex-convict. Given that, do you agree that your statement logically says “Assuming that the trans woman is not a man, I would think that this could drift into slander.”
I would think that the question is two-fold.
Is a trans-woman a “woman”? Is a trans-man a “man”?
(Sometimes, I get confused momentarily regarding what this is referring to.)
Is calling someone an “ex-convict” (who isn’t one) harmful (in regard to slander), and in what way? (Certainly, in regard to employment or housing.)
I would think that (if anything), calling someone a “trans-woman” or “trans-man” could lead to discrimination.
But I tend to think of the law in this matter, and the librarian’s actions. Pretty much the entire issue in this particular case.
I smell a big lawsuit coming.
I thank the Vanguard for its fair impartial reporting on this follow up. I know it must of been hard to report its findings but free speech is important in this country. There should be consequences for illegally shutting it down, if that is indeed the case here.
Keith, the speakers at this event were actively and aggressively advocating for shutting down the free speech rights of LGBTQI members of our society. How do you reconcile that?
A big lawsuit? One where the lawyers make the most money no doubt at the expense of the acquisition of books by the library. Why ban books when you can defund the library through litigation. Most of the moms I know support the services the library. Anyway what would the damages be? Not much. A refund of the rent times three. Some sort of consent degree. The library no longer offering space for non-library related activities I don’t know I’m not a lawyer but I doubt litigation would benefit anyone other than the lawyers.
This is more about re-stoking the outrage machine.
I’ve supported Beth and Allie’s right to have their say, and they both know it, but a lawsuit against the Library is a race to the bottom of stupidity. This is becoming a race to see who can be the most offensive the library or the Moms for Liberty. The last one to escalate loses with this observer.
A related issue I have not seen addressed regarding a separate issue of deliberate misidentification:
“Sophia Lorey, one of the speakers, said they would hear about “the physiological advantage of male athletes and the emotional and psychological impact on girls when men play on their sports teams.”
Since it is quite obvious that no “girls” teams are being infiltrated by adult “men” wishing to complete, it would seem Ms. Lorey’s words have been chosen to provoke feelings of vulnerability of “girls” that are simply not warranted. While I believe this is within the boundaries of “free speech” I also believe it is duplicitous and probably disrespectful of those who are not adult men by any standard one could choose.
I’m wondering what harm has been done? Beth is enjoying national media coverage – much more than if her little event had gone off without a hitch. Suing the County (the community) may garner more publicity for her and her group, but locally maybe not the best kind. This is not a way to win people over or make friends. It feels like a set up – poke and goad long enough and then play the victim when someone finally stands up to them.
The library may need to stop renting the Blanchard Room for events. These activities endangered the lives of library staff and patrons, and the nearby public. They can’t take that risk again.
Much as I don’t like the idea of losing the space as a community resource, I think closing the Blanchard room for non-library events is best.
That would indeed ensure that those opposed to free speech “win”, just as they do on college campuses these days.
That’s what I was taught when I was a kid. There’s no reason to start a fight over name calling (or in this case wrong pronouns). I was taught (and I teach my kids) that there are consequences for getting into fights (even if you feel your reasons are justified). So only get into a fight if you have no choice (but if you get in one, finish it).
How would this have turned out if this group had been left alone to say what they wanted to say…and that was it? Would the majority of Davis have shifted their views on the issue? Would it have led to changes in city/school policies? No.
IMO, the problem is that society has become too thin skinned and righteous (in all aspects of society). Righteousness feels good. It feels empowering because you believe you’re fight bad people or people with bad beliefs. So we get people who’s sole purpose is not to promote their issues but to get one over or to “own” the opposition. So then all you get is escalation and little progress on the issues at hand.
Since no real change would have happened due to this silly meeting, I would have encouraged parents of trans-kids to strengthen their kids against the big bad cruel world against words. Empower your kid and give them enough support and confidence so that derogatory things towards them don’t hurt them so much.
Pretty much any psych will tell you that the sticks and stones thing is a big lie, and it actually has devastating consequences. I think Matt’s comment is spot on – if someone asks you not to call them something and you insist on doing it, it’s a problem. One of the big smaller aspects of the civil rights movement was the right for Blacks in the south to be called Mr. and Mrs. rather than by their first name or worse. Small stuff has a very big impact on people’s psyche.
Give me some sources that take into account the mitigating effects of psych counter measures to said “devastating consequences”. I have a degree in psychology (and I worked in neuro-psych rehab in the 90’s) and if I don’t understand your sources my parents and extended family have PhDs in clinical psychology will help me….though we usually agree on these things.
Also you have to take things into context. As usual the knee jerk reaction is to make a wild sweeping claim about sticks and stones being a lie…when in fact in MOST cases it’s applicable. So if a few some isolated incidents happen….no big deal. If it becomes an ongoing (harassment) problem that you can’t walk away from…then you have to deal/fight it. As with everything in life…pick your battles….but otherwise….be cool.
I advocate building stronger psyches….not tiptoeing around the fragile ones.
Isn’t proclaiming “sticks and stones” also a knee jerk reaction?
You are also calling for building stronger psyche’s which is good, but in order to do that particularly with populations who are vulnerable, you have to actually in many cases help rebuild them and what you are suggesting is actually the exact opposite of that.
Uh…no. Sticks and stones is what was traditionally taught to kids for decades. That’s hardly “knee jerk”.
“rebuild them”? like the six million dollar man? by wrapping them in social bubble wrap from the big bad world? you overcome things in this world through POWER. Not just overt tyrannical power (though that helps). But through power over your self….how you feel. What you believe. I’m no fan of religion….but if you call out a hard core faithful person’s beliefs as backward, irrational, illogical…etc… and they choose not to fight you….they’re going to feel sorry for you because you don’t get it….or believe you’re going to hell…or whatever. The point is that they’re belief in themselves and everything around them is that so strong that your criticism (or in some cases they face derogatory comments) doesn’t phase them. They’re that strong. That kind of strength can be fostered for lots of positive things like for oppressed groups etc… You have to provide these vulnerable groups the support and encouragement to achieve success that builds confidence and belief. Are there those with disadvantages? Sure but the world’s not fair. You just have to overcome and conquer.
Which gets us back to sticks and stones. Again pick your battles. (there are consequences for battles…even if you’re “in the right”) If the incident is of no consequence….then let it go. If you can’t escape it or ignore it…fight it. If this was a big meeting school board meeting with determining votes that impact trans teens….then by all means fight away….push to get your agenda accomplished/protect. But some pronouns? Name calling? Eh, play it cool.
You have kids that are or once were in the Davis elementary schools system. If they encountered a kid saying something they didn’t like, how do they say you should address it? The little elementary school kids at Chavez are given: Kelso’s Choices. Notice that two of the choices are “ignore it” and “walk away”. What do you think would have happened if the library and those opposed to the meeting’s agenda simply ignored it?
The perpetrators of the library meeting would have just continued to escalate their attacks. At some point, silence becomes assent.
Very thoughtful, articulate response Keith. I particularly like the question, “What do you think would have happened if the library and those opposed to the meeting’s agenda simply ignored it?”
For me the answer to that question is a whole lot like the question, “If a tree falls in the middle of the woods, with no witnesses, is there any noise?” Your (implied) suggestion is that if you take away the “witnesses” there would be no “noise.” Unfortunately, the people who are most affected long term are the children who are going to school each day feeling that they are non-binary. The message of the meeting organizers and meeting speakers is that those non-binary children are a “mistake” or even an”abomination” and that their existence should be erased. Simply ignoring that highly proactive message is abandoning those children to suffer the pain that comes from being the target of those sticks and stones. Hopefully we all individually and collectively have enough empathy to step up and say that is wrong.
How is ignoring something that takes place a small local library that 99% of people have no idea is going on…..allowing children to suffer pain? And again, you’re never going to get everyone to agree with you and like you. So as long as there is free speech there are going to be lots of words out there from some people that someone isn’t going to like. The only thing you can control is how you feel about those words…if you even care in the first place. That’s where empowering those in disadvantaged groups come in. In this case have some trans-athletes put on a presentation that shows how awesome they are. How they contribute to the sporting world. Shouting “you’re wrong! You’re wrong! Be quiet!” at opponents accomplishes very little and often makes things worse. All it does is feed the ego with righteousness. It feels good for awhile but it’s of little actual substance in terms of solutions.
Really? So what would have happened? A bunch of right wingnuts going on about their agenda in a library meeting room….so what? If it’s ignored it’s an echo chamber. What does it really matter? What’s it going to escalate into…an anti-trans athlete bake sale? The bomb threat came as a response to the shutting down of the meeting. Now you have discussions about shutting down meetings at the library to avoid problems. Or you could just let people say what they want to say at a PUBLIC facility (fair or foul) and you likely avoid any serious problems. If you oppose that group’s agenda, host your own meeting at the same PUBLIC meeting place and state your agenda….show how awesome your agenda is…not how bad the opposition is.
All I hear are people wanting to feel good and righteous in opposition to people with different views that slighted them with some words.
Interesting – the AG attempted to say, “sure, you have free speech rights” (as long as you use the correct, state-mandated pronouns).
One would think that the state AG would be a defender of free speech (and the law supporting it), but I guess it doesn’t work that way in California.
Though I’m not sure to what degree an employer can limit free speech.
Self-identification is primary and must be protected by law, with the exception of actions meant to defraud, etc.
Gender, biology… what about the inherent problems of sports? In many societies only men could compete officially until last century, in societies more or less controlled by men, no voting by non-men etc. Hierarchy of men. How much of this continues to influence sport? Can team sports be built up to include a variety of talents so that the real everyone can participate together?
I didn’t do particularly great in individual and team sports in elemenary through high school for a variety of reasons, some caused by the institution itself – this was the 70’s and 80’s… how much better is it nowadays, for all genders?
I don’t follow the gender and sports issue closely, but my sense is that the inherent issues with sports are complicating the discussion. Beyond that, I don’t even understand why use gender titles any longer, and even if the generally very helpful desired pronouns thing leaves out people who don’t self-classify as any particular gender (none of the above or other without explanation is a false choice…).
Hi everyone.
I’m an ex-Davis library worker and currently a Public Librarian down in Southern California (please forgive me). Full disclosure: I’ve traded emails with Scott about library stuff but never worked with him.
Librarians are all about free and open access to controversial ideas. It’s baked into our code of ethics. We pride ourselves on being defenders of free speech… even if it’s not speech we agree with. For the most part, we do this by providing open access to information.
To be a public librarian in California, you need a Master’s degree. You learn a lot about free speech while earning that degree. You learn a lot about finding information and evaluating books. But you learn nothing about de-escalating potentially violent arguments between groups of individuals.
If you’ve watched the video, I’d urge you to think about how difficult of a situation that would have been for a librarian to manage. The typical branch manager is confronted with questions like “hmmm… is it a better use of taxpayer dollars to subscribe to The Economist or Foreign Policy magazine?” They then look at some spreadsheets of data and come to a decision.
The snap decision to shut the event down was a very different circumstance. It was clear early on that some people on both sides had come spoiling for a fight. From the interruptions to the shouting, a fair number of those in attendance were not following the library’s code of conduct — even though they were reminded of it.
Now, you might fault Scott for not enforcing the code of behavior on both sides equally. But… we don’t know if he said anything to the other hecklers earlier on — they did seem to stop? Either way, he can only address one individual at a time. We only know what he was doing once his focus was turned on the presenters. And that’s the point where the event ended.
If one person breaks the rules, you ask that individual to leave. When whole groups of people break the rules and start yelling at each other, shutting down the event might seem like a prudent move because… is a physical altercation going to break out? I know librarians who would be totally frozen in that situation. Regardless, what had occurred up to that point was not library appropriate behavior. Remember, the guy’s not a bouncer or a security guard… he’s a librarian.
Why was he there? Library staff members generally don’t hang out when someone rents a community room. He was there because someone — be that Scott or administration — thought that some audience members might attend in bad faith. To be disruptive.
Indeed, that turned out to be the case. Depending on your priors you might point the finger at one side or the other. You can maybe fault Scott for lopsidedly enforcing library policy in the heat of the moment, but the only reason that situation arose was because of people acting in bad faith in order to score imaginary political points.
So please, take that under consideration when you thinking about your local librarian.
That’s the crux of the problem, what laws were broken when he asked the Mom’s For Liberty speakers to leave?
— If one person breaks the rules, you ask that individual to leave.
— what laws were broken
Laws and rules aren’t the same thing. They violated the library’s code of conduct that they had agreed to. They were warned and did it again. They were warned again and did it again. The meeting was ended by the librarian.
None of the con-law folks I’ve talked to thinks this will fly.
It’s not clear what you’re referring to here.
Yesterday I reached out to a lot of people to figure out what law the librarian was referring to and whether he acted properly and whether it was legal. They all said about the same thing.
And what was that?
That they were unaware of any law that would be applicable and that they believed that disbanding the meeting for misgendering someone was a violation of free speech.
I don’t believe he disbanded the meeting because Sophia Lorey, Outreach Coordinator for the California Family Council, misgendered transgender girls as “men” and engaged in an argument with the audience and the Librarian, threatened to sue over her free speech rights, during her Welcome and opening remarks. What I saw was that the presenters yelled at the Librarian, tried to order him about, repeatedly threatened him and demanded that he leave. This is a misdemeanor.
“PC 601.2 says, ”(a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner’s agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner’s agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor….”
As mentioned elsewhere, I am a librarian and not a lawyer. However, I have worked with multiple city attorneys to draft codes of conduct for public libraries that our attorneys believe to be legal and enforceable.
Libraries generally rely on Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morris (958 F.2d 1242; 3d Cir. 1992) in formulating their policies. This case affirmed that public libraries should be treated as limited public forums (rather than traditional public forums), and that codes of conduct are not first amendment violations if the restrictions are reasonable.
Obviously, much ink can be spilled and many lawsuits can be filed over what constitutes “reasonable.” But citing Kreimer, lower courts generally accept policies that allow libraries to function in their understood role are “reasonable.” This includes banning expressive activities such as not wearing a shirt, as well as prohibiting disruptive (but otherwise protected) speech.
From this, codes of conduct, behavior policies, etc. were born.
Obviously, there’s lots of room for argument about what constitutes an overly-broad policy and the usual questions of whether governmental interests might be equally well served with more narrowly tailored language. These, along with equal protection concerns, are questions for the courts based on how a specific policy is written. But the idea that you can’t be thrown out of a library for breaking the rules because “freedom of speech” isn’t where case law currently is.
I would be remiss not to note that the other big constitutional question that library polices tend to run into is the due process clause of the 14th amendment. In most cases, that’s probably more fertile ground for challenge.
Thank you Sam Liston, for putting what happened at the library into a librarian’s perspective.
“Now, you might fault Scott for not enforcing the code of behavior on both sides equally. But… we don’t know if he said anything to the other hecklers earlier on — they did seem to stop? Either way, he can only address one individual at a time. We only know what he was doing once his focus was turned on the presenters. And that’s the point where the event ended.
If one person breaks the rules, you ask that individual to leave. When whole groups of people break the rules and start yelling at each other, shutting down the event might seem like a prudent move because… is a physical altercation going to break out? I know librarians who would be totally frozen in that situation. Regardless, what had occurred up to that point was not library appropriate behavior. Remember, the guy’s not a bouncer or a security guard… he’s a librarian.”
So likely only one or two of you posting here were actually THERE on Sunday. I was. What Sam is saying is exactly what was happening when Scott finally shut it down. It was chaotic, people were shouting on both sides — and yes, Scott DID in fact ask people on both sides to cool it. He motioned to me personally to stop talking back to the “Our Duty” attorney who was yelling at us (I did stop) as well as trying to calm people on both sides. Sophia Lorey was also intentional in her own insults and one could argue issued “fighting words” to the group present, some of whom were wrapped in or waving trans flags, and that her words were slanderous and dehumanizing of the transwomen and girls in attendance. Something the First Amendment does not allow — there are reasonable arguments there, David, take a close read at that 2021 case again. She wouldn’t stop and kept arguing with the audience — and it did feel like the event could devolve — one supporter of M4L used violent and profane language to a minor in attendance immediately after the event — (filmed I believe) and there were others making troubling comments.
In addition, overall, context is important. “Moms for Liberty” has been threatening, harassing, and stalking teachers over the past year, and only last week doxxing and endangering local DHS teachers — posting their names in large print over photos of their classroom windows — one of which featured flags and a sign in support of black and LGBTQ+ students. One teacher’s two children begged the M4L leader to take down these posts endangering their mother. The M4L Davis leader regularly shares her posts on right-wing white nationalist social media sites. And then the day before the event, an LGBTQ+ ally was shot down and killed in SoCal by a man who didn’t like her flying a rainbow flag outside her store. So tensions were high, people have been extremely frightened and the intentional and slanderous misgendering fed fuel to that fire. Scott is a hero for what he tried to do — allow a civil discussion by both sides — but it was clear it was never going to be a discussion, rather a rant by anti-trans folks brought to Davis to intimidate and add to the harassment already happening in and around our schools, city councils and now our sports teams. It became chaotic and a security risk, and he called the police.
With regard to sports and transwomen, generally, as my former NCAA D1 college athlete daughter says and wrote — “the reason school sports, including high school sports, exist is not to train the next Olympians, it is to get kids to exercise, to form healthy habits, and to give them the experience of being on a team. Historically female sports teams were created because women were excluded from competing with men, not because women didn’t want to compete with men. Turning around and excluding trans women from playing on female sports teams feels antithetical to the reason they exist — which is ostensibly to allow everyone to feel safe playing sports.” She said a lot more — including about the advantages bigger, taller, stronger women have in sports (over 6′ women playing basketball, or as soccer goalkeepers, or as rowers?) and the bullying even cis women experience if they are stronger, taller or faster or have more masculine features “that don’t fit into the little box that these bullies think stereotypical women should fit into. Trans women destroy that box, and in doing so they liberate all women to be exactly themselves.”
Ironically, Sophia Lorey herself complained to a couple of us talking to her before the event began, about a man commenting on her big and strong legs at a gym — which she acquired playing soccer, she said. Proving my own daughter’s point above. And it is likely as a 5’3″ woman, she was not recruited by NCAA schools and ended up at a small NAIA college — though she apparently did quite well in high school. Is is unfair that people have a variety of attributes they were born with that make them less or more competitive in a variety of sports? I would have liked to ask her about that in a less charged setting. One of my daughter’s club soccer teammates was also very short — though extremely talented on the ball. When it became clear that she was being continually overlooked by the NorCal district and state team coaches, she switched to lacrosse, trained hard, and ended up playing D1 lacrosse at USC and made it to the national lacrosse team. And I wonder if those concerned about this “issue” actually show up and support girls and womens sports? Let’s celebrate all girls and women playing sports, instead of trying to kick out the tiny minority of trans girls from sports.
The quotes directly attributed to the librarian (a regional manager, no less) seem to indicate that he’s purposefully ignoring the law.
I understand how it it might look that way. But… librarians help people fill out public records requests all the time. He knows that everything about this event is public record. He knew he was being filmed. He knows that he’s a government employee on the clock who has been sworn to uphold the constitution. He knows the group involved is prone to posting videos on the internet when events go sideways. And he knows the community.
I do not have much experience with crime. But my understanding is that you generally don’t want to get caught. He knew this was going to come out. He probably didn’t think thousands of people would be calling for his head on the Fox website, but I’d bet good money that as people were walking out he knew it’d at least make the Enterprise and he was going to be in for some very awkward conversations with management. Point is, you don’t ignore the law if you know you’re going to get caught.
Sure, you could say that he’s a member of the deep state or wrap it in some sort of conspiracy. But based on my years in libraries — and in talking this through with other librarians — those of us in the field have universally seen it as the guy simply freaked out and made what wound up being the wrong call in the heat of the moment. Maybe we’re all incorrect, but when looking at this as a librarian I’d put good money on this being error rather than maleficence.
Again, that’s a super-tense situation where lots of people might choke if they suddenly found themselves “in charge.” Yeah, he’s the branch manager. But the kind of personal confrontation librarians are used to dealing with is, like, reminding kids (politely!) not to wipe peanut butter on picture books — not serving as mediators in the culture war.
It’s way, way more simple than this – especially for someone supposedly trained in (or otherwise familiar with) the law:
You don’t threaten to shut down an event like this for “misgendering”, and then (apparently) following through on it. Again, referring to the librarian’s actual comments.
I’d know better than to do this, and I haven’t even received “training” as you’ve noted a librarian is (especially a regional manager).
If I made such a gross/obvious error, I’d expect to be fired. But in my opinion, it would be sufficient if an error was acknowledged, with some reassurance that it won’t happen again.
And yet, folks on here are still defending this guy, putting forth irrelevant comments, etc.
Sophia Lorey, the speaker who was shut down at the Davis library by the librarian, is looking into her legal options over the denial of her free speech rights. It looks likely that a lawsuit may soon follow.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ex-college-athlete-checking-the-best-options-on-legal-action-against-california-library/ar-AA1fCMUZ
That was included in the article we published yesterday
I’m curious David, do you think that type of lawsuit might include monetary damages? Or be more about ordering the library to change its procedures?
That could be part of a settlement. Reading the library’s policy itself it seems rather vague and that might have been part of the problem here.
David, have you watched the video? How many times did the librarian mention it’s state law? Then we learned later there’s most likely no state law.
I think Lorey and the Moms for Liberty have a good case.
There’s nothing in the policy which prohibits members of the public from “misgendering” – let alone state law.
Would have to review what the librarian said again, but I believe he referred to BOTH policy AND law – and did not do so accurately.
As Sam Liston pointed out, there’s attorneys involved with creating library policy/codes of conduct. They would presumably know better than to allow the policy to conflict with the U.S. constitution.
What’s especially inexcusable about this is the “level” of the employee who threatened to shut down the meeting (and apparently did so), as well as the amount of time (in advance) that they knew of this event.
This isn’t the first such event at the library.
The policy/code of conduct is not a lengthy document. Sharla posted it, earlier.
Is the librarian (a regional manager) still claiming that the policy or law prohibits members of the public from “misgendering”?
Unless the library system itself issues a complete apology, along with assurance that it won’t happen again, I suspect that there will be legitimate legal action taken against them.
There appears to be something wrong with the entire system, in regard to how this unfolded.
I am increasingly of the opinion (based upon the librarian’s own words, the portion of the recording I listened to, and the comments on this blog) that Mom’s for Liberty will be doing everyone who believes in free speech a “favor” by pursuing legal action.
Hopefully, setting a precedence that will apply to other similar situations, as well.
And perhaps putting a damper on those who think they can shut down messages they don’t like.
It’s unfortunate that the ACLU hasn’t taken up this cause, as it’s actually core to their supposed mission.
Well stated Ron, I’m in full agreement.
Here’s a 23 minute video of the M4L meeting and shows the aftermath that took place after the meeting on the library sidewalk. From the California Republican Assembly website:
https://cragop.org/2023/08/23/did-the-librarian-overstep-his-bounds-by-shutting-down-the-moms-for-liberty-meeting/
Out of town and missed the fun, but no, our Librarian is a local hero. If we have to pay to litigate it is worth it to try and get a win for civil speech. I also like the idea that people who think the Librarian is wrong also have to pay up for a legal defense if they live in Yolo County. It’s not about free speech, it’s about rules of behavior in public facilities. No damaging property, no alcohol, no hate spewing.
Davis library, staff targeted by new threats
Davis Enterprise, Saturday Aug 26
Davis police evacuated the Stephens Branch Library a second time Friday evening following another round of threats to the facility and its staff.
Police Chief Darren Pytel said the anonymous threats went to multiple media outlets including the New York Times, “and law enforcement all over the state also received the email,” prompting officers to respond to the East 14th St. library at about 5 p.m.
The email threatened to blow up the library in its subject line, and “it used some of the colorful language as the last one,” Pytel said Saturday, referring to a threatening email on Monday that also prompted the library’s evacuation.
That message, authorities said, used derogatory terms toward gender preference that was characterized as hate speech. Friday’s email, Pytel said, also included “explicit threats” toward the library’s regional manager Scott Love and other employees.
Officers cleared the front area of the library and searched the building but found nothing suspicious, Pytel said. The case was forwarded to the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, which continues to investigate Monday’s bomb threat.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/davis-library-staff-targeted-by-new-threats/article_e239bd20-4436-11ee-bf0f-7fd603c53e45.html
I hope they find out who’s doing this and bring them to justice.
Must be another, what did he call it, false flag?
It very well could be a “false flag”.
But to me, it’s irrelevant regarding the larger (or at least, “broader”) issue: the librarian and those who support what he said/did.
I hope this group goes down there every week at this point, to speak about “men” in “women’s” sports.
I don’t think they should even use the “biological” qualifier as an accommodation.
But seriously, I don’t care about the issue so much as I do about people trying to control what other people say. This is essentially fascism, and it’s dangerous.
Hey, since you brought it up, it could be.
We don’t know, do we?
It wouldn’t be the first time.
So I should’ve clarified earlier, I hope they find out who’s doing this and bring them to justice, whichever side it is.
Well said Ron. That’s how I feel too.
For sure the perps are M4L members or supporters. That’s how they operate. Their pattern could not be clearer.
Yeah, for sure.
Did you say it was for sure that two guys wearing Trump hats beat up Jussie Smollett too?
That other site have now become complicit in the GOP’s war on our nation’s LGBTQ population. Just witness what’s occurring there as we speak.
Another bomb threat at the library. DHS and North Davis sheltering in place.
A quick all clear