The mayor, as the chief executive, is in fact ultimately responsible for ensuring that the town staff, presumably including the librarian, follows the town guidance concerning books, yes.
Now, the specific policy you imagine above is not an acceptable one. And you know why, and no one (it seems) knows what distinguishes it from what actually happened, since no one (it seems) knows what books she sought to ban. It’s remarkable that this information was so thoroughly lost.
On the contrary, it’s for the proponent of any proposition to offer the evidence proving his case.
And besides, God wanted those books removed, as they were legally obscene. Proving me wrong is your responsibility.
See the problem?
We already have the main piece of evidence (she tried to ban books). If any conclusion other than the obvious one is to be drawn, additional mitigating evidence is now required.
Come, now; you understand that if the police find some guy standing over a body, bloody baseball bat in hand, it is that guy’s responsibility to make the case that it was self-defense or whatever, rather than criminal assault. The same principle applies here.
That has bothered me too which makes me lean towards this being much ado about nothing.
On the flip side though she did bother to go to the trouble of firing the librarian and it does seem the town rallied behind the librarian to get her to keep her job. So that makes it seem there is something there.
To add to the muddle I seem to recall someone here citing the librarian being asked this question and she refused to answer. So not a “No, didn’t happen” or a “She wanted to ban X, Y, Z”.
I dunno…I’d think if the accusation was baseless there’d be a firm denial from Palin & Co… In court that would be enough but in the court of public opinion it can be damning.
Hard one to call.
Careful debating legal niceties with Bricker.
It is worth noting however that this is NOT a legal case and NOT in a court room. This is the court of public opinion and while it would be nice if we (universal “we”) all adhered to some sense of proof the reality is all bets are off. Anything can happen.
I think it is incumbent upon Palin to comment on it at this point IF she feels comfortable in denying the allegations. A single sentence would be enough although more explanation would be nice.
Fortunately, this isn’t a court of law, and people who are less than 100% invested in this can draw their own conclusions based on the available evidence: namely, absent more information, chances are around 90% that she tried to ban a book along the lines of the top 10 cited in this thread.
It’s not as if she is asked to provide more information about this in order to save life and property: rather, it’s more like providing more information so that your prospective employers can make a character judgment.
If your prospective boss asked you about an incident in your former job relevant to your professional experience and you neglected to provide information reassuring them that it is not as bad as it looks, you simply wouldn’t get the job, (assuming the inquiry was legal to begin with or you didnt pursue legal proceeding for the inquiry based on chances of prevailing.)
From Palin’s own comments on this we know that she wasn’t attempting to ban any particular book. The request was “rhetorical”. She was testing the waters with the librarian, finding out if Emmons would support the idea of banning books that Palin didn’t want around. When Emmons said “no way, Jose” (as any decent librarian should) she got fired.
What’s worse, saying you don’t think book X is appropriate, or trying to install a librarian who will be amenable to following your lead in censorship?
Incorrect. At least concerning some states. I do not know how Alaska works, but in New York it is illegal for a city official to meddle in the business of the library this way. All they are legally allowed to do is give us the budget money. The rest is up to the library board and the library staff.
Cite? I don’t believe this is true. The Mayor certainly does not have autonomous authority over deciding what can be on the shelves and what can’t.
I don’t think Palin herself specified any titles, It sounds like she was asking in general terms about getting rid of books with “objectionable language” in them. If that’s the only criteria she gave, she has no case.
Are we in a court of law?
The prima facie facts are that Palin fired a librarian for stating that she would not be amenable to banning books. It does not appear than any specific titles were mentioned. Palin only broached the subject in general terms. The town rallied to the librarian’s defense and she was hired back without any books being banned.
Now, since Palin is essentially undergoing a job interview, not a trial, it is incumbent on her to explain herself. Why did the town oppose her? What books did she want to ban (and that’s a question for HER to answer, nobody else)? Why did she hire the librarian back? These are questions SHE needs to answer, not anyone else.
No, it doesn’t. Because in the hypothetical you offer, all the elements of a crime exist.
Here, there’s a crucial element missing. What were the books she supposedly wished to ban? Why is the recollection so crystal clear about her desire to ban books, and so blank about the titles?
No, although I can see how my comment may be subject to that misinterpretation, so I’ll clarify.
It’s true that “This is prohibited by the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court” and “what America stands for” are not the same thing.
But the problem is that “what America stands for” is not subject to precise definition. I say that America has always stood for rejecting the obscene. Who’s to disagree with me, using what metric? It’s a meaningless phrase unless there is substantial agreement that “what America stands for” is the same thing in both the speaker’s and the listener’s minds.
On the other hand, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter of what it means. Because we are a representative democracy, we may regard our laws as expressions of our notion of self-governance, and we may look to them to provide objective definitions where subjective ones fail us.
Sampiro says that banning ANY book is against what America stands for. But his idea is neither supported by history or law. It’s an empty assertion, devoid of any meaning beyond the one he applies to it.
My assertion is backed up by both history and law, and may be fairly regarded as the standard to which we, as a country, have agreed by the only method available to us to reach such an agreement: the law.
We’ll see. The interviewers are the voting public as a whole, not the tiny fraction of left-leaning persons here. If they vote the McCain / Palin ticket in, I guess we can assume that they didn’t mind, so much.
Fair enough. I’ll certainly allow that given such a law, you’re right and I’m wrong.
Absent such a law, I maintain my claim.
Does Alaska have such a law?
And just for my edification: can you give a reference or cite to the New York law, please? I’m interested to read it.
That’s true.
But this is why the political process isn’t exactly the same as a job interview.
The problem is that it’s a loss if Palin has to jump through hoops to answer every claim tossed at her. “The baby is your daughter’s.” “No, that’s not true.” “OK, take this DNA test to prove it.”
Now, in a job interview, taking a test at your prospective employer’s behest is not usually a problem, because the prospective employer wants the best candidate, and selects tests to achieve that end.
In the political realm, the “tests” are proposed by enemies of the candidate who wish to see her fail. The very act of taking that DNA test at the behest of the rumor-mongers is a losing proposition; it shows a weak candidate who is reacting to the attacks by meekly complying with them.
So, no – by the rules of logic, she doesn’t need to disprove a case that isn’t yet proved. And by the rules of politicking, she doesn’t need to react every time someone demands evidence, because even the act of producing completely exculpatory evidence can have the appearance that you’re somehow guilty – else, why the elaborate explanations?
Now, if the evidence adduced against the candidate becomes so serious that it must be refuted, then of course the best of a set of bad alternatives is to submit the requisite test/evidence for public viewing. But that’s not appropriate in reaction to unproven allegations.
Nothing to see here, just trying to subscribe to the thread and having some difficulty going the usual route.
Thing is, those articles offer a different apparent motive for the firing: she was firing all of those officials on the vague grounds that she thought they ‘didn’t support her’, rather than singling out the librarian and firing her for not going along with her book-banning scheme.
Now, it may be the case that they are one and the same - that is, that the specific example of why the librarian was a “non-supporter” was that she wouldn’t ban books.
But being mixed up in that manner with a bunch of other officials makes it look more like a mere clean sweep of non-supporters - which may also be a bad sign, but which is not the same bad sign as she stands accused of here.
I have been unable to find such a law for Alaska (the information relaing to library law does not seem to be online). But I was able to find the New York law. Here it is, from page 32 of the NYLA Guide to Public Library Law in New York State:
Oh, puh-leeze. In terms of my analogy, you are arguing that the police don’t have grounds to arrest the guy with the bloody baseball bat if the victim cannot be identified. :rolleyes:
Possibly but frankly it is anathema to librarians to ban books. Any librarian worth their salt would out-of-hand reject a blanket request to ban books at the whim of the mayor. If a book is to be removed from the library a process exists to petition the library. If the librarian had agreed to Palin’s request I’d fire her for breach of her duties.
So, if Palin used book banning to test the librarian’s loyalty it was a loaded metric from the get-go. I do not think Palin is stupid and would think she’d have to know that. And really, does the librarian need to be “loyal”? What do they have to do with anything except their books? Short of Palin wanting to hand out jobs to cronies as political favors I can see zero reason for targetting the city librarian of a tiny library.