If she was genuinely concerned about kiddie porn in the library, she would not have asked such a general question about how to go about censoring books. She would have said something like “I have been told there is kiddie porn in the library. Get rid of it.”
Lots of things are illegal. When illegal activity comes to light one informs the local police and prosecutor specifically of that activity, one doesn’t embark on a general inquiry on how to go about interfering with basic rights.
Surely it must be conceivable to amend the constitution to alter or remove the first amendment. To do so, we must be able to discuss banning books. Therefore discussion about banning books is well within bounds.
This is entirely overblown. Why are your inferences about what she said or not said accepted as gospel, and favorable inferences dismissed of hand?
Let’s say we were talking about The Anarchist’s Cookbook. Not illegal, but it certainly seems to me that it’s fair question to ask a local librarian why he’s chosen to provide that title.
Stop using the word “ban.” Ban implies that possessing the item is outlawed. This is about a library and what it offers. A library must make certain decisions. Apparently, the thinking is that you choose a librarian, and then you accept whatever decisions that librarian makes.
I don’t buy that, and if the librarian in question had chosen to exclude “When Grown-Ups Fall in Love,” and the mayor had ordered her to provide the book or be fired, you’d be ready to canonize the mayor and provide the gas can for the librarian’s effigy-burning.
Again- “clearly”? Really? Exactly what was said in what context? You don’t know nor does anyone else. Ther’s no “clearly” about this. Exactly what was said in what context?
That would make you terribly, terribly wrong. Your personal choices do not make or break a library’s collection. Technically, a librarian’s personal choices don’t make or break a library’s collection either as they are not personal collection choices, but collection choices for the community.
And on a side note, The Anarchist’s Cookbook is owned by 330 library systems in the world with the closest copy to Wasilla, AK at the University of Alaska.
The facts remain that the librarian was reinstated after a public outcry, which means that she didn’t do anything to “force” Palin to fire her. It was personal, pure and simple.
And that is disgusting. Palin was CLEARLY in the wrong.
What favorable inferences where? Are we discussing a hypothetical case of banning certain books from a library and what meets that threshold or are we discussing Sarah Palin asking her librarian about banning some (unspecified) books and then firing her because the librarian could not be trusted?
Actually, now I think on it, both of the above have one answer. There is a system in place to get a book removed from a library. Simple as that and while such requests occasionally produce heated disputes it is at the least a required first step. A step Palin apparently did not deem necessary as she wanted to be the arbiter of what ought to be removed.
If the Wasilla library had a genuinely awful book on its shelf and Palin wanted it off she could fill out the form and go through the process. But Palin apparently never specified any such thing. She questioned her librarian about her support if Palin wanted to ban some books and the librarian, predictably, said no way. Palin fired her.
Say I became your new boss Bricker and asked you about how you felt if we were to charge excessive attorney fees to our client. You answer, “No way, that’s an overt ethics violation!” I then fire you because you clearly cannot be trusted. Move forward some time and assume I am up for nomination to the SCOTUS. Would you think such a revelation about me would be relevant to my nomination to that post?
Librarian was not re-instated, Librarian was not actually fired. Since it was a mass “intent to fire” letter given to all Political opponents of the Mayor, it was “clearly” not anything to do with a “banning” rhetorical question.
Still no real info on what was said, in what context- or even what really happened, eh?
You are supposing facts not in evidence. We have no wording of what was said and in what context. Palin sez it was rhetorical, her Political Oppenent sez it was not. There are no minutes, no exact quotes, just a vague memory of something years ago.
No, let’s not say that, because so far as we know, Palin did not express concern about any particular book. The logical inference is that she was not concerned about the legality or appropriateness of any particular book. Her interest was in censoring books generally.
Are you asking me whether I think that “How do we go about obtaining books that we don’t yet have?” and “How do we go about getting rid of books that we do have?” are equivalent questions?
My understanding is that Palin gave the same letter to a number of employees.
I feel your analogy is lacking is several respects. For example, not only do you fire me, you fire the entire litigation department. Can we then conclude that the reason for my firing was my “wrong” answer?
And let’s address the reverse case that I hinted at, above. In the small town of Tolerantia, the new librarian removes “When Grown-Ups Fall in Love,” citing her belief that it’s offensive to many member of the community and has very little reader interest. The mayor, believing that making such a resource available to parents with same-sex relationships is a valuable goal, tells the librarian to reverse her decision. She refuses. He fires her.
Are you suggesting Palin rhetorically asked the librarian, just as an aside in casual conversation, how she felt about Palin banning some books? Librarian is “aghast” at the suggestion. But no biggie sez Palin…just asking she sez. Oh, and by the way librarian, you’re fired because I can’t trust you. :dubious:
Nothing to see here folks. Move along, move along.
Wait a second. Just because we don’t know the titles of any books does not compel the conclusion that she didn’t name specific books.
In the e-mail exchange seeking further information mentioned above, the response was “It doesn’t matter what books…” NOT “She didn’t say which books,” as it would have been if your theory was correct.
It’s about a specific book. Palin expressed general interest in the idea of censoring books.
There is a clear difference between wanting to make a book available and wanting to ban a book.
Why use as an example a book whose message you think your cartoon liberal might agree with? Make it a message you think your cartoon liberal might disagree with, say something by Ann Coulter, or Mein Kampf. Think of the most anti-liberal book you can (the Bible?), and stick it in your example. It still wouldn’t work, because in your example, it’s the librarian who is exercising his or her authority in favor of censorship, not the mayor.
We have no idea at all what was said, nor in what context. The firing was not really a firing, it was a mass letter of intent to fire given to many of the mayor’s staff who were outspoken politcal opponents of the mayor.
The fact it was a mass letter, given to many, shows that it had nothing to do with Banning, unless you think the Cheif of Police was also fired becuase he refused to ban books at the Police station.