Along comes the "pro gay lobby," allegedly, according to one business owner, who is calling the businesses offering space for the petition drives. At least one business has backed out, according to that business owner, but he himself "will not be intimidated by the pro gay lobby":
After reviewing your site, YOU HAVE MY FULL CONFIDENCE; AND I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE PRO GAY LOBBY TRYING TO PROSELYTIZE CHILDREN!!!!!
....
If my small allowance for "democracy" in my parking lot "stirs the pot" with the intolerant gay lobby, so be it! I do not want my children exposed to this material while innocently looking for random library material!
.... I will be opening ... at 8 AM, 2 hours early, and any "troublemaking" elements interfering with your great exercise of democracy, via petition for redress of grievances, will be asked to leave.
I will gladly sign your petition in the A.M.
Source: "This BUSINESS OWNER is NOT AFRAID," by West Bend Citizen Advocate, WISSUP - WISCONSIN SPEAKS UP, 24 April 2009.
If the above is accurate, isn't is sad when those claiming a violation of freedom of speech occurs when children are legally restricted from inappropriate material use their own freedom of speech violations as a means to their ends?
Isn't it wrong when "intolerance," or anything for that matter, is used to suppress free speech?
Isn't it great when people are not intimidated by these kind of tactics?
One has to wonder what is so bad about legal means to keep children from inappropriate material that people have to violate the free speech rights of others to suppress citizens from hearing different viewpoints so as to decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong.
Think about this. Without knowing what an issue is about at all, I would side with those being denied their freedom of speech by a vocal minority using threats and intimidation to shut them up. That in itself indicates to me the intimidators know they are wrong and have no legitimate argument to support what they seek.
Indeed, in this West Bend controversy or anywhere, there is no legitimate argument to support ignoring legal means to protect children from inappropriate material in the public library. None. And refusing to even consider the question is even worse. Forcibly shutting people up may even be criminal. Without knowing it, the efforts to suppress the free speech rights of West Bend and area citizens will only result in increasing support for their efforts to protect children in the public library.
See "This BUSINESS OWNER is NOT AFRAID," by West Bend Citizen Advocate, WISSUP - WISCONSIN SPEAKS UP, 24 April 2009.
[ADDED COMMENT 25 APRIL 2009:] Apparently, the opponents of free speech do believe in free inappropriate speech for children: "Opposers drove through Hobby Lobby parking lot and screamed obscenities at us and the children who were volunteering today. Some of the words were appalling..... (but pretty sure they could be found in many, if not most, of the books we are protesting). No child should be harassed in that manner. No adult should either, for that matter. They flipped us the middle finger." See "Intimidation Tactics Fail on Productive Day for Signature Drive.....," by West Bend Citizen Advocate, WISSUP - WISCONSIN SPEAKS UP, 25 April 2009. Just see the first comment below for more of this.
.
Speaking of intolerance... I particularly appreciated this:
ReplyDelete"....isn't is sad when those claiming a violation of freedom of speech occurs when children are legally restricted from inappropriate material use their own freedom of speech violations as a means to their ends?"
Intimidation tactics to "shut people up" reveal the hypocrisy in the statements avowed by those who cannot realize the full extent of their own agenda. Screaming, swearing, threatening area businesses and more.....we saw it all today.
As you also stated:
"....the intimidators know they are wrong and have no legitimate argument to support what they seek."
What else is left? Mudslinging, name calling, harassment, hate mail and the like. It gains nothing, and reveals everything.
Perhaps you should do a little more research before passing on the allegations of WBCSL. You do know that they will not allow Maria to respond on their blog to defend herself? Have you read Maria's blog to see what really happened? Have you called the other business owners to see what they say? My understanding is that at least one of the business owners had not given permission and was upset to learn his property was being used in something he did not want to involve himself in. And do you really think that it is Maria's fault that obsenities were screamed at the petitioners, when the same was done to her group? Is either group supposed to be able to control all the actions of their hundreds of supporters in the community?
ReplyDeleteI have tried to respond to Ginny Maziarka's unwarranted accusations on her WISSUP blog, but as Buzymom pointed out, she conveniently refused to post my comment. You can visit my website at http://westbendparentsforfreespeech.webs.com
ReplyDeletefor an accurate account of what happened. I even list the names of the people I talked to, should anyone wish to call them to verify. I cannot speak about what any other callers may have said to the business owners; I only know what I said and did. Since the petition drive was advertised very publicly on Ginny's blog, it stands to reason that the business(es) would receive calls about this.
To Ginny: I have not done any mudslinging, name calling, harassment, etc......why would I start now? West Bend Parents for Free Speech did nothing to intimidate you or your group. I specifically told the supporters of our group that we were not to interfere with your petition drive in any way. In fact, when we had people drive over to sign the petition, we made sure they were aware of the fact that there were two library petitions and asked questions to make sure they were signing the one they wanted. If they wanted the WBCFSL petition, we politely indicated where Ginny's group was behind the building we were in front of.
As I told Ginny in the comment she refused to publish, if obscenities were yelled at her or her group, that's wrong. It was not done by our group, nor would we ever endorse that kind of behavior. That's not how I roll.
Buzymom said, "Perhaps you should do a little more research before passing on the allegations of WBCSL." My interest is in libraries, not in personal issues. Hence my use of the word "allegedly." As it turns out, Maria Hanrahan called those businesses, not cool, but I doubt she is part of the "pro gay lobby."
ReplyDeleteAs to Ginny not letting Maria respond, I just learned about that. Everyone's different. I had one guy write again and again on one of my blog posts. I think the post got to about a hundred comments, or something like that. Yes, it was annoying, but I didn't cut him off. On the other hand, I got cut off here and there, especially by the "free speech" crowd, even by big names in the blogging universe. Heck, even the ALA cut me off, even the "Office for Intellectual Freedom." That annoys me. So I try not to do that to others. MPeterson on Motley Cow even in this West Bend issue cut my comment, but at least he accurately summarized what I said. But I'm not everybody. Ginny's blog is Ginny's blog.
"Have you called the other business owners to see what they say?" No. My interest is libraries only. But taking what Maria Hanrahan says on face value is what you are complaining I did with what Ginny said. As to the fingers being flipped, Maria and Ginny clearly contribute to an atmosphere of antagonism. Both need to calm down. I know people complain that Ginny keeps changing her story, but actually I see that as Ginny calming down. Setting Maria and Ginny aside, people flipping fingers and cursing at children shows those people have serious problems.
Maria, my response to Buzymom above addresses some of your comments as well. Regarding your comments on my blog to Ginny, you may continue to use my blog for that purpose.
To Ginny and Maria: You both have competing petitions. Why not both of you work together, even at the same tables, to get people to sign your petitions? Why can't you both work politely with each other. Drop the acrimony. Get all the petitions you want, but as the library has already demonstrated, they will likely ignore your petitions. My own library told me if you had an election day question and everyone voted in favor of filters, they still would not use them since some people don't vote and they need to be represented too. In other words, the library is answerable to no one in your community. You just pay the taxes while the ALA controls the policies. And the ALA even makes that policy: "Challenged materials that meet the criteria for selection in the materials selection policy of the library should not be removed under any legal or extra-legal pressure." That's you, Ginny, you are "extra-legal" pressure. Your library is under orders from the ALA to ignore your petitions even if every living person in Wisconsin signed it.
Ginny, Maria is wrong on the law and the facts. Politely point out how and why to the public. Maria, Ginny is seeking remedies at least one of which is not widely used in libraries even if legal. Try to make the case that they should not be used in West Bend either. Both of you stick to the issues. Allow people to make informed decisions. It's as simple as that.
You did more than just use the word "allegedly"- you went on to say Maria and her supporters used freedom of speech violations and intimidation tactics. You made the same type of accusations that Ginny did without also posting what Maria and other supporters "allegedly" say happened and without looking further into the matter. And apparently you must be ok with Ginny's group "allegedly" planning to use the property of 3 business owners without their permission, but not with people calling to alert the said business owners to this. If your interest is only in libraries, why are you passing on unfounded allegations without giving both sides to the story? It does not give you credibility.
ReplyDelete"Both of you stick to the issues. Allow people to make informed decisions. It's as simple as that."
ReplyDeleteRight. And using inflammatory (not to mention incorrect and ignorant) post titles like ""Pro Gay Lobby" Violates Free Speech Rights" is a sure way to stick to the issues and allow people to make informed decisions.
Buzymom, I highly doubt anyone would think it is appropriate to just show up on commercial property without requesting permission from the owners, let alone advertise such locations. Further, I highly doubt the phone calls made to those businesses were made as good samaritans. Your loudness will not change the silliness of your implication that someone would expect to show up on some commercial property without permission. Your claim is just silly.
ReplyDeleteWest Bend Citizen Advocate, my title came from sourced material, your blog, in this case. I know I am most effective when everyone is annoyed with me. That proves to me I got both sides thinking. Thinking = good; flipping birds = bad.
"Ginny, Maria is wrong on the law and the facts. Politely point out how and why to the public." SafeLibraries
ReplyDeleteCertainly I have made no statements that would indicate I have anything other than a layman's understanding of the law. But I would like to know specifically which law you believe I am wrong about.
"Your loudness will not change the silliness of your implication that someone would expect to show up on some commercial property without permission. Your claim is just silly." SafeLibraries
Silly claim? Again, I spoke to the owner of one of the locations (that seemed to be hastily put on the WISSUP blog after the first Germantown location was cancelled, due to the fact that the owner/manager had NOT given permission.) He was not aware of the group being there. And as the co-owner is his spouse, I would imagine he would have heard about this situation if the co-owner had given permission. If WBCFSL called the business and got permission from an employee, that is not the same as getting permission from the owner.
My time is short today, so my response will be short.
ReplyDelete1. Not allowing Maria to post on my blog. Nope. She has her own blog. Her numerous comments were posted at one time, but they are lengthy and repetitious. She now has created her own blog and posts her long comments there. People can simply go to her blog and read them.
2. We did have permission from each and every owner (whether spouse or not, I cannot say). Maria can say we didn't, but she is incorrect. Phone calls to numerous owners reveal threats, yes THREATS, left on voicemails to owners and/or headquarters of various businesses. Very dirty play. Maria, not Maria....whatever the case...Maria admits she did make calls. Two owners let us know they were threatened and pulled out for that reason only. As SL stated, we would not spend the money on a full-page ad or radio advertising, place a business name out to the public, without asking.
3. Hastily added some random name when Germantown Quilted Bear was threatened? I say not. We called, they said yes. The following morning the owner came out and said they received a phone call...and you know the rest of the story. We politely moved. Silly claim? Yes, silly indeed.
Time's up.