 |
| @OWSLibrary on Twitter |
- "Occupy Wall Street Sues City for Ruining 'People's Library' During Zuccotti Park Raid," by Alexander Nazaryan, New York Daily News, 24 May 2012.
- "Occupy Wall Street Sues Bloomberg and New York City Over Library Destruction," by Nick Pinto, The Village Voice, 24 May 2012.
- "Occupy Wall Street Sues NYC Over Confiscated Books," by Joseph Ax (Reuters), The Chicago Tribune, 24 May 2012.
I hereby offer assistance as an expert on library propaganda, including that of the ersatz OWS "Library." I will help oppose this lawfare and help prove the vexatious nature of the litigation, thereby entitling the litigation's victims to increased damages. NYC, NYPD, please contact me. My assistance will be based generally on information contained in the following posts I have written, and much more:
- "Occupied ALA Ignored Cuban Librarians; OWSLibrary is Not a Real Library and People Knew It Would Be Removed," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 17 November 2011.
- "Library Kicks Out Occupy Encampment," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 December 2011.
- "Library Propagandizes Children for Occupy Oakland," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 November 2011.
See also:
- "What is an American Library?," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 21 November 2011.
NOTE ADDED 10 APRIL 2013:
And the case is over, having settled out of court, but that doesn't stop the anarchists from claiming victory:
#winning
— The People's Library (@OWSLibrary) April 9, 2013
And despite the title using the word "library," the story makes it clear it really was not, saying, "Called the People's Library, the collection included novels and history books"—so it was just a "collection" of books:
- "Suit Settled With Occupy Wall St. Over Seizure of Library at a Park," by Colin Moynihan, The New York Times, 10 April 2013, p. A19.
Did you read their suit? And isn't that lawyer a NY civil liberties union higher up? There's a real claim about freedom of speech on the table. That "library" had my neighbors taking part without sleeping in the damn park, which should have pleased the Bloomberg admin. I'm very interested in how this turns out.
ReplyDeleteyou're an expert on library propaganda?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anonymouses, for responding.
ReplyDelete@Anon1, yes, I read it. Yes, Norman is a "higher up." That does not make him right. They actually lose cases from time to time. They are going to lose this one. I will attempt to help Norman's latest targets win extra damages that may be awardable where suit was brought for vexatious reasons. If ever there was such a case, this is one of them. I too am interested in how it turns out, especially if I'm involved. Know that I advised the OWSLibrary people that I would try to get involved if they brought suit. They have, and here I am.
@Anon2, yes, even the ALA acknowledges me as its leading critic. My blog has a number of posts regarding propaganda. And I have experience and contacts beyond that. However, to get me to be more specific, you'll have to hire me.
I will note this. @Gothamist removed my comment from its post on this topic. It provides an example of how a few of those who claim to oppose "censorship" actually practice the exact opposite. It also provides an example of when I know I've hit pay dirt--they would not have removed it if I didn't hit a sore spot.
A collection of books is a library. I own books - quite a large number of books. This constitutes a library. If someone wilfully destroys my library I deserve to be compensated.
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting here. See "What is an American Library?," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 21 November 2011.
DeleteYes, using language from the settlement, books were damaged or lost. Yes, concomitant furnishings were damaged or lost. Yes, due care should be taken when personal property is removed and procedures must be followed.
DeleteBut that is irrelevant because that is not the issue. The issue is that the "librarians" ADANDONED the material. It was no longer their personal property because they relinquished their ownership of that material. Besides, if it’s the “people’s” “library,” then there essentially is no ownership anyway, but that’s an aside.
The point is the "librarians" abandoned the material so it was no longer their personal property. Admitting that personal property should be treated with due care is nice, but it was no longer their personal property.
And had the case gone to trial, that would have been their big hurdle they would not have been able to surmount.
Frankly, this is a win for the City and the taxpayers, getting out of this nuisance suit so cheaply.
The article What is an American Library actually fails to define what it sets out to. The general feel of the article is ''Books have to be kept nice and not in crates, otherwise it's not an american library''. I'm sorry, but if this is your definition of library, you're missing the entire point.
ReplyDeleteAccording to merriam-webster
''a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials (as books, manuscripts, recordings, or films) are kept for use but not for sale.''
Now, you can argue that it was a sloppy library, or not a very good library, etc.; it also worked differently than your standard library with a keep a book/donate a book feature.
The People's Library was just that, and the point was to give anyone who was willing to come down ease of access to information and material.
Also, I'm failing to see where ''neat'' is a mandatory prerequisite for libraries. Don't get me wrong, a neat library is preferred to a messy one by all means, but the library doesn't stop being a library if it is unorganized; it's just an unorganized library.
Finally, you fail to realize why the library was put on-site, instead of a safer, off-site location. This was to ensure accessibility to the collection of books by a larger number of people. I found Schopenhauer, Camus, plenty of Dostoevsky, and Lovecraft, in addition to college course textbooks on music theory, physics, computer programming and calculus. The location actually turned out to be a good thing in the end, and, through personal experience, I can tell you the occupy makeshift libraries got a considerable amount more foot-traffic than established community libraries.
Thanks for commenting.
DeleteIn a different vein, let me add this:
The American Library Association is claiming this to be a win. I got an email from ALA OIF entitled, "[ifaction] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Occupy Wall Street Wins Suit Over Seizure of Library." When you actually look at the linked NY Times story, it says "Suit Settled With Occupy Wall St. Over Seizure of Library at a Park." Settled, not won.
Many suits settle just to get rid of nuisance suits. Many cases are brought hoping for such a settlement. Often it makes more sense to pay a little now than to win after you paid a huge amount to attorneys.
And consider this. When a dozen librarians settled out of court for the full amount of the ensured portion of liability due to sexual harassment in the workplace as a result of the policy of allowing unfettered porn per ALA diktat, ALA didn't go around touting the big win. That was in Adamson v. Minneapolis Public Library.
When another librarian settled out of court in Birmingham, AL, also for sexual harassment as a result of the library's refusal to block porn, that was not announced as a winner either. I'm not even sure if it was announced at all.
But along comes the occupy crowd, and the ALA is right there to announce the "win." What a disgrace. Coincidentally, both are funded by George Soros.
HAHAHAH. George Soros! Left wing conspiracies! Wait, the right wing hates education, thinks all professors are liberals, and actively tries to defund public schooling. That just makes you above and beyond pathetic.
ReplyDelete