It has been an eventful week in our meeting rooms. A person complained they were given a pamphlet in the library by a group renting a room. This should not have happened; solicitation in our public areas is not permitted under our policies. Staff have been instructed not to allow this again. Apologies for the mistake.
Complaints have also been received about a movie shown by another group that rented the library’s theatre. One complaint suggests I need a new name badge with IDIOT printed on it (very creative!). The movie in question is probably misguided, arguably dangerous. I still defend the right of the renters to show it.
Room rental is a popular library service that fills a community need. We are taxpayer funded and we can’t refuse to serve certain residents without a legally defensible reason. This is particularly true in a public library, which is founded on intellectual freedom and the welcoming of all without judgment or precondition.
Room rentals are private, not affiliated with or endorsed by the library. The renter pays to reserve the facilities for their own use. There is no publicizing of such events within the library or in library advertising.
The communication that happens during room rentals is speech. It is deeply problematic to censor the speech of citizens in a peaceful assembly. I would not feel comfortable defending such an action in a court of law or public opinion.
Our collections and programs are a different matter. We create and deliver our programs and we select the materials we purchase. We do not have the movie in question in our collection because it does not meet our standards. We will not be featuring it in our schedule of movies (although we are screening the classic “Send Me No Flowers,” featuring Doris Day and Rock Hudson, on Feb. 6 at 2 p.m. if you are interested).
Our policy on room rental has no provision for denying rentals due to controversial content or renter reputation. It does state that use of the meeting rooms by any group or organization does not constitute an endorsement of the group’s policies or beliefs. The policy only disallows violation of law.
This is the consensus among Canadian public libraries. The Canadian Federation of Library Associations asserts that public libraries should make meeting rooms available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use, limited only by law.
The legal system has the authority to control speech and behaviour. I suggest that if there is a need to control speech, or behaviour that may result from speech, legislation is the appropriate mechanism of control.
Ken Feser is chief librarian at the Medicine Hat Public Library.
