"Scold's Bridle" Redux

Free speech infringement by a California public library results in a $70,000 USD settlement and points to the need for libraries to vigorously defend speech protections in their spaces.

Photo by Arthur Miranda on Unsplash

In September 2023, we contributed a piece to this Substack entitled, “Library Bureaucracy as “Scold’s Bridle”: Epistemic Injustice, Linguistic Muting, and the Silencing of Women,” in which we reported on and discussed two then-recent cases in which events featuring female speakers addressing the impacts of gender identity ideology were cancelled from public library meeting rooms. The cases in question involved Dr. Joanna Williams’ talk for the AGM of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, (“Sex, Gender, and the Limits of Free Speech on Campus”) which was forced to relocate after the London (Ontario) Public Library cancelled the room booking; and in Yolo County, California, where a young athlete named Sophia Lorey was chastened by the regional library director for “misgendering” (hypothetical) male athletes, resulting in the event, “Forum on Fair and Safe Sports for Girls,” (hosted by Moms for Liberty), being immediately shut down. The organization subsequently took the Library to court, citing a violation of their First Amendment rights and discrimination based on viewpoint.

Now, library professionals and public institutions may want to take note of the legal resolution of this second case, which has been settled out of court, with the Yolo County Library paying out a $70,000 USD settlement, including the plaintiff’s legal fees. The decision didn’t end there: as part of the settlement, the Library had to change library policies to affirm First Amendment protections, and to allow the event that was previously cancelled to have another opportunity to book the Library’s meeting room. This happened successfully and without incident on April 13, 2024.

Controversies regarding speaker events have been having legal consequences for some time now. Back in 2021, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled that the city of New Westminster had infringed on the freedom of expression rights of a local church when in 2018 it had unilaterally cancelled the church’s youth event on “Biblical views regarding sexuality and identity issues.” The judge ruled that:

Grace Chapel was entitled to a declaration that the city’s cancellation of the conference unjustifiably infringed its right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the city had argued that the kind of expression that would have occurred at the conference was of “low value”, Justice Morellato determined that, “In a free and democratic society, the exchange and expression of diverse and often controversial or unpopular ideas may cause discomfort. It is, in a sense, the price we pay for our freedom. Once governments begin to argue that the expression of some ideas are less valuable than others, we find ourselves on dangerous ground.” 

The judge also noted that while the “City took immediate steps to research and consider the concerns raised by the complaint it received” from a member of the public, the “City did not reach an informed conclusion; rather, it proceeded to make its Decision on the basis of assumptions about the Youth Conference and what it would involve”. People should note this remark, as while the City of New Westminster invoked their booking policy, which states that it “restricts or prohibits user groups if they promote racism, hate, violence, censorship, crime or other unethical pursuits,” the judge required evidence of such facts, not assumptions and finding none, appropriately chastised the City.

More recently, in wake of her cancelled February 2023 speaking event at the University of Lethbridge, “How Woke-ism Threatens Academic Freedom,“ Canadian scholar Frances Widdowson, as well as former University of Lethbridge faculty member Paul Viminitz, and U of L student Jonah Pickle, have together filed a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that the University of Lethbridge violated Widdowson’s right to speak, and the rights of students to hear what she had to say.

What all these cases have in common is that the authorities in question “rushed to judgement” and exercised prior restraint against these speakers based on unwarranted assumptions regarding the content of their respective presentations. The implication for public libraries should be clear: arbitrarily cancelling events based on ideological objections in contravention of existing policies can result in legal consequences.

One important takeaway from the settlement of the Yolo case is the role of robust policies in place governing the use of library meeting spaces—as part of broader intellectual freedom policies—in order to protect the right of the public to speak, hear and read in library spaces.  These intellectual freedom policies include processes concerning requests for the reconsideration of materials, as well as the use of publicly funded library meeting rooms and facilities by third parties.

In the Canadian context, there are a number of excellent sources for such policy guidance. The Canadian Federation of Library Associations (CFLA), “recognizes and values the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the guarantor of the fundamental freedoms in Canada of conscience and religion; of thought, belief, opinion, and expression; of peaceful assembly; and of association.” The CFLA demonstrates this commitment to intellectual freedom with several statements viewable on their website:

• Intellectual Freedom and Libraries

• Intellectual Freedom: Third Party Use of Publicly Funded Library Meetings Rooms and Facilities

• Intellectual Freedom: Position on Protest and Disagreement related to Collections, Programs and Speakers in Libraries. An Interpretation of the Canadian Federation of Library Associations’ Statement on Intellectual Freedom and Libraries

The CFLA Statement on Third Party Use is worth quoting at length:

Publicly funded libraries that make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

CFLA-FCAB affirms that allowing use of its meeting rooms or facilities in no way correlates to the library endorsing the nature of the free expression of any individual or group using a meeting room or facility.

CFLA-FCAB affirms controversial expression is supported in the library. Equally so, challenge to controversial expression is supported. CFLA-FCAB does not, however, endorse the exercise of prior restraint as a means to avoiding controversy in the library.

The CFLA also has an Intellectual Freedom Toolkit for Canadian Libraries that provides a wealth of information (including sample policies) and is described by the CFLA as:

an assemblage of useful information and links on questions of intellectual freedom, especially as this concept intersects with libraries. We have prepared the toolkit with Canadian library managers and workers in mind, but it will be useful to anyone looking for basic information in this area.

The Toronto Public Library (Ontario, Canada), which is the “busiest urban public library system in the world” recommitted to intellectual freedom in December 2022 and is in the middle of a year-long program series called “What’s at stake?” that sees intellectual freedom protection as key to their strategic priorities of opening up their public spaces and “providing the vital ingredients to a democratic society”. TPL’s “What’s at stake?” series will do this by:

• raising awareness and understanding of the current attacks on Intellectual Freedom

• bridging the gap between our understanding of and taking action to support and defend Intellectual Freedom

• advocating on behalf of libraries in their critical role in supporting an open and civil society

• raising TPL’s profile and reputation as a defender of intellectual freedom and democratic values

TPL’s “What’s at stake?” series current events are described on their website which also includes links to their past events and civil forums in the series.

Another important institution in Ontario rising to the challenge of protecting intellectual freedom is the Centre For Free Expression (CFE), based out of the Toronto Metropolitan University. The CFE has an initiative titled “Promoting Libraries & Intellectual Freedom” and has dedicated a whole section of its website to this initiative and notes that:

Libraries are crucial public gateways to information and knowledge, with a foundational commitment to intellectual freedom. The Centre for Free Expression actively supports libraries and promotes intellectual freedom through public education, training of library staff, research, publications, a speakers bureau, and provision of services such as the Library Challenges Database that assists libraries in dealing with challenges to items in their collections as well as to their programs and provision of community services.

Education about what intellectual freedom is and its importance to sustaining democracy is crucially important, and yet it wasn’t until 2000 that, as Toni Samek wrote, “for the first time in the history of Canadian library education, intellectual freedom courses [were made] part of the curriculum”.  Today, the Edmonton Public Library (EPL) working in collaboration with the CFE has helped advance intellectual freedom education by creating an intellectual freedom course that is free and available to all public libraries across Canada. This course is called the “CFE Course for Public Library Staff on Intellectual Freedom” and the objectives are to explore:

• What intellectual freedom is and why it is important

• Intellectual freedom’s basis in international human rights and Canadian law

• The history and importance of public library policy on intellectual freedom

• The limits to intellectual and expressive freedom

• The harms of censorship

• How public libraries should respond to challenges to collections, programs, displays and exhibits, and community use of space.

The policy guidance above as it relates to controversies over third party speakers in public library meeting rooms can, we propose, be summarized nicely according to the precepts of multidimensional library neutrality:

• Staff do not publicly express their own judgement on the content of the presentations, but direct patrons to the library’s policies regarding intellectual freedom and the rights of community members to book meeting rooms (value neutrality)

• Staff treat stakeholder groups equally and do not discriminate against community groups on the basis of viewpoint, making such spaces open to all (stakeholder neutrality)

• Staff follow established policies and procedures regarding intellectual freedom, and enforce policies only in the event of unacceptable behavior (a staff member may be assigned to attend the event in question to ensure participants’ behavior meets policy guidelines) (process neutrality)

• Staff allow attendees the autonomy and freedom to hear/learn from—and object to—the event (goal neutrality)

Of course, while the legal contexts relevant to the Yolo County case are different—Canadians’ Charter rights to free Expression are more limited than those under the American First Amendment—the principles, values and public commitments at stake are the same: the public library has an obligation to defend and promote intellectual freedom through its collections and spaces, even when some in the community may find the ideas (or speakers) objectionable. To avoid future problematic legal consequences such as those faced by Yolo County, the City of New Westminster, and the University of Lethbridge, libraries on both sides of the border would do well to take note of some of the work being done by Canada’s library leaders in defending and strengthening intellectual freedom and the ability of libraries to contribute to an informed democracy.

---

Note: this incident at Yolo County Public Library was originally covered in an earlier article on this Substack

---

To promote viewpoint diversity, Heterodoxy in the Stacks invites constructive dissent and disagreement in the form of guest posts. While articles published on Heterodoxy in the Stacks are not peer- or editorially-reviewed, all posts must model the HxA Way. Content is attributed to the individual contributor(s).

To submit an article for Heterodoxy in the Stacks, visit our Information for Writers page. Unless otherwise requested, the commenting feature will be on. Thank you for joining the conversation!