A followup from my previous post is due. My manager sent my arguments against our web filter blocking BitChute as part of our staff response to the stated policy. It was essentially a more formal version of what I wrote before.

Image made in Canva

The response was a reference to the review by UK watchdogs Hope not Hate, specifically,

Worse still, the company fails to implement even the extremely lax rules that they have in place. Their community guidelines claim that will not tolerate incitement to violence, but even a five minute search of the platform will turn up hundreds if not thousands of videos celebrating the Holocaust or calling for the genocide of black and ethnic minority groups. The company claims that they remove propaganda from terrorist groups, but a single HOPE not hate researcher was able to identify hundreds of such videos in just a few hours of searching.

I found the way this quotation response completely avoided the key points I raised irritating, to say the least. This leads to three specific questions I want to see answered in order to justify the status quo.

Question 1

There are allegations of ... over-zealous ... accusations as with many such watchdog groups. Do they make any effort to consider the whole picture, or was this complaint formed with cherry-picked data used to justify a predetermined condemnation?

Question 2

Our legal obligation applies to protecting minors from explicit materials, full stop. Any steps to censor the web beyond that are an infringement. It is not our job to police what our patrons view, or to judge their rationale for viewing it. Therefore, if our filter is in conflict with free speech and freedom of inquiry, do we need to reconsider our filtering policy to ensure it does not infringe?

Question 3

It is imperative we be utterly consistent on everything from BitChute to LGBTQ issues. All we can ask is that our patrons behave consistently with our rules of conduct. If the concern is patron complaints that we are enabling access to racist content and other hate speech, why should our response differ from anything else people challenge?

Wrapping It Up

Again, the ALA freedom to read statement says, “It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox, unpopular, or considered dangerous by the majority.” The fact that such content exists on BitChute does not negate the legitimacy of other material on that platform.

“A truly great library contains something in it to offend everyone,” according to librarian Mary Jo Godwin. We must all be willing to acknowledge our own biases, and then set them aside for the sake of liberty for all. That is why we have higher principles like the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Library Bill of Rights from the American Library Association.

I contend our stance ought to be that attributed to Voltaire, “I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it.” Unfortunately, it looks like I may need to put my job on the line to advocate for liberty. I don't trust the current district leadership to handle this conflict honestly, and I would not put anything past them based on what I have seen and heard regarding many other lesser matters.

Don't worry, I still have lots of complaints about the busybody control freak harpies attacking the same principle from the authoritarian right, but this specific matter has occupied my time and attention as a more immediate concern, so that topic will need to be postponed. Besides, I already covered the gist of it back in 2020 when Banned Books Week rolled around and I was dealing with the same kind of conservative Karen rumblings then. I don't want to re-hash the same topic, but I'm working on a two-column project with one for my inner monologue rant and the other for a more civil translation. If it comes together into something suitable for publication, you'll see it eventually.

Update: click here for that postponed post!

Original placeholder title image made in Canva