The case of
San Francisco Public Library
&
NAMBLA
From the NAMBLA Website:
NAMBLA's membership is open to
everyone sympathetic to personal
freedom. Our goal is to end the
oppression of men and boys who
have freely chosen, mutually
consensual relationships.
The facts
• NAMBLA (local chapter of North American
Man-Boy Love Association) allowed to meet
monthly for over two years in Potrero Hill
branch of SFPL
• Reporter from KRON attends NAMBLA
meeting undercover with hidden camera in
1992
• KRON runs story on multiple nights
– Interviews with criminologists, psychologists,
concerned parents
– Profiles of NAMBLA members who had been
arrested for molesting children
The KRON story
“The Portrero Hill branch of the San Francisco
Public Library on a Saturday afternoon:
downstairs, children -- some with parents, some
by themselves. And upstairs … the regular
monthly meeting of NAMBLA, the North American
Man-Boy Love Association. This is not a
counseling session, not an attempt to help
NAMBLA members control their lust for children.
Quite the opposite. On this day the group
discussed putting together a calendar of nude
boys as a fundraiser.”
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/orgs/NAMBLA/nambla-KRON.transcript
The KRON story
San Francisco police sergeant Tom
Eisenman:
He asked us to hide his face so he won't be
recognized by the child molesters he
investigates. "I don't believe they're
harmless at all. I believe that, because of
their meetings, children get molested. And,
as long as that happens, it's a subject of
attention for the San Francisco Police
Department."
The KRON story
“One of the questions is, isn't it
conspiracy for people to get together
to talk about an illegal act?
Apparently not, according to San
Francisco police. If they merely talk
about the illegal act, no crime as
occurred. It's not until the act was
committed that conspiracy occurs.”
Greg Lyon, KRON reporter
The KRON story
“The library says that, legally, its hands
are tied. It's an issue of intellectual
freedom protected by court ruling.
Assistant chief of branches Gloria
Hansen: ‘No, as long as it's lawful, they
fill out the form with the contact people,
and it's a First Amendment issue.
Anybody who wants to meet in the
meeting room, as long as it's lawful
activity.’”
The KRON story
"The notion of the government coming in
and telling people what they can or cannot
talk about, and telling people with some
views, no matter how important those
views are, that they can't hold those views
in a public place is something that we
think is really the wrong policy, and it
violates the First Amendment.
Dorothy Erlich of the American Civil
Liberties Union:
The reaction
Potrero Parents Plan Protest at Library
San Francisco Chronicle Jan. 15, 1992, p. A16
Outrage at Potrero Library
San Francisco Chronicle Jan. 16, 1992, p. A16
New Library Policy Wouldn't Exclude
Man-Boy Group
San Francisco Chronicle Jan. 22, 1992, p. D6
Consequences?
A civilian
criticizes the
policies of
the U.S.
president
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or
of the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the
Government for redress of
grievances.
Sedition Act of 1798
“If any person shall write, print, utter or publish …
any false, scandalous and malicious writing or
writings against the government of the United
States, or either house of the Congress of the
United States, or the President of the United States,
with intent to defame the said government, or
either house of the said Congress, or the said
President, or to bring them, or either of them, into
contempt or disrepute; … then such person, being
thereof convicted before any court of the United
States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand
dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two
years.”
Espionage Act of 1917 – as amended
in 1918
Illegal to:
“willfully make or convey false reports or false
statements with intent to interfere with the
operation or success of the military or naval forces
of the United States or to promote the success of
its enemies...”
or to
“cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or
refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the
United States, or ... willfully obstruct the recruiting
or enlistment service of the United States, to the
injury of the service or of the United States....”
(40 Stat. 217, 219)
Justice Holmes
“the character of every act depends upon the
circumstances in which it is done”
“The most stringent protection of free speech would
not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre
and causing a panic.”
Test:
“…whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create
a clear and present danger that they will bring about
the substantive evils that Congress has a right to
prevent.”
SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES; BAER v. UNITED STATES
249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Justice Brandeis
“Those who won our independence by revolution …
did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To
courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the
power of free and fearless reasoning applied
through the processes of popular government, no
danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear
and present, unless the incidence of the evil
apprehended is so imminent that it may befall
before there is opportunity for full discussion. If
there be time to expose through discussion the
falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the
processes of education, the remedy to be applied is
more speech, not enforced silence..”
WHITNEY v. CALIFORNIA
274 U.S. 357 (1927)
Consequences?
A civilian
criticizes the
policies of
the U.S.
president
A fellow
grocer
publishes a
false claim
that Ralph of
Ralph’s Pretty
Good
Groceries is
selling
outdated food
and
defrauding
Libel
•A defamatory statement expressed in a
fixed medium, esp. writing but also a
picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. ●
Libel is classified as both a crime and a tort
but is no longer prosecuted as a crime.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed.
Consequences?
A civilian
criticizes the
policies of
the U.S.
president
A fellow
grocer
publishes a
false claim
that Ralph of
Ralph’s Pretty
Good
Groceries is
selling
outdated food
and
defrauding
A group of
disgruntled
citizens talk
about
assassinating
the U.S.
president
Consequences
“John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald,
John Hinckley Jr. - where are you now that
we need you?”
Columnist Charlie Brooker in the Guardian
Pool their money, in the Yellow Pages find
“Hit Men ‘R Us,” sign a contract, pay the
firm (actually a front for FBI)
What do you think?
• What are the issues?
• Should a public library allow
NAMBLA to utilize its meeting
rooms?
– On what basis do you make your
decision?
– If so, would you place any
restrictions on that or other groups
who wish to use the library meeting
rooms?
The result
Screening Library Meetings
San Francisco Chronicle Feb. 3, 1992, p. A20
“A SENSIBLE ANSWER is at hand over what to do
following the discovery that an organization known
as the North American Man-Boy Love Association
had been meeting at a neighborhood library. …
The solution advocated by Library Commissioner
Dale Carlson is simple and effective: The time and
sponsors of meetings of all groups using library
facilities must be publicly posted for 72 hours in
advance, and in accordance with existing library
regulations, all such meetings must be open to the
public.”
The result
Library Journal
March 15, 1992, p. 16
“Among the revisions is a new mandate to
post a listing of all groups meeting at all
library locations 72 hours in advance of each
meeting. Posted alongside these listings will
be the application form [sic] of the groups
holding meetings, with their missions and full
association name now clearly spelled out.”
The result
School Library Journal
March 1992, p. 138
“SFPL asked [NAMBLA] to renew [their
application], with up-to-date addresses and
telephone numbers, if they wished to continue
meeting at the library. NAMBLA has not done
so, and [SFPL Community Relations Librarian]
Schneider told SLJ that a spokesperson for
the group called her from Boston to say they
no longer intended to meet at the library.