Voltaire Is My Hero

*If so, how do you feel about the following:

I heard on a news talk show the other evening [one of the Fox News shows; I'm sorry, I don't recall which one] that a wealthy Arab oil baron is purchasing lots of Islamic literature to be given free to U.S.A. public libraries. Of course, his "take" on this is that he wants to inform the U.S. public about the "real" Islam [which is just like every religious adherent who feels he or she knows the "REAL!" aspects of the religion].

I think he's simply attempting to proselytize, and using our standards of freedom of speech and expression to do just that.

--Cindy

penumbra

Of course he is. And the very purpose of "freedom of expression" is to allow him (or anybody else) to do exactly that - attempt to convince others of the validity of your beliefs/opinions. I don't see a problem with it. In fact, it might be kind of fun to watch the fundie reaction in some cities. Be even better if he donated some of that to public school libraries.

Voltaire Is My Hero

Yep. And the material might actually serve to turn some people *off* to Islam.

However, this man is not a U.S. citizen. What gives him the right to send proselytizating materials for inclusion in our public libraries, which are maintained by U.S. taxpayer dollars?

--Cindy

Autonemesis

The 1st Amendment. In case you didn't realize, the Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction, not just citizens.

What gives the government the right to spend public money on libraries? I would think that the same authority that can decide to spend public money on libraries can also decide to accept or reject contributions to that library. So the fact that we have public libraries at all ought to be justification enough to accept any donations of literature to them. Why have libraries otherwise?

Plus, the alternative to not accepting the donation necessarily implies that the library adopt a policy of only accepting donations of literature that endorse conventional views. I think that outcome is to be avoided.

penumbra

How consist would we be if we only allowed US citizens to speak freely? We have to allow that right universally or it loses credibilty. The rights we believe in and espouse are not supposed to be confined to select groups.
Whether any particular library must or should accept the donations and display them on their shelves is a separate issue and may well depend on the individual circumstance - storage capacity, library board policy, volume of use, etc. Not every donation gets shelf time.

Voltaire Is My Hero

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Voltaire Is My Hero:
However, this man is not a U.S. citizen. What gives him the right to send proselytizating materials..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1st Amendment. In case you didn't realize, the Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction, not just citizens.

*Kind Bud & Penumbra, I agree with you in principle. Let the materials come: People can decide for themselves, and my hope is that the materials will ultimately serve to repel and not attract.

However, I cannot resist being "devil's advocate" on this particular issue: How is a citizen of Saudi Arabia under "US jurisdiction," with resultant Amendment rights -- ?

--Cindy

Voltaire Is My Hero

Voltaire Is My Hero

*Sorry for the absolutely unintended redundancy of responses; I attempted to edit my first response to Kind Bud and Penumbra, and somehow it duplicated after pressing "Edit."

--Cindy

penumbra

There are no jurisdictional issues involved. The first amendment does not make an exception of non-citizens. Refusal to allow a book or other piece of literature to be brought into the country based solely on the citizenry of the donor would be a clear violation. The goverment would have to base it's refusal on the material itself under other laws.