I’m writing in response to Jack Fructman’s interesting assessment of a library’s legal obligation to book a speaker (“The Dershowitz flap at the Chilmark Free Public Library,” June 14). He raises more questions than he answers.
He seems to suggest that Alan Dershowitz has a constitutional right to be allowed to speak at a library-sponsored program. Does that mean any author or speaker with credentials has a right to demand and receive a booking? Because if that’s the case, library programs as we know them will end. We can’t possibly book everybody who wants to speak, regardless of their expertise. There isn’t enough time, and there isn’t enough money in our budgets. What, if any, are the limits on this supposed right?
Despite what Mr. Fructman says, a library is considered a “limited public forum” under federal law. This means we have a right to curate our program series as we do our book collections — based on the policies adopted by the library trustees, our dedication to unbiased selection, our understanding of the needs and desires of our communities, the realities of our financial and staffing limitations, and our professional training. Alan Dershowitz’s constitutional right to speak at the library begins and ends on the library’s public grounds. He can use a bullhorn on Beetlebung Corner, and lecture to passersby. He can place ads in newspapers announcing his talk. He can make the Adirondack chairs on our lawn his new Chilmark Store porch, and speak until the cows come home.
I would also like to know the assumptions on which Mr. Fructman bases his analysis. In his opinion, would this constitutional right to a speaking engagement at a library hold up if the applicant’s claim of political bias were unproven and untrue? As with many of his claims, Alan Dershowitz’s assertion that the Chilmark library was acting maliciously on political grounds is patently false. Mr. Dershowitz has offered not one shred of proof, only constant whining that nobody in Chilmark likes him anymore, so the library must be part of the shunning. The library, on the other hand, has a decade-long string of written communication to prove its point.
I ask Mr. Fructman to consider this scenario: Suppose you, a well-respected constitutional scholar with impeccable credentials who has lectured at the Chilmark library, were to contact me tomorrow and demand a speaking engagement this summer to defend Alan Dershowitz’s constitutional right to a booking. I would tell you I’m sorry, but the series has been fully booked for months.
Suppose you then tell me that unless I “find a way to make this happen,” you will ruin my reputation by telling local and national media I refused you solely because of personal distaste for Alan Dershowitz’s antics. And when I don’t cave in to your threats, you do just that, adding threats to sue me, the library, and the town of Chilmark. Now, following that, the library, and myself in particular, receive multiple threats to personal safety from partisans across the country who believe your false claims.
At that point, Mr. Fructman, after you have bullied, threatened, and harassed library staff, am I still constitutionally required to offer you a speaking engagement, now or at some point in the future? Even though all available dates are committed to other speakers, and I am legitimately fearful for my personal safety and reputation? Am I required to bump another speaker to accommodate you, pay library staff overtime to make room on another night, and personally spend another $500 on home security? At what point can I tell you we are unable to accommodate your demands?
I can assure readers this imaginary scenario would never happen, because I know Jack Fructman to be a gentleman and a scholar. But substitute Alan Dershowitz, and this is what actually has happened.
I am writing from my professional experience and personal point of view, and not as a representative of Chilmark’s elected board of library trustees.
Ebba Rene Hierta is the library director in Chilmark. She is also on the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners, and is certified librarian No. S4879.
Ms Hierta, you are digging yourself a hole you cannot get out of.
This is epic!! A stunning presentation of what has really happened throughout the Dershowitz grab for attention, redux. And an excellent legal argument, in my opinion. Over to you, Mr. Fructman! Those of us who are watching this train wreck play out (sadly, I am one of them) would love to hear whether Ebba’s recitation of the facts changes your legal view on the applicability of the “public forum doctrine” to this matter.
Great letter, Ebba.
The fact that the first commenter here thinks you are incorrect is confirmation that you are spot on.
Ms Hierta deliberately omits mention of the elephant in the library: she writes as if my defense of the constitution against the unconstitutional impeachment of President Trump played no role in the library’s decision to cancel me after years of inviting me to speak. Several of the other writers are at least honest enough to admit that they wanted me cancelled precisely because I represented someone they despise. Let’s keep the dispute honest: the issue is whether a taxpayer funded library is constitutionally entitled to cancel a speaker because of who he represented. I think that allowing such cancellation would establish a dangerous precedent. So I’m glad that despite the demands for censorship by Laurie David and some others ,the library offered a compromise so that people can decide for themselves whether to listen to the speaker this coming Tuesday.
Alan Dershowitz
Alan,
Can you provide any evidence that Ms Hierta stated, or even hinted, that her decision was based on your opinion of the impeachment? In a court of law, any claim made by a person involved in litigation must provide evidence to support said claim. You should know this, given your line of work.
If you cannot, your accusation amounts a to a logical fallacy.
Dear Mr. Dershowitz,
Actually, the “elephant in the room,” is the fact that you spoke against impeachment and in support of Donald Trump at the Chilmark Library at my invitation in 2017, and again at the Katherine Cornell Theater (a larger, more appropriate venue) at my instigation in 2018. These provable facts do not fit into your false narrative. Is that why you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge them?
In July 2022, on the day your new book came out, you went on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast and claimed the Chilmark Library had “cancelled” you because you defended Donald Trump. This was days before you bothered to contact me seeking a summer speaking engagement and then threatened to sue me if I didn’t accommodate your 11th hour demand. Yes, you made these false claims about me and the Chilmark Library before you even spoke to me.
Where is the honesty in all this? Why won’t you tell the whole story?
Ebba Rene’ Hierta
Alan– What was unconstitutional about either of trump’s impeachment proceedings ?
Since an impeachable offense is vaguely defined, it seems that the house can impeach anyone for just about anything. Indeed, Marjory Taylor Green introduced an article of impeachment against Biden because some people illegally crossed the southern border.
Whataboutism alert– It happened under trump also.
Clinton got impeached because he had a sexual encounter and lied about it.
Guess who else did ?
Was Clinton’s impeachment constitutional ?
You know a lot more about the law than In do, so please inform me about what a legitimate constitutionally justified impeachment looks like.
I can tell you, Alan, If the democrats get the house and trump gets the presidency in 2024, you will be gainfully employed for years.
And just curious, could trump be impeached during a second term for something he did during his first term ? We have more insight into how corrupt he was then
Also, just asking for a friend, would you defend the legality of trump declaring martial law and suspending the constitution ? — everything except the second amendment that is.
For the many who would like to hear you speak and have the right to hear you speak, the technology is pretty simple to live-stream your talk. I urge the Chilmark Library to do so.
I guess being terrified of Dershowitz isn’t really a thing anymore for the librarian. I never believed it was.
It would be nice if the library website, updated in April of this year to remove the librarian’s overriding discretion to yea or nay any event or speaker, even if they applied in time and followed all the criteria, at least acknowledged that last year, when Dershowitz was rejected for a book talk, the librarian indeed had the power to dismiss him or anyone for any reason… or for no reason. According to the library website. That’s what the library website said last year when I looked up how one goes about getting an author’s speaking slot. The librarian had the final say, not the board. Of course I cannot link it here because it’s conveniently disappeared.
In my opinion, the Chilmark librarian nixed Dershowitz from speaking last year BECAUSE. What followed from there, including off-island threats from Proud Boys or others, has led to ugly, cruel belittling and admitted confrontations on-island of Dershowitz, even from former social friends… and most upsetting to me, no small amount of antisemitism that I would not have dreamed possible from my fellow liberal Democrats on the island.
I believe Dershowitz. He was shut down from speaking last year, likely because of Trump, even though shutting him down was at odds with the library’s stated mission. Period. There was a reason why his book talks were so well attended. The library put an end to that. The rest of this back and forth, and the newly restated website giving the power to the board is the library trying to save face publicly for their error in judgment. Hate Dershowitz and belittle, mock, and ridicule him till the cows come home, he was still correct in his take away.
I understand Dershowitz’s audience needs to have a limit this year, but it’s ridiculous, spiteful and infantile to limit it to 25… but not surprising.
No one should ever have to fear for her personal safety over a work-related disagreement. I’m so sorry that some took it to that extreme.
Maybe this is too simple . . . The Library gets to schedule whomever they want (you’re in, you’re not). Once scheduled, they don’t get to arbitrarily cancel because some don’t think it appropriate. The other option is to vote with your feet . . . personally, I would never go to any forum to hear Dershowitz speak. That’s my choice and I don’t believe I have any right to tell you that you can’t go and hear him (Dershowitz or anyone else) speak. Does the Library have guidelines or ??? that spell out what’s OK and not OK? That would be a start.
Public building, he has the right. Don’t like it, don’t go. Not up to librarian to control one side.
Comments are closed.