By Kevin Gosztola, Editor-In-Chief
For the past two and a half months, the Elmwood Park Advocate has been challenging Library Director Michael Consiglio as he insists that the library is required to charge a not-for-profit newsletter $100 per hour to use the library’s main meeting room.
The newsletter has made the case that the library director, and all library board trustees who support him, are engaged in viewpoint discrimination by infringing upon our right to fairly and equitably access designated public forums at the library without paying a fee.
On Monday, October 13, I addressed the library director and trustees during the public comment section of the Library Board’s monthly meeting. My remarks were blunt, and I clearly outlined my argument for how certain actions have infringed upon our First Amendment rights. The library director sat there silently. In contrast to a prior meeting, the library director did not respond to any portion of my statement.
The following post appeared on Wednesday, October 15, in a Facebook group called “Elmwood Park Community Exchange.” Upon information and belief, the library director is a member of this group. (The group has 17,800 members in total.)
A Facebook profile with the name “Pepper Lamela” posted that they were at the library board meeting. They objected to the “Elmwood park advocate group” refusing to “Stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that’s dispicable [sic].”
“What’s next are they going to burn a flag on Veterans Day? Support the Library!” the profile added.
The library director scrolled through comments on this post and liked a particularly disparaging comment from River Grove Library Board trustee Matthew McManus: “Why even entertain them they’re nothing but trash trying to push a left-wing agenda.”
[UPDATE - 7:45 PM, October 15: The comment that was “liked” by the library director was deleted a few hours after this article was published.]
Previously, the library director informed the newsletter that library staff are expected to “conduct themselves professionally” on social media. How is it professional to thumbs up a comment that refers to a community newsletter as “trash”?
The comment also suggests that the newsletter is pushing a “left-wing agenda.” The library director appears to agree, and if so, that does not bode well for the library as it tries to defend itself against criticism that the library director is engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
Moreover, it seems like the library director is promoting McCarthyism. The post questions the loyalty of everyone involved in publishing the newsletter. By extension, it suggests that subscribers, readers, and supporters, who attended the library board meeting, are merely America-hating subversives who have no place in Elmwood Park.
The post refers to the newsletter as the “Elmwood park advocate group,” which is quite similar to the verbiage that the library director uses when referring to the newsletter. He cannot bring himself to treat the newsletter as a publication. Perhaps, that is because he feels several of his actions are much more justified if he can cast us as a bunch of loud-mouthed advocates.
Regardless, library board trustees really should encourage the library director to take a refresher course on the First Amendment and apologize for repeated attempts at viewpoint-based censorship against the Elmwood Park Advocate.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) says, “The First Amendment protects all speech unless it falls into one of the ‘historic and traditional categories’ of unprotected speech, such as true threats, obscenity, defamation, or incitement.”
“Now more than ever, amid the partisan flare-ups that intensify polarization and kill dialogue, we need our society’s strongholds of free thought and free inquiry to hold fast to these principles. Any serious commitment to freedom of expression requires the protection of all views.”
“The moment an institution ostensibly committed to incorporating and promoting the value of free expression starts to instead favor one political side or another, it will lose public trust and leave our country even more vulnerable to the forces of illiberalism,” FIRE adds.
Consiglio and library board trustees should inform annoyed residents that the newsletter is eligible to use the meeting room, and the newsletter will continue to make room reservations for “Community Conversations.”
If any residents do not like the newsletter, they may form their own group and meet at the library. They may use their events to argue about the Elmwood Park Advocate’s supposed views or ideology. They may question our journalistic ethics and how we conduct ourselves within the community.
The appropriate response to anything objectionable from our newsletter—whatever that may be—is more speech, and not this petty behavior that shows contempt for freedom of expression.
CORRECTION: The Facebook group where the post in question was shared is “Elmwood Park Community Exchange,” not “Elmwood Park Community Updates.”
So as you read I do not agree with not standing during the pledge but I think it is your right to do so.
I donha e to ask how do you know that is actually him. There are a tone of fake accounts now I. That community group.
I have been reporting said accounts as I catch them but can you confirm outside of it being his name that it is him liking it?
That's sounds reasonable. I have seen folks engaging with bots unknowingly in support of the advocate. Might be good to put out a article explaining to folks how to verify profiles and such.