The new wording on a Library Bill of Rights interpretation of the purpose of meeting rooms set off a controversy that had librarians sparring with ALA staff and prompted questions that spark mini debates of their own: Should libraries be neutral? Who decides what is a hate group? Is it OK to put a limit on free speech and library space when staff or patrons feel uncomfortable or threatened by a particular group? Where does protected speech cross the line into harrassment or threat? Can a library protect marginalized patrons and keep a commitment to being open to all members of a community?

At the American Library Association’s (ALA) Annual Conference in New Orleans, the organization’s Council adopted three revisions to the Library Bill of Rights that were proposed by the Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC). The specific working in the revision regarding the purpose of meeting rooms started an ongoing, emotional debate among library and ALA staff.

The revision states:

"Public libraries are bound by the First Amendment and the associated law governing access to a designated public forum. A publicly funded library is not obligated to provide meeting room space to the public, but if it chooses to do so, it cannot discriminate or deny access based upon the viewpoint of speakers or the content of their speech. This encompasses religious, political, and hate speech.

"If a library allows charities, non-profits, and sports organizations to discuss their activities in library meeting rooms, then the library cannot exclude religious, social, civic, partisan political, or hate groups from discussing their activities in the same facilities.”

The inclusion of hate groups—wording which was not in the draft of the proposed interpretations—has librarians taking to Twitter in opposition and asking people to contact ALA and demand it change the language. Many are tweeting using the hashtag #NoHateALA.

"@ALALibrary this is not what our profession stands for & we should never welcome hate in the name of being neutral. #NoHateALA" librarian Katie Quirin Manwiller wrote.

ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF) director James LaRue says nothing is new here, they are just specifically defining the meeting rooms section after being asked specifically if a library had to allow a KKK meeting in its building. The Public Library Association didn't accept the OIF's original clarification which read as if it too closely tied religion to hate groups, according to LaRue. So the organization sought the widest term for what was being discussed.

"We said the generic term we need here is hate groups," he says. "The honest truth of it is we inserted it because of a question in the field and we felt like we wanted to address the issue head on instead of dance around it."

He spent hours on Twitter responding to reaction, citing court cases and the First Amendment and, after a lot of thought, he says, his main comment on the situation comes down to this: "ALA is about diversity and intellectual freedom not just one or the other."

In a Twitter thread, librarian Tyler Vachon explained his opposition. In part, it read:

“Libraries don't exist in a thought experiment. We're buildings with real people in them. People who see a branch willing to grant space and legitimacy to hate groups and recognize that they're no longer safe in that building. Librarians no longer have their backs. “We are way past the point of there being room to discuss things in abstract like "gosh should the Klan be able to use our meeting space? Should fascists?" These movements are gaining momentum and any institution willing to grant them quarter shares responsibility for that.

“Many of us serve communities that are already terrorized by these groups. Show up for them. Be willing to fight back when they may not feel safe to do so. Don't let this toxic worship of neutrality and inertia enable fascism in your community."

The IFC is charged with recommending “such steps as may be necessary to safeguard the rights of library users, libraries, and librarians, in accordance with the first amendment to the United States Constitution and the Library Bill of Rights as adopted by the ALA Council.” ALA includes a page on free speech protections on its website. “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. To be clear, the First Amendment does not protect behavior that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment. But merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level, and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis.”

But what if the groups make employees or other patrons feel threatened or uncomfortable?

"We’ve talked about this and this has been a theme for ALA for a while, which is to say, how do you model civil and civic discourse? How do you establish an environment in which people do feel welcome?" says LaRue. "I think it's a stretch to say you build a safe environment by forcing everybody to shut up if somebody claims to be offended. I don’t think that’s a safe environment."

The press release on the revisions was actually sent out days before the uproar and LaRue believes people didn't get all the details before voicing their opposition.

"Particularly on Twitter, I notice a tendency to pull things out of context and I think we need to remember in ALA nothing gets decided quickly," he says. "There were lots and lots of discussions about this. And there were lots of public librarians and school librarians and academic librarians looking at this. "The fact that it generated so much energy, I think means it’s an important topic. So let’s talk about it, but let’s try not to savage each other in the process. Let’s assume that we share values."

A blog post LaRue put up on Tuesday put it this way: "ALA does not endorse hate groups. It does not seek to normalize hate speech, but it recognizes that hate groups is a remarkably elastic term prone to be thrown about by both sides of the political spectrum. It’s been attached to book discussion groups, Black Lives Matter and others."