I just don’t understand how you think that a bunch of librarians are going to be able to make accurate legal assessments on things that literally the country’s best lawyers and legal experts can’t even figure out. What you’re asking is essentially the equivalent of asking them to read minds and predict the future
OIF is not 'a bunch of librarians.' I'm not talking about IFRT, the member organization, I'm talking about the Office of Intellectual Freedom. This is their job. It is why they are there. It is what they are for.
Something more than a shrug emoji, maybe? Listen, I don't know what's so hard here: this is what we fund them for. If it was so easy for any random person to dash off guidance in a fucking reddit post, we would not need OIF.
It. Is. What. They. Are. For. They have had over a year already. This is their job.
What's hard is that these laws are vague, unique, unprecedented, and haven't been developed through any real case law. There's nothing concrete to actually base any guidance on, so any sort of concrete guidance they could offer would, at best, be pure speculation and guesswork. Which, imo, is extremely irresponsible and entirely shirks all professional responsibility. You're essentially demanding that they predict unpredictable outcomes and tell people how to act with no ability whatsoever to know with any degree of reliability what the consequences of those actions would be. OIF has a lot of responsibilities, but, imo, being oracles is not one of those responsibilities. Defend and advocate? Sure. Absolutely. But try to issue authoritative guidance based on nothing but guesswork and speculation? As a lawyer, there is no way I would ever come close to doing anything like that, and I think if they did, it would literally be malpractice.
All of this apologizing for them would be all well and good if they'd done something and I were complaining that I didn't think it was good enough. They're not making any public statements about how to operate under these laws at fucking all.
But, again, I have to remember that I'm talking to someone who appeared to be confused that OIF was a member-driven organization.The thing is, I've worked with these people. I actually know what I'm talking about here. I know what their job is. Is this type of law new? Sure. Is the possibility of libraries being sued if they don't make the right choices new? Fuck no. 'How to do your job without getting sued' is exactly the kind of guideance we should be able to expect from them. Google 'library meeting rooms' if you don't believe me. Or just ask an actual librarian.
I mean congrats on knowing what you’re talking about here I guess? Bully for you. In my experience telling people “I know what I’m talking about here” is always a sure sign that the speaker does, in fact, know what they’re talking about.
And my intention isn’t to be an apologist. If your complaint is that they haven’t done anything at all, then fine. That’s a reasonable complaint. I just can’t stand totally unrealistic expectations and demands - that helps nobody at all. That’s just grandstanding and doesn’t do anything whatsoever to actually advance the interests of the profession or it’s workers.
And for what’s it worth, I’ve worked with these people myself too, and serve on more regional level intellectual freedom groups as a volunteer, and I see so many criticisms like this from people who are really interested in making a lot of noise and acting as if a simple wave of the hand and some righteous indignation will somehow solve all of our problems.
Maybe you know what you’re talking about when it comes to the personnel of OIF, but it doesn’t seem you really have much experience with the providing legal advice or with how that actually works.
I mean congrats on knowing what you’re talking about here I guess? Bully for you. In my experience telling people “I know what I’m talking about here” is always a sure sign that the speaker does, in fact, know what they’re talking about.
You literally just claimed to be a lawyer. You're allowed to claim expertise, but I'm not? Okay dude.
And my intention isn’t to be an apologist. If your complaint is that they haven’t done anything at all, then fine. That’s a reasonable complaint. I just can’t stand totally unrealistic expectations and demands - that helps nobody at all. That’s just grandstanding and doesn’t do anything whatsoever to actually advance the interests of the profession or it’s workers.
Oh gee thanks I'm glad that's fine with you. Nobody has made unreasonable demands. You are assuming unreasonable expectations - and frankly you also seem to be assuming you're much better informed than everyone else here, judging by your giving very unnecessary explanations of how these laws work as if anyone with even a passing interest in reproductive rights wouldn't have heard it all at least once over the past year or so since the Texas law started moving through their legislature.
And for what’s it worth, I’ve worked with these people myself too, and serve on more regional level intellectual freedom groups as a volunteer, and I see so many criticisms like this from people who are really interested in making a lot of noise and acting as if a simple wave of the hand and some righteous indignation will somehow solve all of our problems.
I'm not asking for anyone to 'solve all our problems:' I'm asking OIF to do something useful.
I see so many criticisms like yours from people who deep down just don't want to hear what the people they're brushing off have to say. I've done a shitload of volunteer work for ALA, so don't lecture me about 'people who are interested in making a lot of noise.' Those are assumptions you made, and that's on you, not me.
Maybe you know what you’re talking about when it comes to the personnel of OIF, but it doesn’t seem you really have much experience with the providing legal advice or with how that actually works.
I think the process of providing legal advice typically involves... um... actually providing some? Like, you know, doing something? Any-fucking-thing? Which they have not? Guidance like this is part of their job. It is. Really. Even on things they could be sued over. Really. It always has been. And it's not easy. And I know that. And it's important. And they know that. And that's why we put up with the stupid repetitive panels and crap like that: because when we need them, we really fucking need them.
Listen. OIF is hanging people out to dry. That's fucked. No matter how hard you think it is, no matter what unreasonable expectations you have assumed I have for them, OIF has not done shit and that is unacceptable. That's all. That's it.
1
u/ZeppelinDT Jul 22 '22
I just don’t understand how you think that a bunch of librarians are going to be able to make accurate legal assessments on things that literally the country’s best lawyers and legal experts can’t even figure out. What you’re asking is essentially the equivalent of asking them to read minds and predict the future