Library Bill Of Rights Summary

I am a bit confused as to David Lee King’s black-or-white interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights. Correspondingly, while I sympathize with Meredith Farkas’ very personal connection to this topic, I feel that she is allowing her emotions to color her interpretation. That’s not to say I disagree with her; however, I have a difficult time supporting decisions I see as emotionally-based and not fully vetted from a realistic perspective. In my estimation, the Bill is a described as a “basic policy” that “should” act as a guide for the library’s services. I fail to see where neutrality is compromised by enacting certain guidelines for library use.
It seems as if the main point of contention here is article VI of the Library Bill of Rights

Unfortunately, that means that some well-intended, more “acceptable” groups will be excluded from using the space as well. Contrary to Donny Osmond’s opinion, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. Neo-Nazism can be classified as a political movement. If the library deems that their public space cannot be used to further political agendas, then the Neo-Nazi’s cannot utilize their space. This also means that any other politically-minded group is barred from organized gatherings within the library. That is a fair and impartial interpretation of the policy. Similarly, I would imagine most policies would prohibit meeting spaces from being used to promote illegal activity. You cannot use the library to teach a class on how to manufacture and distribute crack. That does not strike me as prejudiced, targeted, or at odds with the inclusiveness sought by the Library Bill of rights. A policy is only biased if it is not fairly

You can read books, articles, and blogs on as many hateful, dangerous, and downright stupid things as you want. But that does not entitle you to gather as group within any community-oriented location to discuss it. In my mind, this approach preserves neutrality while also placing some controls on the use of the space. Under no circumstance should acquiring knowledge put the scholar in danger. Obviously, I am aware this happens under various conditions the world over, but that does not make it right. Providing unbiased, uncensored access to information benefits everyone regardless of their motives for learning. An individual’s access to the materials they need to learn should not be obstructed; however, I struggle to see how prohibiting certain gatherings from occurring within the confines of the library building is interfering with anyone’s right to access