Authoritarian Library Demands Censorship After Publication of Anti-Clinton Files

Proving once again that libraries are vestiges of
Soviet thinking, an administrator at the University of Arkansas is

insisting that a news outlet stop publishing files from
university archives that paint Hillary Clinton in a bad light.

Earlier this week, the Washington Free Beacon published some
Clinton audio files that it obtained from a University of Arkansas
library collection. The files were located in a public library and
freely handed over to the Free Beacon. They
include a recording of Clinton joking about an accused rapist she
once represented as a public defender and would seem to reflect
poorly on the likely Democratic presidential candidate.

Many people are wondering if that’s why the dean of of the
university’s libraries decided to retroactively ban Free
Beacon staff members from using the facilities, charge them
with “intellectual property rights” violations and “unauthorized
publication” of library materials, and demand that they remove the
recordings from their website.

The Free Beacon notes that the dean, Carolyn Henderson
Allen, is a Clinton supporter who donated $500 to her 2007
presidential campaign. That makes Allen’s
cease and desist letter to the Free Beacon a hilarious
blend of pure political retaliation and fealty to bureaucratic
protocol:

I am writing to you to direct the Washington Free Beacon to
cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual
property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your
unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained fro the Roy
Red Collection in Special Collections at Mullins Library at the
University of Arkansas, Fayettville.

Allen claimed she previously informed the Free Beacon‘s
Alana Goodman that she would have to fill out a “permission to
publish form” before publishing any of the material from the
library. Since Goodman failed to do so, the Free Beacon is
now banned:

I cautioned her that the failure to comply with this specific
policy in the future would lead to the suspension of any research
privileges with special collections. Accordingly this letter will
now serve as formal notice that the research privileges for your
organization and anyone acting on behalf of your organization are
now officially suspended… based upon your willful failure to
comply with the institution’s policies and protocols.

But that’s not all. Allen is also insisting that the Free
Beacon take the audio recordings off its website, track down
any copies that were made, and return them to the library:

To the extent you have copied and/or shared or distributed
additional copies, you are hereby directed to take all necessary
steps to retrieve such copies and provide them to Special
Collections along with a certification of your efforts.

Allen is “very disappointed,” she said:

The University, however, does not tolerate that blatant and
willful disregard of its intellectual rights and properties.

Allen’s properly-follow-proper-protocols
approach to library policy is hilariously authoritarian. It’s also
quite clearly wrong. Free Beacon attorney Kurt Wimmer
noted that the library handed over the files without any
qualifications regarding their further dissemination. Additionally,
the library has made no copyright claims on the files, so the
accusation of intellectual property violation is dubious. Wimmer
wrote in a letter to Allen:

At the outset, I find it stunning that you would seek to censor
the dissemination of lawfully acquired information that is clearly
in the public interest, given the historic role that libraries long
have played in fostering free expression and the broad
dissemination of information,” Free Beacon attorney Kurt Wimmer
wrote. “In addition to being entirely inaccurate as a matter of
both law and fact, your letter is a clear assault on the First
Amendment principles that are fundamental to libraries and to
journalism.”

For additional perspective,
The Arkansas Project asked Robert Steinbuch, a professor of law
at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and a freedom of
information expert, whether Allen has a right to restrict access to
the files. She does not, he said:

Documents donated to a public library for public review are
public documents. Once those documents are public documents, the
library cannot restrict access to them because they don’t like what
the user has done with them.

It’s really remarkable that this person has public access before
they made critical comments, but then didn’t have public access to
these documents after he made critical comments…The archetype of
government censorship is restricting access to public information
to only those outlets that will write friendly stories.

Yeah, but… rules are rules! The Free Beacon probably
didn’t even have a library card, or anything.