The Third Circuit Court of Appeals felt it was being a friend to Libraries, and in many ways it succeeded. To the extent that it has created a climate in which libraries may feel freer to exclude certain patrons or classes of patrons, the victory has been very hollow (Geiszler, 66).
Kreimer v. Morristown: Case Summary
In 1989, Richard Kreimer, an indigent and homeless Morristown, New Jersey man provoked the Morristown Public Library to enact a handful of behavioral policies. Kreimer exhibited poor hygiene, disturbing behavior such as staring at other patrons and sometimes following them, and was confrontational with the library staff. After being expelled from the library on several occasions, he launched a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey. Kreimer charged that his constitutional rights under the First Amendment had been violated and that the library had caused him pain and suffering. The District Court ruled in favor of Kreimer in 1991, but the following year the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision, ruling in favor of the library. There were no further appeals (Kreimer v. Morristown, 1991; Kreimer v. Morristown, 1992).
Three of Morristown Public Library’s behavioral rules were central to this case: rules 1, 5, and 9. Thet District Court struck down all three for failing tests of reasonableness, overbreadth, and vagueness.
Rule 1
Patrons shall be engaged in activities associated with the use of a public library while in the building. Patrons not engaged in reading, studying, or using library material shall be asked to leave the building.
Rule 5
Patrons shall respect the rights of other patrons and shall not harass or annoy others through noisy or boisterous activities, by staring at another with the intent to annoy that person, by following another person about the building with intent to annoy that person, by playing Walkmans or other audio equipment so that others can hear it, by singing or talking to oneself or any other behavior which may reasonably result in the disturbance of other persons.
Rule 9
Patrons shall not be permitted to enter the building without a shirt or other covering of their upper bodies or without shoes or other footwear. Patrons whose bodily hygiene is so offensive as to constitute a nuisance to other persons shall be required to leave the building.
Legal Significances of the Case
First, it’s worth mentioning that the District Court’s decision, although reversed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, merits some contemplation as other circuit courts have not formed judgments on the issues debated in Kreimer v. Morristown and if another court had heard this case, another outcome is not unimaginable. Moreover, the case should not be understood as necessarily setting a nation-wide precedent. The judgment is only valid in New Jersey and Pennsylvania (3rd Circuit states), and until the Supreme Court speaks its piece, Kreimer remains open to debate. To date, the Supreme Court has not taken up the First Amendment rights of patrons to use public libraries. Morristown Public Library argued that no such right exists, but both the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that there is such a right (Greiszler, 56-7).
Why do we care? More specifically, why should library administrators care? Because limiting patrons’ access to library materials, or restricting patrons’ speech expose libraries to litigation in a Federal court under 42 USC §1983 for violations of civil rights (Geiszler, 57).
The Public Library as a Public Forum
How free are people to express themselves on library property, which is in fact government property? Geiszer writes that the answer to this question turns on just what category of public facility the public library is deemed to be. In “traditional” fora such as parks, public sidewalks, and streets, the government may only restrict freedom of speech and expression to protect public health and safety. In “non-public” fora by contrast, settings where the government facility operates for a very specific purpose, there is a government interest in and right to control the substance and timing of public speech and expression. In “designated limited” public fora, however, places such as publicly owned theatres or arenas which are spaces constructed for the explicit purpose of expression and entertainment, speech and expression can be regulated, but only when based on a compelling state interest, and not based on any content of expression (Geiszler, 58). Public libraries are clearly “designated limited” public fora. The delivery of information services is perhaps the most central and overt purpose of the public library, but to focus exclusively on this and thus consider it a “non public” fora, would be to overlook the importance of the library as a destination. The notion of the library as a destination is closely tied to the explosion of newly renovated or architected public libraries with coffee shops, “commons” spaces, “living rooms” and so on. Seattle Public Library’s new downtown branch is perhaps my favorite example of this.
Anyway, the debates will focus on questions about exactly what behaviors and which bodies public libraries can – and more importantly – should – control, limit, exclude. I think library administrators need to think beyond the walls of their particular institutions to consider the broader contexts in which they act and exist. Public libraries are part of broader communities, and the excuse that “we didn’t get into this profession to become social workers” doesn’t really carry much weight. If you are a public servant, you serve the public. You work within, are part of, and help to define your community. You absolutely must open your eyes to the social, political, economic and cultural contexts which contour your work. I think we need to wake up to the fact that behavioral policies in public libraries are political.
Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, et. al. 765 F. Supp. 181 (D.N.J., 1991).
Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for the Town of Morristown, et. al. 958 F. 2d 1242 (3rd Circ., 1992).
Geiszler, Robert W. “Patron Behavior Policies in the Public Library: Kreimer v. Morristown Revisited.” Journal of Information Ethics 7,1 (Spring, 1998): 54-67.
Hi, how would you assess this?
the venue is a satellite library, open to the public, on a large state U., run by a government affairs think tank. It’s a reading room with a large selection of opinion mags, reference volumes on election statistics and voter behavior, and a few computers with internet access. An older man, obviously a non-student, begins coming in almost every day to read magazines and surf the web. There are no Kreimer problems – he’s clean, well-dressed, doesn’t speak to anyone, abides the rules, and has never caused any kind of scene. One day in the summer, he’s the only patron in the room when somebody comes in and starts talking to the librarian in a real loud voice. Apparently she’s doing some kind of research project for the librarian, who’s an Institute staffer. The older guy gets her attention and politely suggests, “not quite so loud?” She gives a cheerful “sorry” and no other words pass. But the librarian calls the library Director, who enters the room and tells older guy that he is not allowed to address other patrons directly. Instead he has to “go through staff.” The older guy goes, “Excuse me? That’s unreasonable.” He asks the the Director if any policy or rule has been promulgated to this effect, but the Director gives no answer. Then he asks the if there’s something personal, and at this point Director tells him to leave the library or the police will be called. Tuns out, the guy is a semi-retired campus grad. Any free speech problems here?
I wonder whether this is the case you are referring to?
Galiano v. Institue of Governmental Studies of the University of California at Berkeley et al
Is this the same Galiano?
that’s the one.