68
Man checks out 100 books from Beachwood, OH Library, then burns them in social media post
(www.cleveland.com)
Sue him.
Spend the money on 300 books.
this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
68 points (100.0% liked)
Antifascism
805 readers
1 users here now
A community to post acts of antifascism and other left-wing activism. Please message a mod if you would like something posted and we can tag you in the post as well.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well he’s going to be facing quite the fine from that library.
Yeah, as if they're gonna pay.
Can be taken from his wages, if he has any.
I had the same thought, but my partner pointed out that he'll probably just start a GoFundMe and a bunch of other jackasses will end up sending him 10x more than what he owes.
Well then you make the fine 11X what it was originally to make it have bite.
In the US, can you check out 100 books from a library at the same time? Why?
[Not US but] my local library service allows 300 simultaneous book loans, when I asked about why that number was chosen they said it’s so that people are not practically limited in borrowing. Given that typical loan period is 28 days even with 5 renewals you’re still looking at slightly more than 2 books read per day so that seems a reasonable allowance.
My first thought was car dependency. If it's a 20-minute detour or 45-minute dedicated round trip to stop by the library, you probably don't go that often. I read a lot as a kid, but I only went to the library maybe every other week. I distinctly remember the limit being 99 books (libraries are mostly run by counties here, so there are a lot of different sets of rules). I never ran into it, but I checked out dozens of books a few times.
My county library was like 8-10, 99-100 is insane...
Yeah, on second thought it might have been a "there are no real rules for this" situation.
It's interesting to note that the man apparently did nothing criminal. This is a civil matter between him and the library, as though the library were a car mechanic or a dentist that he reneged on an agreement with.
I feel like someplace else might have recognized what I think can fairly be called hate speech, destruction of the commons, and terroristic intent (on a very small scale -- destruction of the commons specifically for political effect). Certainly he's not morally superior to someone who throws soup on a painting or glues themselves to the road for climate activism. I think such activists frequently catch pretty grand charges.