It really annoys me when folks who have absolutely no clue about how the American Library Association operates, leap to conclusions, and mis-state what happened.
My issues start with the Annoyed Librarian (who at least professes to be a librarian and an ALA member at an academic institution). The good thing about AL, is that he/she actually states most of the facts fairly correctly. And he/she is correct that "I doubt the ALA or the ALA Council will have much to say about this." But for the reason he/she is wrong.
First, this was a program organized and sponsored by a Round Table. Round Tables (as units within ALA) are among the looser of the kinds of units. They have no ability to speak for the organization, and at best can get ALA Council to act by getting the Round Table Councilor (or another of their members) to bring it up.
Second, the main reason why Council did not act is that there was nothing to do! What can you do if you invite a panel of people, and suddenly all but one quit! You no longer have a panel! (A panel of one?) What to do? I think the Round Table did the right thing and canceled the program.
The charges by folks like Steven Emerson are ridiculous. An ALA unit (part of a professional organization) is supposed to replace a panel discussion with a presentation by a single individual? I think not!
Then there is Dan Kleinman who runs a web site and blog alleging to be "Safe Libraries" but who has been on a long campaign against freedom of speech in public libraries. In his blog, he shows his complete lack of understanding about conferences and how they are organized by challenging "the ALA to include Robert Spencer in next year's panel."
[Side note: In the library world you can usually tell when someone does not like or understand ALA because it is "the ALA" rather than just "ALA" for me it is a red flag -- almost every time!]
What is most interesting is that the speaker who did not cancel has written a much more even handed treatment of the incident. While Robert Spencer does not explicitly accuse ALA of censorship, he does take a little jab. It seems that he is more interested in being heard than in denigrating an organization which actually invited him to speak.