Because libraries are public institutions funded by the state and subject to state and local laws. Parents, as voters, have the right to determine how libraries opperate wrt their children. I personally would not recommend a parent to snoop on his or her child in this way (except in the most extreme of circumstances), but that’s different than saying voters don’t have the right to pass legislation to permit them to do so if they choose.
Legally, I’m not sure it does anymore. A professor in a class I’m taking commented recently that this university is no longer sending grades home to parents because it violates the privacy of the students, and that this was based on a court ruling (not sure where or when). Although it may be a different issue, since this is a colllege.
Kids have next to no privacy from their parents when it comes to home life. When you start bringing public institutions into it, I find that completely ridiculous. How many ways do parents need to spy on their children already?
(I’m not particularly thrilled about this new notion that libraries keep records that can be given to anyone who wants them - nfederal government or parents, or anybody else - either. I think that has a chilling effect on choice.)
How can you people, on one hand, expect parents to be proactive by searching their kids, asking them questions, prying though their stuff, and then, on the other hand, tell us that we can`t simply request a list of material they have read recently?
How is that different than sneaking around their rooms and prying into their belongings, or embarrassing them with awkward questions?
If you can request a simple and private list from the library, then we can avoid all of these other “invasion of privacy freedoms” you people seem to be harping against.
This clearly does fall down party lines, Autz. All the usual suspects have fallen into place here with Guin being the dissenting member.
I see no-one challenged me on the TV issue.
from an above post of mine;
“Thats also like saying if a child is old enough to have a TV in their bedroom, then the parent cant tell them what to watch on it. How silly is that? If I don`t want my child watching NYPD Blue, or The Gospel Hour, then I should be able to control or monitor their veiwing habits. Same with the library material.”
Or the internet for that matter…
Whoops, hamster dilemma. Treat the above post appropriately.
Well, you kind of stacked the deck against the lefties with your title. If you poison the well like that, don’t be surprised if you get a reflexive, defending response from one side.
Roofus T. Firefly, I agree.
I like that it’s “you” vs. “we” now. You privacy-crazed liberals are stopping us concerned parents from protecting our children. Won’t somebody please think of the children? 
I suppose the difference is that you’re subpoenaing private records from a governmental institution. None of the other activities involve a state-run body supplying you with information on your kids.
I think prying through your kids’ stuff is pretty scummy too. Try TALKING to your kids instead of asking the government for privileged information.
Neither involves the government, for one. Embarrassing a kid occasionally goes hand-in-hand with parenting, it’s unavoidable. But it’s clearly not a violation of the Constitution.
What? How? You’re saying if you knew what your kid was reading, you wouldn’t ask him questions about drugs or drinking, and you wouldn’t go through his stuff? I had no idea the only thing you cared about was the books they borrowed. You wouldn’t be avoiding any of the other privacy issues, you’d just have one additional way to ignore them. All this would probably do is discourage kids from reading books they think their parents won’t approve of. That’ll cure lots of social ills.
Interesting question. For my own, I follow as I was raised. When I turned 12, my mother advised that I was free to read whatever I wanted to. I couldn’t do whatever I wanted, but could read about it. I think this was instrumental in encouraging my intellectual excellence and unassuming modesty. I took much the same approach with mine own, except without the maturity point, that is, I never saw a book that I wouldn’t have let him read.
The fight against ignorance is truly a civil struggle, and an example of citizenship at its best. To be kept in ignorance is to be abused, to limit relief from ignorance is unwise.
But we can afford to be compromising. Information in our society flows with such vigor, not even the most controlling and stifling parent can keep a child ignorant of, say, evolution. (There are no doubt exceptions at the extreme, but in a general sense, my point holds). I would support the law as written if it could contain a proviso for age, as this would calm the nerves of many a conservative parent. Say 12, or perhaps 14. Persons of this age are not precisely children any more. That they have minds of thier own is beyond dispute by anyone who has raised such.
We owe them the presumption of intellectual competence, that they know what they want to know, and we need not know why. It’s none of our beeswax.
Parental control over children’s minds would no doubt promote stability. I am not much interested in promoting stability.
Here’s an interesting point. Does anyone know what the state of Wisconsin has to say about each library card transaction (checked-out media, that is) being a legally binding contract? One might suspect that, as the parties bearing responsibility for complying with the contract, the parents already have the right to know its terms.
Is there a reason why this principle doesn’t already apply? Because if it does already apply, my cynical side would be looking for some provision in the bill that is designed to pander to control freaks or privacy invaders in as-yet-unforseen cases
Marley - with colleges, it’s about the legal majority of the students. The parents may or may not be picking up the tuition check. If they are, they’re in a position to say, “if you don’t want to show me your grades, that’s fine, but don’t expect me to pay for your next semester of college.” And if they aren’t, they shouldn’t be sent the grades by default.
whuckfistle - what am I, chopped liver?
Hey John, it’s kinda fun being on the same side of a debate as you are for once.
whuckfistle - that’s what I get for not previewing.
** whuckfistle **,
I usuallly vote Democratic and would probably be considered a liberal on many issues (but not all). But I think the parents have a right to know what their kids take out of the library.
I guess one of us must be the proverbial blind squirrel.
I think Guinastasia’s “strawman” has everything with what we’re talking about here (I even offered a half-dozen of my own earlier in the thread :)). Just map the wife/husband relationship in her argument to child/parent.
What she’s getting at is that sometimes people (including kids) are in a situation where, if their parent/husband/etc. knew about something they were interested in–and read about at a library–they could be harmed. For example, gay (or questioning) son or daughter of a homophobic man might want to read books about homosexuality, safe sex, etc… If the parent knew about this, they could be harmed. There are lots of other similiar scenarios.
I’d agree though, that for “young” children (say, less then 12 years old) the scenario is different.
Ooops! I ment Rysler’s argument, not Guinistatia’s. Sorry!
??? Libraries do not require parents to be present when books are checked out. Parents have no idea what their kids are reading.
As long as Parents are held accountable for the wellbeing of their children it is certainly within their sphere of responsibility to know what books are influencing them. Whether you like it or not, children have very little privacy rights. Nothing prevents a parent from going through every square inch of a child’s room.
Except the respect the parent has for the child’s autonomy, judgment, and privacy, of course. Which, as everyone is pointing out, is a matter that is ultimately the business of the parent and child.
Any Wisconsin lawyers able to tell us whether checking out a library book constitutes an enforceable contract, to which persons bound by its terms have a right to be aware of the terms?
Agreed, but why should the Library be forced to take sides in this issue? I don’t think anyone is saying parents can’t just ask their kids about what they’re reading, are they?
You may as well say “Parents have a right to know who their children associate with, so we must have a law that allows parents to go to their kids’ schools and get an attendance sheet of all the students in their kids’ classes.”
Okay, let me try again, this way, I don’t think my point got across:
We already restrict the rights of parents to police their children to what is acceptable within community standards. We don’t, for instance, let someone bullwhip their child if they bring home a B minus.
We already have a mechanism for controlling childrens’ access to books at a public library, within community standards. As a matter of fact, in many communities we police the ability of ANYONE to get access to material at a public library in accordance with what is deemed acceptable for children.
So the argument that this allows for legitimate parental supervision is, IMNSHO, a strawman. It just ain’t so. This mechanism does not add to legitimate parental control. What it does is to specifically allow parents to police their children ABOVE AND BEYOND ACCEPTABLE COMMUNITY STANDARDS. It’s as if there was a bill on the table that would declare any form of physical punishment of children, for any reason, to be covered by the right to privacy.
Now, do I think the child abuse lobby authored this bill? No. I think this is typical, short sighted, gimmick legislation. And like most such legislation, it’s intended to convince uneducated, panicky voters that they have a need they really don’t to sell them next election. It’s the gingivitis of the legislative realm. It’s like a Freedom of Speech Act, or a Right to own Private Property Act. And because it’s a shabbily written, short-sighted, unneccasary bill, it is most likely going to come back and bite everyone in the ass at a later date. A better use of resources and legislative power would be to publicize the fact that people can lobby to get books they don’t want their children reading off the shelves. Or even better, to create a two-tier system like the R rating in movies, where you need to be of x age or have an adult along to rent books off the naughty list.
See, I’m not worried about the legitimate parental policing or the rights of the kids. That’s all fine and good. I’m worried about the fact that while adding nothing to legitimate parental controls, we’re giving abusive parents a very good tool to screw up their kids.