I understand that a teenager might feel that their privacy was being invaded. Wouldn’t it be possible, though, for a library to issue them an adult card with the teenager being financially responsible rather than their parents?
I never questioned my older children’s library choices and never dreamed of limiting my children’s access to whatever they wanted to know about. I don’t think I’m an unusual parent. Why is our default expectation of parents that they are prying, snooping control freaks?
Because if legislation like this is passed, it would be immensely useful to prying, snooping control freaks. While doing non-prying, non-snooping control freaks no good whatsoever.
When submitting a law for consideration, you have to consider both what potential good a law will do, and what potential harm may come from it. In this case, I think the potential harm is immense, and I see precious little good that can come of it.
As a side note, a few months back I wondered what possible reason there could be for censorship. What knowledge is so dangerous, so horrible, that it should be prevented from falling into our hands at all costs? So I started a thread over in IMHO:
Have you ever gained knowledge that you ultimately regretted?
You’ll notice, if you read through the thread, that the knowledge people regret never comes from books. It’s all life experiences, like finding out a spouse had cheated, or stuff they overheard, like that there’s no Santa Clause.
Except one poster, who regretted learning the allegorical nature of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe and the class structure behind The Wind in the Willows.
I’d be curious to know, what are parents afraid of their kids learning? What are they afraid it would do to them? And can anybody come up with an example where these fears had been realized?
Thank you. This tends to cast some doubt on Representative Albers’s anecdote as a reason this legislation is necessary, don’t you think?
My parents would not let me read books such as “Dark Lord of Derkholm” or “Crossroads of Twilight” (both relatively harmless fantasy books) because they have “strange ideas” that might corrupt my tender mind. I’m not kidding. (And please don’t tell them that I have “The Silmarillion” in my backpack…)
What some parent defines as “glorifies”, another parent defines as “describes honestly”. Are The Catcher in the Rye, The Basketball Diaries, Manchild in the Promised Land, Down These Mean Streets, Howl, On The Road, Slaughterhouse Five, “morally questionable”?
That’s still a pretty hazy definition.
Let me use the example of a student who wants to get factual information about drugs. The drug information I’ve seen in schools has all been heavily slanted toward showing the downsides of drugs and alcohol–the undesirable side effects and addiction–with hardly any mention of responsible use, or even a mention of the reasons non-addicts choose to use drugs and alcohol.
This student realizes that DARE is only giving him half the story, so he checks out a book of first-hand accounts of drug trips. Some are bad, some are good. Certainly, a puritanical parent would consider the book “morally questionable”, even though it’s factual - to some people, all information about drugs is “glorifying” drug use, unless it convinces the reader that drug use always leads to suffering.
I hope you’ll still address this point:
Not really, since said library is brand-new, I expect it to have such features. This particular library may be an anomoly.