This in froma small eastern subrub of Cleveland, called Willowick:
A library clerk has quit ehr job over the fact that the magazine Talk was being featured right out on the shelf with Heather Graham and her humongous boobs right there on the cover. Not to mention some nude shots inside(from the side, you couldn’t see anything).
The clerk asked her boss to remove the magazine, when he didn’t she resigned.
A handful of residents are supporting her, and a councilman is threatening to campaign against its next levy renewel.
I know almost all of the dopers disagree with this, but what is the line drawn?
Hustler?
Is most of a woman’s breasts on the cover of a magazine not pornographic?
What’s pornograohic ? There’s no fast-and-easy rule saying “Depiction of nude body <=> Pornography”.
The magazine presumably has some non-pornographic qualities that led to it being bought in the first place. If one issue has a pair of nude tits on the front, I’d expect a librarian to shrug and get on with the job. OTOH, if more issues of said magazine are pushed on buyers by using nude or semi-nude photos, it might be relevant to reconsider the use of scarce library funds to buy it.
But getting your knickers in a twist over one issue ? Get on with the job, lady.
But of course, I’m a no-good heathen liberal from a country with library sections specifically for erotic litterature 
S. Norman
The lady was on the local news last night.
She said she found the magazine on the floor in the men’s room. (what was she doing in the mens room I hear you ask)
She said it was “stained”!
Ah well.
Still, quittitng seems awfully extreme.
You’re allowed to take library materials into the restrooms there? Our library has a strict rule against this.
Vanilla, if you had a link to this news story, I’d appreciate it. 
Our library doesn’t carry Talk, so I don’t know how much of Heather’s body is exposed on that particular cover. We do carry Cosmo, and Playboy is in the Reserved (can’t leave the Periodicals room, checked out one hour) section. I am a clerk and it isn’t my call as to what the library subscribes to. IMHO, Cosmo and Playboy carry articles and editorials I can see people wanting to read and research. But I am a clerk, and if I disagree with what the board decides to buy, then I am free to walk out the door and work at a bookstore which is sure to carry Talk and Cosmo and Playboy. Is Heather’s exposed body pornography? Some people get excited looking at her body, others get excited looking at her feet, or her shoes or their grandma’s shoes. What people do with a magazine doesn’t make the magazine pornographic. Remember Ben Stiller’s character in Something About Mary, in the bathroom with the newspaper ad for a bra sale? (He didn’t leave stains…) I go into the Men’s Room to turn off the lights at the end of my shift. I don’t inspect it—we have janitorial service. And I don’t pick up anything off the floor of a restroom----bodily fluids, whatever they may be, just aren’t safe to handle unless you know where they come from and like that person a whole lot.
I don’t have a link. Its from The Plain Dealer Saturday.
Personally, I don’t think there’s enough porn in American libraries these days. The U.S. seems to be the only country on Earth that’s still stuck in the Victorian era.
[Gratuitous Minnesota weather comment]Well, after enjoying the additional 3 to 4 inches of spring snow that’s decided to grace us[/Gratuitous Minnesota weather comment], I’m thinking that a issue of any magazine featuring a partially clad Heather Graham on the cover might be enough to make me stop and shop for something on the way home.
I can’t say I have ever read the magazine, so I don’t know what other redeaming qualities it has, but I personally think that libraries should carry the full spectrum of periodicals available. Should it be out front for impressionable teens with already carbonated hormones can be immediately inclined to grab the issue and head for the bathroom? Ummm… sure. Wasn’t there an surgeon general not too long ago informing us all of the benefits of masturbation?
All in all, as already pointed out, there is no topic/publication that is “safe” from being masterbatory material for someone so that’s not a valid criteria, and depending on presentation and setting, there’s absolutely no reason that even fully exposed female breasts need to be considered in any way Smut.
-Doug
What? You’ve never heard of Victorian porn?
good point dublos.
It would be nice if women’s breasts were not consdiered titilating. (pun)
No big deal, in other words.
Some people are offended however! Has this woman never seen breasts?
So which part was offensive:
The cover
The boobs
the fact the boobs were humungous (so teeny ones like Lara Flynn Boyle would have been A-OK?)
the fact that some one ‘stained it’?
The ‘staining’ is the only one I can see as a problem - and that’s simply from a standpoint of ‘one shouldn’t damage property that belongs to some one else’.
As far a boobage, coverage, large boobage on coverage, where would one put any books on paintings? National Geographic? hmmmm?
Darn, the current issue of talk features BENICIO DEL TORO on the cover, so I may just have to see if my library carrys Talk.
No… that one had Uma Thurmon on the cover.
Which at least shows for these two sample covers that this magazine doesn’t quite qualify from the critera Spiny Norman mentioned.
Exactly how old was this article in the Plain Dealer?
I found this link through AltaVista. I don’t know how long this link will work. At some newspaper sites, the links are good for a limited amount of time.
I think the question is one of appropriateness for a libary, not what’s pornographic.
Most libraries - and I realize this is slowly changing - are used for research and/or relaxation. It’s a place where you can curl up with a nice, free book and just kind of vegetate. It’s also a place where you can get all the information you need for a research paper.
In my opinion, libraries are staid, dignified, and decent places. I like my porn (soft or not) as much as the next person, but I wouldn’t go to a library to find it. I’d go there to read the latest Crichton, King, or Grisham, or to reread Tolkien, Twain, Keats, Albee, or Shakespeare.
That said, I support the clerk’s decision. If she had simply flown off the handle at the outset, tossed a tantrum, and demanded that the issue be removed or there would be hell to pay, I wouldn’t be so supportive. And, of course, beating her point into the ground after she resigned doesn’t help matters. One issue does not a pervert make.
But my underlying point is that I don’t think the magazine should have been in the library in the first place. I worked at a library way back in the day, and I know you’d never see the likes of Talk in there, then or now. A public library is simply not, in my opinion, the appropriate place for such a magazine.
Yuck! People taking library books in the bathroom and pulling off? Ew, who’d wanna touch it after that?
ICK!
As a friend of mine used to say “Everybody has been or will be someone else’s masturbatory image”. I’m reading Newsweek right now, and on page 25 there is a photo of a very studly-looking Dick Cheney. I’m feeling urges – Newsweek must be banned!!
Sua
Can I ask you for some clarification on this? Willowick is a pretty sizeable suburb of Cleveland, and like most large libraries, has a good-sized periodicals section. (The section at the Lakewood library, where I used to live and where I believe vanilla still lives, is huge.) They range from general interest (People, US) to fashion (Vogue, Marie Claire) to news (Time, Newsweek) to politics (American Spectator, The Nation) to science to cooking to music to hobbies to just about any topic.
What specifically about Talk would preclude it from inclusion in a large periodicals section? It appears from their website to be, like so many, a general interest publication with emphasis on celebrity. Why would a library with a comprehensive magazine section not carry it?
What, precisely, defines “such a magazine”? Is it inappropriate for the library to have in its collection a medical dictionary with diagrams of the breast? How about books which contain photos of women who are pre- and post-mastectomy. Where do you draw the line?
To my way of thinking, anything should go in a library. Whether I want to read Penthouse Letters or The Bible, I should be accorded access to those materials (within the constraints of tight library budgets, that is).
Now, slinking off the the WC with this month’s Talk is another matter entire, and should be covered under their rules for conduct in the library (not to mention rules against vandalism).
mm
Well, I foolishly didn’t look at the article to see how large the library was or where it was located, so that’s my mistake. It all depends on the community, I suppose, and my own community - small, and more conservative than liberal - might have been set against it.
I don’t have problem one with actually seeing Talk in a library, and if it were in mine back home, I would welcome it. But I think I’d be in the minority among the patrons of that library. Since Willowick is, as you put it, a sizable suburb, it might be that the patrons of that library are more permissible when it comes to the content of their library, and that this particular clerk was not representative of them. If that’s the case, I apologize - I’m wrong, you’re right.
That said, I wouldn’t actually condem Talk as pornography. (I haven’t read it, but I’ve seen nothing about it to make me think it’s porn.) So as far as I know, there’s nothing specifically in the magazine that would preclude it from being included in a library’s holdings. However, again - it comes down to the patronage. If we were talking about a small library that catered to a select group - for example, older, more conservative folk - then you’d see more staid periodicals and fewer of the more mainstream, entertainment mags. I remember a time when People, of all mags, didn’t show up in libraries for that reason. That attitude is changing somewhat, of course.
I apply that same logic to your comment, Grither. I’m not in favor of censorship when it is used to tell me what I can and cannot read. However, if the majority of the patrons of a library are not fond of magazines like Talk, then it’s up to the library to make sure “those” kinds of magazines aren’t in there. I don’t think that’s unfair. (And by “magazines Talk,” I only mean the more mainstream magazines, not any indication of how risque’ a magazine is. We’re not talking about Club, after all.)
In long, I feel it’s up to the library to determine what goes in the building based on who their patrons are. It’s up to the library to find out who those patrons are, too. The reason they can’t simply put everything in the library is (besides space, of course) that while having accessibility to information and entertainment is wonderful, you really should do so while limiting the potential for others to be offended. I know, it’s censoring, but it shouldn’t be overused. We’re all different, for good or bad, and no library should be for only some of a given population.
Oh, and Grither… that mythical library that holds everything you want? It’s called the Internet.
There. My first real foray into a Debate. Hope I made sense, and if I’m incorrect, misunderstanding, misconstruing, or just plain ignorant, please let me know.
In the long run, I feel this is absolutely wrong. The patrons of a library ought to have no more control over its contents than the residents of a town control how the asphalt is mixed.
Libraries are governed by the 14th Amendment as much as public schools are. Consequently, the majority of a library’s patrons have no power to force the library to censor books, magazines, or even the internet. The courts have ruled resoundingly in favor of local libraries to stock their shelves (or their computers) in flagrant defiance of the wishes of the general community. Or more speficially, in defiance of the wishes of an extremely vocal segment of the community.
And that is a good thing.
Libraries are placed in a unique position to permit the dissemination of information across all strata of society to anyone who wishes to partake. National Geographic and and Popular Science are not tainted by being placed on the same shelf as Talk; if anything, they benefit by comparison. Nor are patrons polluted by having to share airspace with the likes of Playboy and The Book of O. Libraries are not bastions of decency, they are treasuries of information. What individuals do with this information is entirely up to them, not up to the whim of the majority.