A word or two about how libraries choose material…
Librarians take a master’s level class in dealing with issues just like this. It’s called collection development. Smart libraries have written standards that they can refer to when something like this comes up. They probably say something like, “no material with graphic depictions of sexual intercourse between humans, or humans and animals, adults and children, etc.” There are things that libraries simply won’t buy. So you’re not likely to have to worry about Debbie Does Dallas displayed next to the children’s library.
And when someone complains, there is usually (or should be) a form that they have to fill out, describing the nature of the material and their objection to it. Then the head librarian and or the library board, will look over the objection and make a decision, based on the collection policy and common sense (we hope).
Good librarians are not going to remove books with dirty words, or Mein Kamph, or Harry Potter, or the shelve the Bible (satanist or otherwise) or the Evolution books in the fiction section, just because someone complains. Yes, Duck, your tax dollars are at work in the library. And we bought plenty of books for you, but now we have to buy the books that other people want.
And other people want some pretty objectionable stuff. But the goal of a good library is to have something for everyone. So Heather’s boobies get to stay, as do the boobies in Vogue and Cosmo, which are just as graphic, and not really porn by library standards.
Wow, I can’t believe this. I didn’t have to click on the link, because I know exactly what cover we are talking about. I work in a bookstore, and Talk magazine is featured fairly prominently. (You’d have to see the way the magazine racks are arranged, really, but one magazine shelf is sort of more visible than the rest, and Talk is right in the front of it.) My coworkers and I laughed about that picture, but in the month that it was up, not one single person told me (or anyone else; I’m sure I would have heard about it if it had happened) they were offended by the picture. My bookstore has a sizeable children’s section, and many young kids saw that picture, I am certain, but not one parent told us we should stop carrying the magazine, or at least shelve it elsewhere.
I agree with tracer. This country is too Victorian. Or whatever you want to call a place where people are old-fashioned.
Maeglin, sweetie, if you read my whole post and still don’t get my point, then I guess I can’t help you. Oh yes indeedy, the library does belong to me, and yes indeedy, the public schools belong to me, and yes indeedy, the Street Department belongs to me. If I don’t like the way the library or the public schools or the Street Department is being run, I have the right, and the means, to change them.
It’s called a “ballot box”.
The City Council is responsible for running both the library and the Street Department. I vote for City Council members. The School Board is responsible for running the schools. I vote for School Board members.
When I pay my taxes, when I hand that money over to them, damn right they are accountable to me for how they spend it. If I don’t like the way the School Board or the City Council spends my money, then by golly I vote 'em out at the next election. That’s the way it works.
And, er, when I said “it’s a non-issue”, I meant a certain library clerk’s prudish hissy fit is a non-issue, and will blow over very quickly.
And, er–
What law? This sounds like you’re saying that there’s a law that says that libraries MUST keep the books and magazines on their shelves that the community disapproves of, that the First Amendment says they have to keep them there, whether or not the community approves. AFAIK, there’s no such law.
Well, I could argue that both the 15th and the 19th amendments say that Steps Must Be Taken to correct Big Mistakes in freedom of expression.
“Certain races, and women, are being denied freedom of expression as represented by the ballot box. Steps must be taken to correct the big mistake that denied them this.”
Your third statement is a manifestly different claim than your first two.
You argue that you should have some say in how your libraries, your schools, etc are run. Yet you also say:
So you in fact don’t want to control how the public organizations in your municipality spend your money. Evidently you don’t think you have a right to, either.
So, again, what is your point? Your claim that your means of complaint, the ballot box, is so fundamentally obvious and facile that I would surprised if it were your original argument. Of course you can vote however you want. And you can also expect that your representatives will be responsive to the needs of their constituency.
But you are still wrong.
But you don’t have a right to pull the magazine off the shelves if but one person wants to read it. Like Jodi said, it’s going to be rather difficult to pull a compelling state interest case out of this one. So sure you can vote someone out of office if you like, but that hardly addresses the problem at hand. Your weapon is your ballot: tossing the incumbent clerk out on his ear for hiring the collections librarian is not an appropriate tactic.
Then the judiciary resoundingly disagrees. Do a brief internet search to find out how many libraries have tried to get rid of Huckleberry Finn and My Brother Sam Is Dead and you will see just how incomplete your understanding of this issue is.
And I could make a stronger argument that the 15th and the 19th Amendments are Steps That Must Be Taken to correct the inadequacies of Equal Protection in the 14th Amendment.
Face it, Duck Duck Goose, you’re wrong. You may steam all you want about accountability to your tax money and community standards. You may even backpedal by claiming that you will only express your dismay at the ballot box and not insist that the offending magazine be removed.
You cannot hide the fact that your initial posts demonstrated at the very least sympathy for people who would pull books off the shelves to satisfy the community whim. I find this view to be contemptible in the extreme.
Which is, of course, code for “the majority.”
Please do not call me “sweetie” or continue to condescend to me in the way you have done in your previous two posts.
When I brought up the 14th Amendment, it’s because I meant it.
I have a pretty good idea of what a ballot box is. Hence the smiley afterwards can only have condescending implications.
My views on this issue are inflexible, true. Nevertheless I do not like to be mocked.
Maeglin, I call everybody “sweetie”. I’ve probably even addressed such formidable debaters and Big Thinkers as DavidB as “sweetie”. Chill.
I don’t know where you get the idea that elected officials are not accountable to The People for how they spend their tax money. What you’re talking about, that the taxpayers don’t have a right to question how their tax money is spent, amounts to “giving the government a present”.
When I give my daughter 20 bucks for her birthday, I have no right to say how she spends it. If she wants to blow it all at Bath & Body Works, that’s her business. I’m not allowed to say anything.
But if I elect her as my personal shopper, and I give her 20 bucks to go down to Wal-Mart and get me some more socks, I have the right to specify which kind of socks. I’ve entered into an agreement with her to obtain white cotton ladies’ sport socks. And if she comes back with black nylon men’s dress socks instead of white cotton ladies’ sport socks, I have the right to complain, and to have it fixed–she gets to schlep all the way back to Wal-Mart and stand in line to exchange them.
When I pay taxes, I’m not giving the government a present. I’m not just handing them my tax money and saying, “Here you go, guys. Spend it as you see fit.” There’s an agreement involved, a transaction. I pay taxes to them, and in return I get police and fire departments, schools, roads, city water and sewer, stuff like that. That’s the agreement. I pay taxes–I get civilization. And I have a right to say how they’re spending the money I’m giving them to provide these services to me. True, I don’t peer over their shoulder to see exactly what they’re doing every day, the same way I don’t accompany my daughter down to Wal-Mart and follow her around the store to make sure she gets the right kind of socks. That would be counter-productive. The point of having her be my personal shopper is so I can do something else with my valuable time besides shop for socks.
And the point of having elected officials is so I can do something else besides worry about potholes in Main Street, and whether the library is buying porn videos. Life’s too short–I want my government officials to deal with this stuff for me. But that doesn’t mean that I’m abandoning all my rights to complain when there are too many potholes in Main Street, or when the library buys porn videos, the same way I don’t abandon my rights to complain if my daughter comes back with the wrong kind of socks, or if, worse than that, she spends $30 instead of $20, and then expects me to make up the difference. “Well, I didn’t like the way the Wal-Mart brand felt, kinda scratchy, and the Fruit of the Loom were okay, I suppose, but these Hanes Her Way were on sale, so I stocked up for you. I spent $10 of my own money, so you owe me $10.” To which I would reply, “Sorry, kid, I told you to spend $20, not $30. Looks like you just bought yourself some socks.”
And you are missing the teeny difference between “peering over someone’s shoulder micromanaging the day to day operations” and “delegating authority.” What I said was, “I don’t want to peer over the library’s shoulder and micromanage their day to day operations.” This means I am delegating authority to the head librarian to make purchase orders for books and magazines. Well, actually, when I voted for the City Council, I delegated authority to the City Council to hire a head librarian, on the understanding that they would then delegate authority to him to make purchase orders for books and magazines. I’m sorry if you can’t seem to make this distinction.
However, if I find that the head librarian has, in my opinion, bought something undesirable, like porn videos, I have a right to complain, the same way I have a right to complain if my daughter comes back from Wal-Mart with the wrong kind of socks.
Here is a true story from the Heartland.
I live in a medium-size Downstate Illinois blue-collar working class city. This is a town that hasn’t passed a school tax increase referendum since 1956, a bunch of real hard-noses. About two years ago, the school board asked the voters for a bond referendum. Big budget crisis in the schools. “If we don’t get more money, we’ll have to cut programs!” But the voters weren’t going for it. “No way,” they said. “Balance your budget by making cuts, especially administrative and special programs.” The referendum failed.
So did the school board suck it up and make some cuts and balance their budget? No. They presented the referendum again. And again the voters turned it down. “No way. Make cuts, then we’ll talk.”
So finally last December the school board bit the bullet and made some cuts. Big ones, as per taxpayer request. They made big administrative cuts, including a $60,000~ “teacher mentor” program, and a lot of special programs got the axe, including the “ACE Room” remedial classes for disruptive students. Basically the school district went back in time 15 years.
Some teachers were fired, so were administrators, librarians, school nurses, custodians. Four schools were going to be closed and the students bussed to other schools. Phys Ed for juniors and seniors in both high schools was proposed as a cut, although it would take special permission from the state of Illinois.
Eventually, athletics were on the chopping block. The axe was poised, waiting for the blow…And finally, upon the third presentation of the referendum in February, and specifically to keep athletics, the voters passed it–just barely, with only about half the tax increase the School Board had originally asked for, with most of the big cuts in place, and with an additional layoff of 100 teachers.
And now here’s my point: throughout all of this, never, at any point, did any school board member stand up and say, “Hey, you people have no right to question how we’re spending your money”. No, Maeglin, it was just the opposite. The voters opened a can of whoop-ass on the School Board, and by golly the School Board just stood there smiling weakly and took it. “Please, sir, may I have another…”
A taxpayer roused is a terrible thing, Maeglin. Pray God you never have to be on the receiving end when the electorate layeth the smackdown on their elected officials.
Whether something is an “appropriate tactic” or not hardly signifies in the rough and tumble world of City Politics. I would venture to say that virtually nothing at all in politics could qualify as “appropriate tactics”. This is kinda like saying that certain wrestling moves don’t count as “appropriate tactics” during WWF Smackdown. I don’t need to actually vote someone out of office–all I have to do is threaten and watch the City Council hop. And no, usually nobody actually gets fired. The porn video is removed from the library and that’s the end of it.
I’m not talking about whether or not removing Huckleberry Finn from the library is a good thing or a bad thing. I’m talking generalities here, not specifics. I’m talking abstract, not concrete. I’m referring to the fact (the FACT) that I as a taxpayer am entitled to a say in how the library is run.
Um, show me where I tried to hide it? “Ah, the dreadful secret is out at last…” Like I keep saying, libraries don’t have a Holy Mandate from God to keep Huckleberry Finn on their shelves. It just ain’t in the Constitution anywhere. The Constitution represents government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the people don’t like the government they have (and the public library is run by the government), then the Constitution grants them the right to change their government.
But I NEVER SAID that “libraries should pull books off the shelves to satisfy community whim”. Show me where I said that, Maeglin. Betcha can’t. What I said was, “Communities of taxpayers have the right to change what their libraries keep on the shelves”. That’s different from “changing it on a whim”, which implies a lack of thought. Fashions do change in obscenity, you know. Yesterday’s dirty book is today’s ho-hum. There was a time when Madame Bovary was considered shocking. Ever read Lady Chatterley’s Lover? How about Enoch Arden? Or Balzac? Emile Zola’s Nana? All pretty hot potatoes in their time. But today, nobody cares. There’s no law that says that once a library acquires a book, it MUST keep it forever, no matter what the community thinks. Communities have the right to change what’s in their library, and if the majority thinks that Enoch Arden or Balzac or Huckleberry Finn is too obscene to be on the shelf, then off they come.
Whoops, sorry, Maeglin, you may not be aware that here in this democracy we’ve got something called “majority rule”. We don’t keep a magazine on the shelves just because one person might want to read it. As a matter of fact, big libraries, like the one in the city where I live, regularly have book sales to get rid of books that nobody ever checks out. They don’t keep them around forever just in case somebody might want to read them. Libraries have limited shelf space.
Um, no, why don’t you go and prove me wrong? I’d enjoy watching you prove just how incomplete my understanding of this issue is. Here’s my understanding of the issue: the cases in question refer to a small minority attempting to impose its will on the majority. In these decisions, the Supreme Court isn’t saying, “Librarian, you must keep Huckleberry Finn on your shelves,” it is saying, "Librarian, you must keep Huckleberry Finn on your shelves because the MAJORITY of people in your community <WANT> <IT> <THERE>." The Supreme Court is saying, “A minority must not be allowed to impose its will on the majority.”
And yes, I suppose I sounded condescending, because (a) you sound like you really believe that elected officials are not responsible to the taxpayers for how they spend their tax money, and (b) because you persist in missing my points, about “delegating authority” and other things. I am always condescending towards people who miss big basic points, unless of course the people in question are under the age of 18, in which case I am all helpfulness and consideration. “Poor child, he can’t be expected to understand…”
Golly moses, get a clue. I mean–huh? If I sound condescending, babe, it’s because I am always condescending towards people who miss big basic points like this and who in return are condescending towards me. You miss my point? And then you sneer at me? Huh. :rolleyes:
Um, show me where I “backpedaled”? Show me where I said I wouldn’t insist that the offending magazine be removed? You’re assuming that that’s what I meant, when I made frequent reference to using the ballot box to express my desires. You’re assuming that I meant ONLY the ballot box. You probably shouldn’t make so many assumptions, Maeglin.
No, it isn’t. :rolleyes: Again, get a clue.
Statement #1: “The library belongs to me–I have a say in how it’s run”.
Statement #2: “The school belongs to me–I have a say in how it’s run.”
Statement #3: “If I don’t like the way the library or the school is being run, I can change it.”
In what way is Statement #3 “manifestly different” from Statements #1 and #2? Oh, wait, I know.
Statement #1: “This Dodge Caravan belongs to me. I have a say in who drives it”.
Statement #2: “This Chevy van belongs to me. I have a say in who drives it.”
Statement #3: “If I don’t like the way somebody is driving my Dodge Caravan or my Chevy van, I can change it.”
Well, shucks, you got me dead to rights there, Maeglin. Saying “this car belongs to me” IS “manifestly different” from saying “I can change who drives my car.”
You want “condescending”? Here’s “condescending”–“It’s marvelous you can post at all, Maeglin, given your obvious lack of reading comprehension skills”.
Duck Duck Goose, if you do not like some of the contents of your library, you have the right to complain all you want. Yet you would take this one step further and expunge offending content from the library.
You are absolutely wrong. The Supreme Court doesn’t even hear these cases anymore. Correct me if I’m wrong, Jodi, but there is more than sufficient precedent that such cases are almost always settled in federal court. Observe.
Guess what? The ACLU won. An injunction was granted in a federal court. The majority’s desire to expunge its library of perceived offensive material does not magically abrogate the minority’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The Reno vs. ACLU decision is also instructive. It was heard by the Supreme Court because few real precedents had been set regarding public use of the internet. The Court found that the internet should be considered as a book rather than as a broadcast medium and consequently falls under the umbrella of full First Amendment protection. Observe.
Removing Talk Magazine from the library would satisfy all of the above criteria. The full text of the decision, in which internet filtering was resoundingly struck down, can be found here.
Neither do I. There is something of a large difference between holding representatives accountable for the money they receive and trying to infringe upon the rights of others if you aren’t satisfied with their job, no? Power of the purse does not entitle the taxpayer to ignore the law, which has fallen demonstrably on my side in this particular issue.
Of course you do. You have a right to make your feelings known through the appropriate channels. Perhaps you would not be so upset if you were responding to my actual analysis. Instead you are trying to pin a much more extreme position on me. There is a serious difference in holding your representatives accountable and dictating the will of the majority because “you pay the taxes.” I’m not talking about breathing down the throats of the civil servants in your municipality, either.
This distinction is absolutely crucial: in my opinion, it is one of the greatest things about American democratic government. Fairness versus bald majority rule. You’ve got plenty of say, but you can’t dictate, even only on occasion.
This distinction is hardly the issue. My complaint is that you were failing to distinguish your right to complain about offending material in the library or your right to have such material pulled from the shelves. Hence I continued to ask you what your point was. Are you merely defending your right to complain or are you suggesting that the majority has the right to take immediate action?
The difference is enormous. In your previous posts you have not made your point one way or another. You don’t want to declare yourself in favor of censorship nor do you want to give up your power of the purse to influence community morality as you see it. So which is it going to be?
When the Supreme Court rules that you have the the right to have a teacher/mentor program, a highly-paid principal, or athletics in your district, perhaps I shall concede the point. But we are not talking about tax increases. We are not talking about privileges. We are talking about rights protected by the First and the Fifteenth Amendments. I would urge you to pay careful attention to this distinction.
I need to run for city government like I need a whole in my head. Do you know where I live?
Again. Insofar as it does not break the law. Libraries have tried to ban books in accordance with the will of the community. Observe.
While this [Library Bill of Rights
[/quote]
does not exactly bear the legitimacy of the US Constitution, it nicely sets forward the fundamental philosophies of the American Library Association, to which all libraries belong.
My emphasis. This decision limited the rights of the community to expurgate school libraries, which fall much more heavily under community jurisdiction than public libraries do.
It looks like the Supreme Court disagrees.
It makes absolutely no difference whether the community randomly decides to remove a book or attemts to do so by means of its power of the purse after due consideration. No difference whatsoever.
Which by no means justifies current censorship.
Evidently, as I have been saying since the beginning, you are wrong. The community has the right to influence the collections and development policy of its local library, provided that it is in compliance with the official policies of the ALA and the law. Banning or expurgating books complies with neither.
We have something even more precious in this democracy: minority rights. Oh, and fairness, too.
Surely you understand the difference between selling off books that only collect dust and expurgating them for content.
Looks like I just did. QED, as they say.
Perhaps you should show me when the Supreme Court has ruled that the presence of a book in a library, which no one is obligated to take out nor look at, is an imposition of will on the rights of the majority.
Both of which are ancillary and irrelevant. The fact that you pay some tax money, a few cents of which funds your library, is rather trivial compared to the jurisprudence which protects our freedom of expression and access to information.
Hence I asked you what your point was twice and you never responded with any adequacy.
Saying that you can take your discontent to the ballot box and saying you can rile up your community to strip a book from the library are in fact manifestly different claims. I don’t see why this point has been a problem for you.
And this Supreme Court Case addresses SCHOOL libraries. By my reading a Public Library would have even greater protections since they don’t have, “absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values in schools.”
In short no matter how much you don’t like something in your local library you have NO RIGTH WHATSOEVER to get that item removed even if you have 99.99% of the local community behind you. The only exception would be for material that was in fact illegal for the library to own, such as child pronography, and in that case all you would have to do is call the cops and have the material seized.
Your contention,
, is absolutely false. The constitution and especially the first ammendment, does not exist to protect popular, majority views. It exists to protect unpopular, minority views. Majority views by their vary nature need no such protection. Why do you need a court to side with you when everybody is already on your side?
Do you think that a town should be able to remove the Koran from library shelves just because the majority of the town is Christian? That is the logical conclution of your arguments. Your idea of democracy seems to be if you are not in the majority you are hosed. Fortunatly that is not the system we live under and I can go to any local library and read things that you hate.
Ducky, I realize that you are not advocating censorship, but I do think you’re mistaken as to how these issues work in the context of libraries.
First, the analogy to taxation or funding of other services doesn’t work, because the issue we are discussing with libraries is the right to free speech and/or the right to access information, which your community has agreed to provide through the library (and I mean “information” generally; not specific information). Those First Amendment concerns (speech and access to information) are not present when discussing things like firefighting and paving streets.
Second, the analogy does work to this extent: Just as when you give tax money to the Department of Transportation to fix roads, you cannot tell them which roads to fix – so when you give tax money to the library to buy books, you can’t tell them which books to buy. The funding might be given with general directions as to how to spend it (“fix the roads”), but the specifics of how it is spent is left to the department/agency/entity charged with spending it. You cannot say “I am only paying taxes for road maintenance if you promise to fix ths particular road.” And, if your community supports its library through assessments, you cannot say “I am only paying this assessment if you promise to buy (or not to buy) this paticular book.” So I think you need to recognize the distinction between general accountability (using the money for the general purpose for which it was intended), and micro-managing veto-power over the specifics of spending. Certainly taxpayers have the former; they do not have the latter. So, yes, you have the right to complain, but you do not have the right to withhold funding based on that complaint. And, yes, you may withhold your own personal consent by voting against mill levies for things like education and libraries, but you if the levy passes you will pay for it, just like everyone else, so this form of de facto control is not possessed by you personally.
You say:
The point is that due to the concerns of the First Amendment (speech/access to information), the taxpayer has a much more limited “say” in how the library is run than even he or she does in, say, road repair. The potential to violate the First Amendment rights of the public through excessive control means that much more discretion must be left to the Library Board and/or librarians regarding the contents of the collection and the spending of the money. You cannot say – either individually or as a group of taxpayers – “we will only pass the mill levy if you agree not to have any books on religion.” The public has the right to access such information and that right outweighs your right to direct the goals or contents of the library. Again, this is not a problem found in other areas of municipal assessments or disbursements where the First Amendment is not implicated.
But you as a reader arguably have the right to read Huckleberry Finn and a reasonable expectation that your right will not be infringed just because the community would prefer that the library not carry any books with the word “nigger” in them. And the Constitution is not limited to preserving the people’s right to change the government; it also preserves individual rights that the government may not infringe. That’s why the First Amendment becomes an issue in this context. It is the legal mandate that these individual rights may not be infringed that dictates that the issue cannot be resolves simply by saying “majority rules.” The majority does NOT rule if it is infringing upon the individual rights of the minority. For the reasons above, this:
. . . is not correct. The minority may well be able to impose its will on the majority if the majority will infringes on any one individual’s consitutional rights. Now, it is true that in censorship cases this issue almost always appears in the context of the majority (society) attempting to force the removal of Huckleberry Finn from the library, as opposed to forcing its addition to the library (more problematic, in that the library could just claim inadequate funding and discretion to choose other books instead), but the underlying legal premise is the same.
The bottom line is that the majority (society) will not have any say in the specifics of how a municipal library is run (in matters such as acquisitions) unless it (society, through the municipal government) can show a compelling state interest for its interference – i.e., no obscenity in the library. If it cannot show that compelling state interest, the individual’s right to free speech and free access to information will prevent any but the most general of oversight – i.e, money earmarked for books must be spent on books; money earmarked to fix the roof must be spent to fix the roof. This situation is unique (or nearly so) to libraries, as these concerns of free speech and free access to information do not arise in the context of many other municipal expenditures. I think these are the distinctions (general oversight versus specific management; libraries versus other municipal services; existence of First Amendment concerns versus a lack thereof) that MAEGLIN is trying to highlight in explaining why the situation is different when we talk about libraries.
Hi, Jodi! Generally speaking, you make much sense and I agree with you. I understand your point about tax levies and such. However, I still maintain that I, the Taxpayer, ultimately, and in the long-term, have more control over my library than you think I do. However, I’ll repeat that I’m NOT talking about peering over the librarian’s shoulder, micromanaging the purchase orders. I realize that’s not really feasible. I’m coming at it from a totally simplistic and abstract 1960s perspective, Power To The People, etc. In Jeffersonian Democracy, all power ultimately comes from The People. In the final analysis, we have the kind of government, and libraries, that we deserve. If I didn’t believe that, I’d be out in Montana with the Freedom Fighters.
Er, sorry, I don’t see where removing a book from the library infringes on someone’s constitutional right to read Huckleberry Finn. My copy of the Constitution somehow doesn’t mention that I have a constitutional right to check books out of the library, no matter whether other people might find them offensive and wish them removed. The library belongs to the people who pay for it, in this case, the taxpayers. If a majority of people who own the library decide to remove a certain book, then the minority, who might have wanted that book kept there, are not having their constitutional rights violated, any more than the minority of people who didn’t vote for Dubya are having their constitutional rights violated by having him be President. Majority rules. The minority was outvoted. Tough noogies.
If there are 85,000 people in the city where I live, that means there are, oh, say, 20,000 taxpayers. A majority would be 10,001 people. If every one of those 10,001 people stood up and said they wanted a certain book removed from the library, then it should be removed, and the other 9,999 people would just have to suck it up. They were outvoted. Tough noogies.
And the book in question would not be removed from the entire culture. It would still be out there. It’s not like when they banned Ulysses and U.S. Customs agents confiscated copies of it at the boat docks in Boston. If 10,001 people demanded that Our Bodies, Ourselves be removed from their local public library because it was smutty, if anybody wanted to read it, they could just order it from WaldenBooks. Or borrow it from someone. Or find it on the Internet. Or, finally, just get the information from somewhere else. It’s just gynecology, it’s not like it’s secret information or anything.
However, since it’s extremely unlikely that you could get 10,001 people to agree on anything, much less whether to remove a book from the library, I think this whole point is kind of moot.
Yes, I agree that libraries are special places and get some special consideration, but when all’s said and done, they’re just book collections, not Holy Temples of Knowledge. The one in my town wasn’t even founded until 1902, by which time the town itself had been a going concern for 60 years. They got along fine all that time without a public library. So did the Founding Fathers.
Maeglin. To summarize: your cites are irrelevant and you haven’t proved anything. There, now you can skip the rest of this and scroll on to the next post. (I’d put a smilie here but you’d probably yell at me.)
Yes, if the offending content offended the majority of the taxpayers.
This observation of yours is irrelevant. I say, “The Supreme Court in the past has ruled such-and-such,” and you say, “Oh, yeah? Well, they don’t even rule on these cases any more, so there.” Um–what?
All the Altman resolution says is that a book can be removed from the Children’s Department and put into the Adult department. It does not call for removing the book altogether–
–and it also requires the signatures of 300 people, who are over 18 and who have been resident in Wichita Falls for at least 6 months. 300 people is hardly the majority of Wichita Falls taxpayers. Current census figures give the population of Wichita Falls as 97,710. My whole point that I’ve been trying to make is “majority rules”. The Wichita Falls/Altman Resolution episode is a perfect illustration of the minority attempting to impose its will on the majority. And it was, quite rightly, struck down. The minority should not be allowed to impose its will on the majority.
What I would be really interested in finding out is whether the two books in question are still at the Wichita Falls library. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find that sometime during the last 6 months, they were mysteriously “damaged” and had to be discarded, not to be replaced any time soon, so sorry, no money in the budget, you know, maybe next year…
Okay, your other cite deals specifically with the Internet, and is also irrelevant. In it, Argued March 19, 1997—Decided June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court decided that the Internet is covered by the First Amendment, and that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 wasn’t constitutional. Now maybe this would be relevant if we were talking about removing the Internet from libraries, or about Internet filtering software in libraries, but we’re not.
The Supreme Court is saying only, “Here are all the specific reasons we found the CDA to be unconstitutional.” Presumably, if the sponsors of the CDA fixed these little problems, they could resubmit their bill. In this decision, the court is NOT saying, “No one must ever be allowed to censor Internet access.” They’re just saying the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is unconstitutional.
Um, all of what “above criteria”? The “criteria” listed above your statement refer to the reasons why the Supreme Court says the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional. It says, "The CDA differs from the various laws and orders upheld in those cases in many ways, including…"
Or are you saying, “Removing Talk magazine from the library would be the same thing as Internet filtering?” Well, no, it wouldn’t, for all the reasons the Supreme Court gave.
[ul]
[li]Wholesale, mandatory Internet-wide filtering does not allow parents to consent to their children’s use of restricted materials;[/li][li]Wholesale, mandatory Internet-wide filtering is not limited to commercial transactions;[/li][li]Wholesale, mandatory Internet-wide filtering fails to provide any definition of “indecent” and omits any requirement that “patently offensive” material lack socially redeeming value;[/li][li]Wholesale, mandatory Internet-wide filtering neither limits its broad categorical prohibitions to particular times nor bases[/li]them on an evaluation by an agency familiar with the medium’s unique
characteristics;
[li]Wholesale, mandatory Internet-wide filtering is punitive;[/li][li]Wholesale, mandatory Internet-wide filtering applies to a medium that, unlike radio, receives full First Amendment protection;[/li][li]and wholesale, mandatory Internet-wide filtering cannot be properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation because it is a content based blanket restriction on speech. [/ul][/li]
Now let’s try it, substituting “Removing Talk magazine from the library” for “Wholesale, mandatory Internet-wide filtering”, and see how many statements are true and how many are false.
[ul]
[li]Removing Talk magazine from the library does not allow parents to consent to their children’s use of restricted materials; Partially true–but if parents want their children to read Talk magazine, they can always buy a copy at the newsstand.[/li][li]Removing Talk magazine from the library is not limited to commercial transactions; Not applicable.[/li][li]Removing Talk magazine from the library fails to provide any definition of “indecent” and omits any requirement that “patently offensive” material lack socially redeeming value; Not applicable. There are already definitions of “indecent” for print material, and generally recognized standards for “patently offensive”.[/li][li]Removing Talk magazine from the library neither limits its broad categorical prohibitions to particular times nor bases them on an evaluation by an agency familiar with the medium’s unique characteristics;Not applicable. Print medium doesn’t have “unique characteristics” anymore.[/li][li]Removing Talk magazine from the library is punitive; True.[/li][li]Removing Talk magazine from the library applies to a medium that, unlike radio, receives full First Amendment protection; True.[/li][li]Removing Talk magazine from the library cannot be properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation because it is a content based blanket restriction on speech. Not true. It wouldn’t be a blanket restriction, just a Talk magazine restriction.[/li][/ul]
Eh, I don’t see that the analogy holds up.
Um, no, sorry, “internet filtering” was not struck down. Only the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was struck down, and the specific reasons for it were given. The issue is still out there, and presumably, like I said, they’re free to try again anytime they want.
And, um, if internet filtering was “resoundingly struck down” in 1997, how come we still have news articles like the following:
Yes, that’s right. There’s a difference between yelling at the city council for allowing the library to spend my money on porn videos, and using my power of the vote to have the city councilman who hired the head librarian removed, thereby no doubt infringing on the rights of others who may have thought he was doing a damn fine job, and who were glad the library had begun stocking porn videos.
Eh, in what way are taxpayers “ignoring the law” by asking that offensive materials be removed from their public library? The law doesn’t require these materials to be on the library’s shelves.
I dunno where you live, Maeglin, but out here in the Heartland, majority rules. There are 85,000 people in the town where I live. How many registered voters does that mean? If enough of us get together, majority rules, babe, and yeah, to the minority, “it’s not fair!” There’s always gonna be somebody getting the short end of the stick, Maeglin. In the American political process, there’s always going to be somebody hollering, “Hey, no fair!”
Both. I have the right to complain. The majority has the right to take immediate action.
I hardly think that’s MY fault. :rolleyes:
I stoutly deny any waffling. Quote to me some of my waffling statements. Any difficulties with your comprehension of my statements are entirely your fault.
If saying that the community has the right to complain, and that the majority has the right to take action, counts as “being in favor of censorship”, then yes, I’m in favor of censorship.
This is completely facetious and totally irrelevant.
Yes, we are. We’re talking about the privileges and responsibilities that come with paying taxes and obtaining governmental services. We’re talking about “what you get for your tax dollar”, and about how sometimes the government asks you to pay more taxes, and about how you have the right to know what they did with the other money you gave them.
Well, as Jodi already pointed out, we’re not talking about the 14th Amendment, and we’re certainly not talking about the 15th Amendment, either.
And I would urge you to pay careful attention to the distinction between these three amendments. The First Amendment is the “free speech” amendment, not the 14th or 15th.
Your “library Bill of Rights”? It’s a creed, Maeglin. Like the Boy Scouts creed. It’s a manifesto. It’s a “wish list” for librarians. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. What librarians want and what they get are frequently two different things. So the Library Association has a creed? So what?
Your Island Trees School District v. Pico is only underscoring my point–that the minority cannot impose its will on the majority. The school board, a minority, acted to remove books. The Supreme Court (I’ll say it one more time) ruled, “The minority cannot impose its will on the majority.”
No, the decision does NOT limit “the rights of the community to expurgate school libraries”-- it only limits the rights of a school board to expurgate school libraries. The school board is not the community. They are the elected representatives of the community, and before they expurgate any books from school libraries, they have to consult their constituency and ascertain the will of the majority. Want to see it again, this time in slow motion?
Okay, I’ll bite. Show me where the Supreme Court says libraries must keep books on their shelves, in defiance of the will of the majority. Please, convince me. And this time, please include the link. Don’t just quote.
You’re right. It makes no difference whether the community gets riled up overnight, or whether they think about it for a while. Once the majority decides to remove a book from the library, then off it goes.
Whether or not the local public library is or isn’t in “compliance” with the ALA creed has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the majority has the right to influence its book collection.
Watch out, major “huh” alert coming up…
Huh? As in, “The minority has the right to remove books”? Or as in, “The minority has the right to force books to remain in the library?” Please give me some examples of what you’re talking about. The minority has the right to do what? Sit and complain that nobody’s listening to them? Whine because they were outvoted?
Well, as I already noted, sometimes we DON’T have fairness. Shit happens.
Surely you understand that sometimes a librarian quietly “expurgates” a book by claiming it’s only collecting dust. And all without consulting the ACLU, the ALA, the NAACP, or the Supreme Court of the United States of America, either. Fancy that.
cough :rolleyes:
Statement A: “The Supreme Court says the minority must not be allowed to impose its will on the majority.”
Statement B: “Show me where the Supreme Court says that having a book in the library is an imposition on the majority.”
Nope, sorry, can’t do it. Sorry, Maeglin, you made too big a jump for me there, left me behind. Can’t figure out how Statements A and B are related. Help me out, huh? AFAIK, the Supreme Court doesn’t address the issue of whether or not having books in the library might be an imposition on people.
[flourish of trumpets]
:rolleyes:
Maeglin, babe, here’s a concept that no doubt will blow your mind: Guess what? The Supreme Court works for me, too. My tax money pays their salary. What a concept, huh? Here’s another one (brace yourself): They’re not gods, just lawyers, in black robes, with sinecures.
Yes, I did, but it’s not my fault if you don’t get it.
And bless me if I can understand why it’s evidently such a problem for you. “I can vote”. “I can protest.” Yup, they’re different all right. “I can go fishing.” “I can read a book.” Yup, those are different, too.
No, I’m not. [smilie again intentionally omitted because Maeglin finds them irritating]
My god, Maeglin and DDG, you are two of my favorite posters, so please both take a deep breath and calm down, m’kay? You are breaking my heart.
Both of you are intelligent, reasonable people and I think this would go alot better if you would assume that the other is arguing in good faith, not being willfully ignorant – behavior I know neither of you engage in. Don’t say “If you don’t understand what I am saying that is your fault” because that will not get anyone anywhere. The responsibility for being understood is in the hands of the writer, not the reader (unless the reader is being intentionally diffucult which I know is not the case here), and if the writer is not understood or is misunderstood, well then it is the writers job to find another way to convey thier point. Assume the other person is intelligent but misguided and needs to be taught, and this will go much better.
I admit here that I have only skimmed this thread.
What about the issue of accessing XXX-rated websites using public library computers? I know that some libraries use anti-porn software, but I can tell you for certain that the Los Angeles Public Library sure doesn’t! They also have Playboy and Penthouse, but not Hustler, nor do they have XXX-rated movies on tape.
Last I heard, the ALA was still against filtering the internet, but this sometimes leaves us librarians in a difficult position. We want freedom of information. But to some, unfiltered internet is the same as having no collection policy in place. A collection policy is the thing that is keeping those XXX videos that Duck is worried about off the library shelves. But without filtering, we can’t control what images some through the computer.
In my library system, the internet is unfiltered. I’m the entire staff in a one room branch library and have no security. If someone wants to come in and surf porn all day, I’m going to feel personally, pysically threatened. But I can get the user kicked out, if he violates our internet policy. This dictates who can use the computers, in what way and for how long. Non-student? Get out. Long useage during peak times? Out. Accessing e-mail, chat rooms when others are waiting? Move along. And, since students sign an agreement saying that they’re not going to use computers for porn, I can kick them out for porn surfing, too. Everything’s legal and in writing. We’re protected. We can get someone barred from the library, and the cops will back us up.
One more thing I remember from library school is the myth of the library as a “safe place.” Libraries have always been full of dangerous ideas. But some people tend to confuse them with Sunday school and day care. We librarians are not in the habit of peddling smut to kids and shocking little old ladies, but any good library will have stuff that shouldn’t be read by children.
And Duck, you’re breakin’ my heart. We’re not going to see eye to eye on this, but libraries are more than big book collections. Librarians really do see them as “Holy Temples of Knowledge.” If we didn’t, it wouldn’t matter what we put in the collection. It could be all bird watching books, or all porn. It wouldn’t matter as long as the shelves were full. And you must never need reference service, because we know how to get you all kind of info that can’t be found in the big book collection. We have access to that knowledge you’re poo-pooing. And we want to share.
Sorry, Kaiju, didn’t mean to poke quite so hard. It’s just that I get tired of hearing people romanticize libraries whenever there’s a discussion of censorship. I understand that librarians consider their workplaces to be Holy Temples of Knowledge. However, I know people who work at the Post Office who consider the Post Office to have a Higher Calling to deliver the mail, “neither snow nor rain nor dark of night,” the whole ball of wax. They buy the whole thing. But for every letter carrier who believes he’s working for the one organization that acts as the glue that holds Western Civilization together, there’s another letter carrier who’s just doing his job, delivering the mail.
There are cops who see themselves as the Guardians of the Public Weal, and there are cops who are just doing their jobs, pounding a beat and filling out paperwork.
The difference is, that the concept of one’s workplace as a Holy Temple of Knowledge doesn’t enter into questions of constitutionality regarding the Post Office or the police. Nobody ever says, “The Police Department is the Guardian of the Public Weal, so they ought to have special consideration.” Nobody ever says, “The Post Office, by delivering the mail, is the glue that holds Western Civilization together, so they ought to have special consideration.” So that’s my point.
Yes, I need, want, and enjoy libraries, but that doesn’t mean I’ve got stars in my eyes every time I walk through the front door. My public library now occupies the former Sears Roebuck building downtown. It’s hard for me to romanticize a place where I used to buy underwear.
The same sort of thing happens, in reverse, during discussions of global warming. People demonize The Automobile. “The Automobile is destroying our planet!” And I say, “Hey, folks, it’s just a car, it’s just a machine. You want to know who’s destroying our planet, go look in the mirror. You want to save the planet? Don’t blame cars–blame people who demand the right to drive them.”
And anyway, the concept of a taxpayer-funded public library, whose books are available for checkout to all residents of a community, is a relatively new idea.
All I’m saying is, let’s keep this in perspective. It’s just a building full of books. Handy to have around, yes, important to the community, definitely, but vital? No. We got along splendidly in America for 75 years before anybody got around to starting a tax-supported library. It’s nice that I can go downtown to the former Sears Roebuck building and check out a book on plumbing repair, but is it vital? No, because I can get the information somewhere else. I can buy a book on plumbing repair, or I can borrow one from someone else, or I can just ask someone who knows something about plumbing repair.
It’s nice that I can check out books to read, like John McPhee and novels, but is it vital? No. American culture had plenty of books to read long before public libraries were invented. You could either buy them yourself (Thomas Jefferson did this), or borrow them from someone (Abe Lincoln did this), or you could join a subscription library, like Ben Franklin’s, if you just had to have the latest books and you didn’t want to buy them yourself.
All I’m saying is, let’s keep this in perspective. It’s just a building full of books. Handy to have around, yes, important to the community, definitely, but vital? No. We got along splendidly in America for 75 years before anybody got around to starting a tax-supported library.
End snip
We got along well without giving women the vote for longer than that! Do we really need to go back to the 19c for justification?
The people I see every day can’t afford to buy the books they want to use. And in some cases, the next copy of these books is hundred’s of miles away, so it’s not a matter of borrowing from the kid next door. And despite common belief, everything is not available on the internet. Without access to a library, access to information is restricted, especially to poor people, and people in small communities.
So a library is not vital in the same way a hospital is. I’m not going to die if I can’t get the Consumer Reports Buyer’s Guide. But then education isn’t vital either. Hell, my Mom managed with an 8th grade education and she didn’t die. Of course she’s practically unemployable, and God help us if she’d been the sole wage earner. People can live ignorant, but does anyone really want to encourage this?
Some of the books we carry, Our Bodies Ourselves, Master’s and Johnson, Everything you always wanted to know about Sex…(forgive the ancient examples) have important medical information that shy people are afraid to go out and buy for themselves. But libraries are anonymous. Even the librarians can’t bring up a record of every book you’ve checked out. We’re not allowed. It’s an invasion of privacy. So it is vital that we keep a balanced collection, including books about sex and religion and politics because, especially in small communities, people wan to know about these things and they might have no where else to go.
But Heather Graham’s body? <Shrug> I’ve seen her movies. That body is common knowledge. That library clerk was one of the last people on earth who hadn’t seen it.
“A person who falsely holds himself out as a peace officer or other public officer or employee with intent to mislead another into believing that he is actually such officer commits the offense of impersonating an officer and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both.” – Official Code of Georgia 16-10-23
"(b) In all cases of other offenses for which the death penalty may be authorized, the judge shall consider, or he shall include in his instructions to the jury for it to consider, any mitigating circumstances or aggravating circumstances otherwise authorized by law and any of the following statutory aggravating circumstances which may be supported by the evidence:
…(8) The offense of murder was committed against any peace officer, corrections employee, or fireman while engaged in the performance of his official duties;" – O.C.G. 17-10-30
“Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” – 18 United States Code 1702
"Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be punished -
(1) in the case of murder, as provided under section 1111;
(2) in the case of manslaughter, as provided under section 1112; or
(3) in the case of attempted murder or manslaughter, as provided in section 1113." – 18 U.S.C. 1114
I’d have to second kaiju’s point. Lots of things–democracy, freedom of religion, equal rights for women–are relatively new ideas. That doesn’t mean they aren’t important.
Actually, I doubt it. What can you do? You can refrain from making personal contributions; you can lobby against levies; and you can attempt to become elected/appointed to positions of power that would give you more control over the process than the average taxpayer has. What more control do you think you have?
With respect, DUCK, you seem to have totally missed or ignored the main point, which is that the power of the people (as expressed through government) is subject to specific restraints at the point at which it infringes upon the individual’s constitutional rights – in this case the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
You may not see it, but it is there, and by continuing to assert the contrary you are just flat wrong. And this isn’t even an area of the law that is not well-settled; it is. You cannot remove books from the library (i.e., engage in censorship) without a compelling state interest to do so. If you doubt this, I direct you again to Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982).
Please don’t be silly. Your copy of the Constitution does not contain every single factual situation under which it might be applied, and just because an issue doesn’t specifically appear in the Constitution doesn’t mean the Constitution is inapplicable.
Again, this is absolutely, uneqivocally, 100% wrong. I am at a loss to explain your stubbornness in sticking to a position that you have been advised repeatedly is simply incorrect. If you think I am lying about this – though I fail to see why I would, or why you would think I would – then do a little research to discover the truth yourself. Again, you can start with the Pico case.
Actually, there are very, very close to being Holy Temples of Knoweldge in our society. Name one other place where every citizen can go to receive detailed information on a wide variety of topics, for free, other than the public library. And, again, your comparisons of libraries to the Post Office or the police are totally inapposite, because the trigger of First Amendment concerns – the right to speak freely and gain information and not be subject to unreasonable censorship, either in what you say or in what you read – do not apply to Post Offices or police stations or the road department or anyplace else. Only libraries.
I would also add that the fact that you, personally, do not consider libraries to be “vital” has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they have the ability – or should have the ability – to infringe upon your First Amendment rights.
I know better than almost anyone around here how difficult it can be to admit you’re wrong, and I’m not in any way trying to crucify you here. But you ARE wrong, and I am at a loss to explain your stubborn reiteration of a position that cannot really be defended.
It’s just that I get tired of hearing people romanticize libraries whenever there’s a discussion of censorship. I understand that librarians consider their workplaces to be Holy Temples of Knowledge. However, I know people who work at the Post Office who consider the Post Office to have a Higher Calling to deliver the mail, “neither snow nor rain nor dark of night,” the whole ball of wax. They buy the whole thing. But for every letter carrier who believes he’s working for the one organization that acts as the glue that holds Western Civilization together, there’s another letter carrier who’s just doing his job, delivering the mail.