Guess That Geographical Location—24 June 2009  |   Home  |   Wisconsin to Limit Phosphorus?

Belling Rips on West Bend’s Library Board

Ouch.

I’ve dealt with a lot of arrogant government officials in my career (former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson and former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist top the list) and a lot of sanctimonious ones (Russ Feingold and former Milwaukee County Supervisor Dan Diliberti). I’ve certainly met some hypocritical ones (Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard) and some abusive spenders and money wasters (almost any school board comes to mind). I’ve had my run-ins with officials who behave like tinhorn dictators (former Menomonee Falls Village President Joe Greco). But until the last couple of months, I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered a pack of public officials as bad as the West Bend Library Board.

[...]

Ponder this: The West Bend Library Board believes children have a right to see gay pornography but the public doesn’t have a right to see public records.

Sigh… no credit to B&S for breaking the story, but he did credit us on the air.  That was cool.

Posted by Owen at 0754 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. I’ll give you all the credit you want.  I’m happy to see people discussing this.  We, the taxpayers HAVE to fund the library and then have no say as to what is in the library.  Talk about being hypocritical.

   I’m still waiting to see what the open records contain and will withhold judgement on that until they come out.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1004 hrs
   
   
   

2. I’d give you credit before Belling. That guy shouldn’t use the words arroganr and sanctimonious. Anyone who’s listened would think “Oh gee. He’s talking about himself. again!”

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1017 hrs
   
   
   

3. Interesting that Belling repeatedly refers to this being about “gay porn,” but Ginny swears that homophobia has nothing to do with her complaint. Right.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1106 hrs
   
   
   

4. It’s too bad that, as always, Belling has to give fodder to the other side by completely embellishing the facts.  Gay porn?  Wow, if Belling thinks that’s obscenity, he better be careful to never make a wrong turn on the internet or listen to a bunch of seventh-graders talk when adults aren’t around.

   Furthermore, his comparison of a book to radio is completely off-base.  Unlike radio and television, nobody can accidentally open a book and be exposed to its contents.  Anybody looking at a book has made a proactive decision to do so.  There’s a cover, they see it, maybe they open it.  When people scan the radio, they have no idea what content is on air.  There’s no preview button.  The only way you can preview is by listening.

   Is Belling correct?  Well, yes, your library board is incompetent.  I think that’s pretty clear to just about anyone at this point.  But instead of focusing on their bumbling behavior and contempt for the public, things people on both sides of the issue could agree on, Belling instead opts for a bloviating rant that tries to whip up a bunch of outrage over a couple of books that he’s probably never read.

   Then again, that’s just Belling’s style.  Facts have never meant much to Mark when it comes to making his point.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 24, 2009 at 1106 hrs
   
   
   

5. Mark and Ginny are two seperate people with two seperate views.  If Mark wants to focus on gay issues, that’s his right.  If Ginny wishes to focus on sexually explicit books, that’s her right.

   A child can accidentally open a book…that’s the issue at hand.  Perks of a Wallflower, by the title alone could be misleading.  Not to forget that many children younger than 11 do read at high levels and thus may come across these sexually explicit books.  I think he is ranting because, he like many of us who know these books should not fall into the hands of unsupervised children.  Thus, these books should be moved and have parents RE-consent.

   Actually Mark has plenty of facts in his disscusion…if he didn’t he would no longer be on the air.  A lot of folks who would read these books, like I have, would indeed see that they are obscene.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1237 hrs
   
   
   

6. ooh Belling is involved? :zpopcorn:

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1322 hrs
   
   
   

7. “Actually Mark has plenty of facts in his disscusion…if he didn’t he would no longer be on the air.”

   Haha.  That’s funny.  People like Belling and Rush and Olbermann don’t get paid to have facts, they get paid to have opinions and act cartoonish.

   I think it’s important to distinguish between the legal concept of obscenity and the casual usage of obscenity that exists in everyday language.  Legally, none of these books will be found obscene, though certain individuals certainly may find the content objectionable and think that it’s inappropriate for people of a certain age.

   In fact, as best I can tell, nobody who objects to the location of the books has made any indication that they would encourage the DA to challenge the content of the books themselves.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 24, 2009 at 1426 hrs
   
   
   

8. Maybe we need to get theDA’s office involved, maybe the Supreme Court needs to be involved in what is obscene, maybe we need to close the library OR we could just simply move the books in question 100 feet and ask for parents to RE-consent.  Which do you think would be cheapest?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1531 hrs
   
   
   

9. The West Bend Library Board believes children have a right to see gay pornography

   Way to go Mark Belling - if people want gay pornography they should buy it themselves, like you have to, if you are so inclined.  Or drive out to that porn shop at Highway 41/28 -like a certain former Washington County elected Republican official was known to do, before he had to resign after showing his office copy of Playgirl magazine to a female Milwaukee Journal reporter.  Hell, those must have been the good old days - instead of going through the stacks at WB Library to find gay porn, all you had to do was go a few blocks over to the courthouse, and a representative of the local political party had it available for you.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1539 hrs
   
   
   

10. By the way, here’s the source re the Washington County Courthouse in West Bend:

    Last April, former County Clerk————- resigned following allegations of sexual harassment.————- admitted he had taped pictures of naked men on the walls of the courthouse pressroom.

    As to the porn shop rumor, would have to ask a retired deputy.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950320/ai_n10189696/

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1548 hrs
    
    
    

11. Who cares what this blowhard bigot has to say?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1607 hrs
    
    
    

12. “Then again, that’s just Belling’s style.  Facts have never meant much to Mark when it comes to making his point.”

    “In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.” 

    http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-91771.html

    StanleyGingleshtimer = old Bob

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1610 hrs
    
    
    

13. mht,

    I’m not sure what a story from 1995 has to do with this.  Do you have some personal stake in resurrecting this story?

    Posted by Owen on June 24, 2009 at 1611 hrs
    
    
    

14. ....a certain former Washington County elected Republican official was known to do, before he had to resign after showing his office copy of Playgirl magazine to a female Milwaukee Journal reporter.

    How is this relative to the topic?

    Posted by GAMazy on June 24, 2009 at 1706 hrs
    
    
    

15. If Mark wants to focus on gay issues, that’s his right.  If Ginny wishes to focus on sexually explicit books, that’s her right.

    Exactly.

    Posted by GAMazy on June 24, 2009 at 1706 hrs
    
    
    

16. If Mark wants to focus on gay issues, that’s his right.  If Ginny wishes to focus on sexually explicit books, that’s her right.

    Exactly.

    Posted by GAMazy on June 24, 2009 at 1706 hrs

    That’s not “exact” at all, based on your own words.  You did specifically focus on gay issues.  To the educated, that makes the rest of your position and your frantic edits transparent and easy to dismiss.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1710 hrs
    
    
    

17. Anon #11 - Why are you impersonating me? I guess Anon is generic but using the same phony email address. You far lefties cannot make it on the merits of your arguments so you rely on these kinds of shenanigans.

    Belling is right on the money!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1713 hrs
    
    
    

18. Anon post #16 -  Explicit sex is explicit sex no matter the gender.  It’s all obscence.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 1851 hrs
    
    
    

19. “We, the taxpayers HAVE to fund the library and then have no say as to what is in the library.  Talk about being hypocritical.”

    Really?  What have you asked for outside the safe libraries request? I, er, oops, demand?

    Have you asked them to acquire a book, magazine, newspaper, video, audiobook, etc?  Have you asked for different hours, or a more timely children’s entertainment session?  Have you filed a complaint against a specific title(s) using the reconsideration policy form and following the process w/o changing the nature of the complaint?  Do ya have a library card, punk?

    I have donated quite a few decent titles (Phillip Dick, Michael Ruppert) to the library and though they don’t have to accept them (per policy), they did.  The policy prevents me from forcing them to accept my any political, religious, or clean the crap out of my attic agenda.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 2137 hrs
    
    
    

20. “Belling is right on the money!” Aw c’mon!

    I like/respect “conservative” writing as long as the message is backed up with facts.  This piece was unresearched, pandering Cheap rant.  Wasn’t even worth reading.  Move back in with your mom so you have more time to write.

    The evil leftie, socialist, commie, devil worshipers at West Bend Parents for Free Speech (and gay XXX porn (Bellin)) have a 50% complete time line of the Marziaka’s complaint:

    http://westbendparentsforfreespeech.webs.com/timelineofcomplaint.htm

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 2149 hrs
    
    
    

21. A very complete timeline will be coming soon to a website near you.

    Posted by GAMazy on June 24, 2009 at 2155 hrs
    
    
    

22. If you are worried about ensuring your identity, perhaps you shouldn’t post anonymously. 

    Anon post #16 -  Explicit sex is explicit sex no matter the gender.  It’s all obscence.

    Posted by Kelly on June 24, 2009 at 1851 hrs

    Don’t push your misguided “values” on anyone, please.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 24, 2009 at 2345 hrs
    
    
    

23. anon #22 -

    It always upsets you (far) lefties when you cannot simply deal with the comment and truth. You want to attack those who speak it.

    Oh and please, don’t push your misguided values on anyone, please.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2009 at 0650 hrs
    
    
    

24. Stan- your post was odd and frankly did not make sense.  I only ask the library to be safe for all kids, not just my own.  I do have a library card and so do my kids, but we haven’t used them since I realized that the library offered up sexually explicit books to children ages 11-17.  I’m just waiting for the children’s smoking lounge to open there. 

    Anon-#22 Not sure what you complaint is….sexually explicit materials can include both the straight and homosexual lifestyle.

    Also, you have no idea on how I stand on homosexuality or my background.  So don’t go assuming.  You know what happens when you assume? 

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 25, 2009 at 1258 hrs
    
    
    

25. This argument about books listed in the YA category of the West Bend Community Memorial Library has reached the absurd.

    Most disturbing to me is that no one has even broached the subjects of the two key questions raised by this ridiculous argument.

    1. At what age is it appropriate for a teenager to read about sex? Keep in mind that puberty, that time when a child’s body becomes physically capable of procreating, can start as early as age 10, and in some cases even earlier than that. The YA category is a list of books suggested for teens between the ages of 11 and 18. And, who exactly gets to decide at what age that discussion on sex begins?

    2. Let’s discuss exactly what system should be put in place to determine which books are appropriate to include in the YA category. Apparently the current system—in which trained librarians pick and choose books for the collection based on recommendations from a variety of respected sources, using their educated judgement to provide as broad a spectrum of information as possible—is not acceptable to some. So what is your alternative? Let’s consider what could be done in its stead.

    a. Subject matter: It’s obvious that the only books being criticized contain passages involving sex. Okay, then, only books that mention sex will be required to undergo extra scrutiny and possible restrictions. That was easy, although I strongly suspect once we resolve this sex talk thing, other topics will be suggested as inappropriate for our “kids” (age undefined). This is a Christian community, after all, so let’s make sure books discussing other religions, or, heaven forbid, criticizing religion, do not get into the hands of our youth. This is a Conservative community, so none of this liberal nonsense, either.

    b. Vetting. Apparently, some in this community believe there should be a local standard applied to determine the acceptability of YA books. Relying on reviews and commentary provided by national library, publishing and literary organizations is not good enough. Okay. So what does that mean? Should there be a West Bend Book Review Committee formed responsible for reading and researching all the books available that could be included in our YA category? Remember, the Library Board is responsible for overseeing the operations of the entire library, budget, maintenance, staffing, and other less important stuff. It does not select books for the collection, to my knowledge. So there should be some sort of Book Review Committee to select appropriate books for the YA category. Who should be on the committee? How many should there be? Paid or unpaid? What are the criteria by which they are chosen? Who gets to select them? Elected or appointed? What appeal process should be allowed? What should the city do to prepare for lawsuits in case someone gets really ticked off about how a certain book is treated?

    c. Criteria: We’ve established that books mentioning sex will receive this extra scrutiny. But how much talk about sex will be tolerated for our YA category? At what point do we remove a book from consideration for the YA category? Is a paragraph about a sex act too much? A sentence? A word? What words? To my knowledge, every basic slang word for a sexual organ and act can be traced back to the core Angles-Saxons-Jutes Germanic roots of English spoken around 450 CE. What about more scientic words? Would the use of the word penis, vagina, fellatio or cunnilingus (all found in the dictionary—come to think of it, that could be a problem, too)be cause to keep a book out of the YA category? Who gets to decide? The Book Review Committee? The Library Board? The Common Council? A citywide referendum? At what point do you cut off debate? Or do you allow debate at all? Who gets to create, maintain and update the list of unacceptable words, phrases and themes?

    Let’s discuss how we are going to resolve these basic issues about restricting information in our public library and stop all these silly name-calling, mostly ill-informed rants I’ve seen on this topic in all the blogs.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2009 at 1247 hrs
    
    
    

26. The books in question are fine for some, those with parental supervision…so keeping the books in the library could be useful.  The problem arises when children who are
    un-supervised are reading these books which are sexually explicit.  Thus keeping them in the library, but in a section that would require parents to RE-consent would be suitable.

    Just because a child is going through puberty does not mean said child has to learn HOW to have sex and the different ways to have sex that are spelled out in a very graphic way.  You can learn what sex is and the biology behind it. 

    Don’t go off on a tangent and bring religion into this topic.  You don’t have to be religious to agree that children should not be exposed to porn or other sexually explicit materials…that’s just common sense.

    From what I gather, from the start the library board did not tell Ginny to file a complaint about each and every book seperatly.  So she filed a general complaint and no one told her this was incorrect until long after…even after she met with the library board.  Seems to me, this could have been handled in a much better way.

    Also, the YA Zone librarian promoted these sexually explicits books on the libraries website, the YA Zone…thus throwing them into the spot light.  She should have used better judgement.

    Dave- at what point do you personally draw the line when it comes to obscenity in books for children?  How much farther do the books have to go before YOU deem them obscene?  I’ve read a number of these books and I believe them to be obscene.  I am not a prude, I talk to my two teenage boys about sex, drugs and host of other “hot topics”. 

    I think when a book that is geared for children 11-17 yet accessible to even younger children graphically depicts a sexual act, like mast********* or bl**-J**** is frankly, wrong. Please remember that many children read beyond their age level, so even younger children may have access to these books.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2009 at 1405 hrs
    
    
    

27. Dave,
    Well said.
    Kelly, you talk about personal lines of “obsenity” , but WBCFSL is not talking about personal lines. They are talking about restricting access for an entire collection for the YA community. So, as Dave mentioned, who makes that call? According to Ginny it’s not a personal decision. She wants to take that decision away from parents and give it to whom? And with what criteria? You talk about kids without parents not having someone to protect them from these books, or help them decide whether or not they are suitable for them. So then, who decides? Or do we just tell those kids, you can’t read them?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2009 at 1701 hrs
    
    
    

28. 15.If Mark wants to focus on gay issues, that’s his right.  If Ginny wishes to focus on sexually explicit books, that’s her right.

    Exactly.

    Posted by GAMazy on June 24, 2009 at 1706 hrs

    Wait a minute, Ginny has said that this never has been a homosexual issue. It has always been about the blatant graphic - ness of explicity. The obscenity of these books in the YA Zone. HOLD THE PRESS. It’s never been about homosexuality.
    REALLY? NOT! Go back to her first statements when this all started, it was about homosexuality. Lest we forget her statements to the press both in print and interviews on TV.
    She has yet to comment on her own statement because she can’t and still save face with her ever changing argument.
    I do take into account that she is a citizen and has made mistakes, however, when she says it has NEVER been about homosexuality is just not true. If she would just say that sure the complaint has evolved and acknowledge her statements maybe that would make a difference.
    Do I expect it, nope. She is not big on acknowledging mistakes even though she has at times. Usually on other blogs when called out. Not to mention her complaint was against the entire homosexual area. Not graghic heterosexual books.
      Ginny has changed her tune is an understatement. I have gone back to her tv interviews to show people her comments blantantly showing her complaint stemmed from the aspect of homosexuality. It is clear. It’s also see to see how her complaint morphed as other groups stepped up to advise.
    The breakdown can be found here.
    justmythoughts-kristina.blogspot.com
      She cannot say NEVER been about it. Her own words spoke a different “truth”.
    Respectufully,
    Kristina

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2009 at 2103 hrs
    
    
    

29. The evil leftie, socialist, commie, devil worshipers at West Bend Parents for Free Speech (and gay XXX porn (Bellin)) have a 50% complete time line of the Marziaka’s complaint:

    Ginnys words do not lie. She hersef made it a point to segregate homosexual material to complain about. It is straight out of her mouth. She has yet to respond to what she has said to TV and newspaper that undermine her whole arguement even if she has revised it.
      She cannot contest herself or her words.
    Kristina

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2009 at 2108 hrs
    
    
    

30. A very complete timeline will be coming soon to a website near you.
    Posted by GAMazy on June 24, 2009 at 2155 hrs

    Whose time line yours?
      Will it include your homophobic stance?
    Kristina

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 26, 2009 at 2110 hrs
    
    
    

31. First off, let me again say that Ginny is a human being, wife, mother, taxpayer and citizen.  She is flawed like the rest of us and makes errors.  She does not have a FREE attorney at her disposal, like the city and the library.  The books in questions are both straight and homosexual books that involve sexually explicit content.

    When I asked Dave about his personal line on obscenity for children it was just that…his personal.  Everyone has a line and at what point do you stand up for what you believe in personally?  There are ordinances and laws on the books, but as we know these can change.  So what makes someone want to change a law or an ordinance? I think that it would have to cross what you believe to be your personal line.  These books cross my personal line and I believe that w/o parental involvement these books could harmful to children who read them.  Therefore I will stand up for what I believe in. Everyone has a line….so I ask…what is YOUR personal line?

    During WWII people had lines….at what point/line did the Germans have to cross before the Americans stepped in.  Today with Iran, at what point/line will America step in? 

    In today’s society I think the line keeps being pushed back farther and farther.  Who gets to make the decisions on what is obscene or not…I guess society.  If enough people in society want it to change it will, if not it won’t.  Like drunk driving…enough people were upset and they were able to change the limit.

    I’m choosing to stand up for the protection of children who lack parental involvement.  By a simple act of moving or quartering off an area and asking for parents to RE-consent will protect those who may not be able to protect themselves. 

    For those who wish to read these books to their children, they may do so.  They are still in the library and accessible.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 27, 2009 at 0945 hrs
    
    
    

32. “I’m choosing to stand up for the protection of children who lack parental involvement.  By a simple act of moving or quartering off an area and asking for parents to RE-consent will protect those who may not be able to protect themselves. ” -Kelly
    But, if they have no parental involvement they cannot get re-consent which would mean that they would not be able to read the books at all. How do you suggest these young people, for whom these books are written, get re-consent?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 27, 2009 at 1027 hrs
    
    
    

33. When I posted comment 25, I hoped it would spark at least a nominal discussion on the two primary subjects I brought up: When should a teen be allowed to read about sex, and, precisely, what process should be established to restrict books containing sexual references.

    So far, all I’ve read in response is that Ms. Kelly has a personal “line” she believes books in the YA category have crossed. She does not define exactly what that “line” is. Still, does that mean Kelly’s “line” should be this community’s standard and Kelly gets to pick and choose which books will be restricted? I for one do not want to give Kelly that much work and responsibility.

    So then, what mechanism do we establish to pick and choose which books are sexless enough to be available in our library?

    As for my personal line, I do not know what that means. I’ve likely read a thousand books or more in my life, and as many other publications, if not more. My only standard is quality writing. I’ve read books I did not care for, some where I disagreed with their theme, some with scenes that disturbed me. But I would never impose my personal standard on anyone else.

    A book is composed of words, just words. Words do not harm anyone. The words “masturbate” or “blowjob” by themselves are no more harmful than “liberal” or “conservative.” Words are used to express ideas, and I’d hate to live in a country that tries to restrict the expression of ideas. Iran with its religious leaders comes to mind.

    As for my personal “line,” these days I’m thrilled to see a teen reading any book. If a child is capable of reading it, let them. I do not believe reading a book, learning about any idea, harms anyone. I do not believe ignorance is bliss nor protects someone from harm. Quite the reverse. Nor do I believe that reading a book instantly turns anyone into a criminal, pervert, homosexual, or underminds anyone’s moral underpinnings.

    It seems to me that the people critical of the YA books are not afraid of the books themselves, they are afraid of a child’s curiousity. Curtail that curiousity and you control their minds. I’m afraid it does not work that way. Ideas have a way of getting out no matter how much someone tries to block them. Iran, again, comes to mind.

    Once more I ask, if you want to restrict books, tell me what procedures you want in place to decide which books will be restricted. Do not talk about feelings, beliefs, “lines,” give me concrete rules on what will not be tolerated, how books will be judged by those rules, and, most importantly, who gets to decide.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 27, 2009 at 1131 hrs
    
    
    

34. My only standard is quality writing.  -Dave

    What?!  So you’d let children read Penthouse if the writing was good?  Okeedokee then.

    Reading these books without an adult can be harmful.  Are children “curious” certainly and this is why they need guidance.  The human brain is not fully developed until into their 20’s.  The area if the brain which involves reasoning is the last developed, leaving children w/o the means to be the judge. When it comes to children Dave, we’ve almost always have restrictions in place, so this would just be another.  Besides the books would still be in the library and available.

    How do you suggest these young people, for whom these books are written, get re-consent? -Elizabeth

    The library or volunteers would contact parents using the contact information given when the library card was first issued, either by phone, e-mail, fax, postcard, newspaper listing etc.  If the parent does not not re-consent that means the child is unable to read those particular books.  It is the parents choice to choose for their children, after all they are minors. 

    Now, who draws the line on what is obscene for children?  Well, who made up this so-called line that is in place now?  How did they come to that conculsion? Would it have to go through community, library or governmental standards?  This I am unsure.  What I am sure of is that these books not made for children to read alone, rathe with an adult who could walk them through it and answer questions.  Remember Dave we are not just talking about “the library”, but the childrens section for ages 11-17 and children do read up so even younger children would have access. Have you read these books?  I have.

    If it talked about sex in the form of biology and puberty then I would be all for it. If it talked about sex graphically in the form of recreation then I would be against it…especially for the younger of the age bracket.  However, the books would still be in the library and with parental consent the children would be able to read these books.

    The library does restrict books, that is why there is an adult section and a children’s section.  If you don’t want books restricted then why is there children’s section in the first place?  Why not just have one big library?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 27, 2009 at 1301 hrs
    
    
    

35. Thank you Kelly for a partial response to my discussion topic suggestions. But your response raises more questions than it answers.

    You write, “The human brain is not fully developed until into their 20’s. The area if [sic] the brain which involves reasoning is the last developed, leaving children w/o the means to be the judge.” Does that mean no one under the age of 20 should have unchaparoned access to books?

    Are books that dangerous? I haven’t heard such a concept since those literary bonfires in 1930s Germany. Oh, there were the Christian Spaniards who feared the writings of the Aztecs and Mayas so much they burned every Native American book they could lay their hands on. Then there were the Christians who burned the Library in Alexandria. So much easier to control ideas when there wasn’t such a thing as a printing press.

    Kelly, you still do not define what books would be restricted for “re-consent.”

    You write, “If it talked about sex in the form of biology and puberty then I would be all for it. If it talked about sex graphically in the form of recreation then I would be against it…especially for the younger of the age bracket.”

    Okay. Then a dictionary or encyclopedia would not have a re-consent restriction. By the way, YA nonfiction is located on the second floor of the library, it is not separated from adult nonfiction. How about other nonfiction? “The Joy of Sex,” “Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask (source of a very funny Woody Allen movie, by the way),” that GUrLs book everyone refers to (I’m sorry, I do not recall its proper title)? No re-consent needed?

    Then we’re down to fiction. How do we choose which fiction titles must have re-concent restrictions? Kelly, you will have to be more precise than the word “explicit.”

    What is explicit? We’ve already established we’re only interested in restricting books that mention sex. Okay, so how sexless does a book need to be so it does not get a re-consent restriction? What words cannot be printed in the book? Is the word “sex” itself verboten?

    Would a novel describing the aftermath of a rape need a re-consent if it described the rape? How about a novel warning about the predation of a priest on altar boys? “Romeo and Juliet,” a book about teenage love, sex, marriage, gang warfare and suicide? Re-consent needed? What about a novel warning kids not to take candy from strangers because that stranger might want to rape and kill them? Mention rape and that book needs re-consent? What about a book warning about the consequences of premarrital sex, unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, the resulting family disgrace? re-consent required?

    Who gets to choose which books need re-consent restrictions? You, Kelly? Ginny Maziarka? Safe Libraries? Mark Belling? The Christian Civil Liberties Union? The Republican Party?

    As for the procedure to restrict books, you write, “The library or volunteers would contact parents using the contact information given when the library card was first issued, either by phone, e-mail, fax, postcard, newspaper listing etc.  If the parent does not not [sic] re-consent that means the child is unable to read those particular books.  It is the parents choice to choose for their children, after all they are minors.”

    Sounds simple. Let’s look at the implications.

    Are you willing to pay for the time and staff the library will need to inplement such a policy? Oh, that’s right, it could be volunteers. So who pays for the phones, faxes, paperwork/computers, office space, administration of all this?

    And these librarians or volunteers who ask for a re-consent? Do they simply state a book’s title and a pre-agreed upon sentence about its content, or does a re-consent requester get to express a personal opinion about a book in question? For example, Kelly, if you were one of these volunteers, should you be allowed to express your opinion that a book is obscene or should you be required to keep quiet if a parent asks for advice?

    Of course, a book with a re-consent restriction already is labeled unfit for teens under your definition, Kelly, so it’s likely many parents simply will say no to any re-consent request without investigatation. Yes, the book is still physically in the library, but it is effectively censored, banned, without the embarrassment of actually burning it in public.

    Then there are the lawsuits. Who pays for them? The city? You, Kelly? There will be lawsuits when the library sets up such a convoluted, subjective censorship system. There will be parents claiming they were not properly informed or ill-informed about a book’s content. Other parents who want books they disapproved of added to the re-consent list or, possibly, removed, if such a thing is allowed by the powers that be.

    Where does all this money come from. Where does all the government interference end?

    Currently, YA books are selected by trained, informed librarians based on research and the advice of well-respected library, publishing and literary organizations. Their objective is not to find ways to restrict certain books but to provide as broad a selection of information on as many topics as possible for all the patrons of the library within budget limitations. To my knowledge, they comply with the legal defintion of obscenity (Pornography is a near useless pejorative overused and abused by people who want to enflame passions about something they dislike.).

    That seems like a perfectly good book selection system to me.

    By the way, the library is already unrestricted. The age categories are more conveniences to help patrons find material they might like or need faster. To my knowledge, no one stops an adult from reading a child’s picture book or a child from browsing through a book in the adult section.

    PS. About Penthouse ... What makes you think kids aren’t looking at it now? And if a kid were just reading the articles, more power to them.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 27, 2009 at 1602 hrs
    
    
    

36. “I’m choosing to stand up for the protection of children who lack parental involvement.  By a simple act of moving or quartering off an area and asking for parents to RE-consent will protect those who may not be able to protect themselves.

    “

    I love it when conservatives use the arguments that they constantly whine about liberals using.  Many of our cost-intensive social programs are also targeted at kids who lack appropriate parental involvement (e.g. Head Start, school nutrition programs).  So it’s okay to government to be involved here, but not to make sure a kid can get a couple decent meals each day?  Or is that not okay because you can’t do it for free?

    “The library does restrict books, that is why there is an adult section and a children’s section.  If you don’t want books restricted then why is there children’s section in the first place?  Why not just have one big library?”

    A library has sections for the convenience of its patrons, not because it’s trying to restrict access to any particular content.  To make such an argument is positively absurd.  Putting the kiddie books in one place makes life easier for parents looking for such things.  Same goes with YA books, reference materials, etc.  Grouping books according to their target audience makes the library easier to use for those who are casual browsers.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 27, 2009 at 1605 hrs
    
    
    

37. The books in questions are both straight and homosexual books that involve sexually explicit content.

    REALLY? That is interesting. She wanted the whoe out of the closet link removed from the web site and more anti - gay books added. She said that the books shewas contesting were ALL homosexual. Geo club, Perks, homosexual themes. I have not heard her say boo about heterosexual teen romance books or the like. If you are going to tell me that her complaint covered homo and hetero then I suggest you tell GInny that and tell her to revise her public statements. NOT once has she addressed HETERO in her public comments. So I suggest you talk to her.
      Interesting as well she has yet to answer my question regarding her public comments. It does not suprise me because when she has been confronted with her own words she usually goes silent. Doesn’t want to be reminded I guess.
      I just think that some of you need more info from her before you say things yourself. The proof is in her own words. She can’t debate them and I guess she can’t face them.
    Over and out.
    Kristina

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 27, 2009 at 1615 hrs
    
    
    

38. Dave, what you are asking for, an explanation of how this new system would work (whether it would be for moving books, labeling books, or both) is something I have asked for since this whole thing started.  To my recollection, the Maziarkas have said that the logistics of the system is something the library staff/board would decide, or that it is something they would discuss with the board at the appropriate time, not something they would discuss publicly/via the blogs.

    I find it very interesting that a group can suggest a new system and create a petition to promote it, yet give no indications of how this system would operate, who would govern it, and how it would be paid for.  I find it very distressing that many people would jump on board in support of such policy changes without any clear indication about how the new system would work and who would be in control.

    I’ve enjoyed your discussion and hope some clear answers will be offered in response to your (and my, and several others) questions and concerns.

    Posted by Maria Hanrahan on June 29, 2009 at 1013 hrs
    
    
    

39. I find it very interesting that a group can suggest a new system and create a petition to promote it, yet give no indications of how this system would operate, who would govern it, and how it would be paid for.  I find it very distressing that many people would jump on board in support of such policy changes without any clear indication about how the new system would work and who would be in control.

    Oh wait a minute, I was going to say something about the medical reform plan, then remembered this was the post about the library.  Oh well. I suppose that qoute would fit in there just as easily…..

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 1225 hrs
    
    
    

40. I’m curious as to who put together the guidelines that are in place now. 

    A library has sections for the convenience of its patrons, not because it’s trying to restrict access to any particular content.  To make such an argument is positively absurd.  Putting the kiddie books in one place makes life easier for parents looking for such things.  Same goes with YA books, reference materials, etc.  Grouping books according to their target audience makes the library easier to use for those who are casual browsers.

    -Recess

    So we agree that books are all ready segregated, so why not add one more on top of that: sexually explicit books
    Re-consent only.

    By the way, the library is already unrestricted. The age categories are more conveniences to help patrons find material they might like or need faster. To my knowledge, no one stops an adult from reading a child’s picture book or a child from browsing through a book in the adult section.

    -Dave
    If that is true then let’s just make it all one library…a free for all.

    I love it when conservatives use the arguments that they constantly whine about liberals using.  Many of our cost-intensive social programs are also targeted at kids who lack appropriate parental involvement (e.g. Head Start, school nutrition programs).  So it’s okay to government to be involved here, but not to make sure a kid can get a couple decent meals each day?  Or is that not okay because you can’t do it for free?

    -Recess

    Guess I could throw that arguement back at ya.

    All sexually explicit materials that involve straight or homosexual are on my list.  I am not Ginny, I speak for myself….I am just glad that Ginny brought this to my attention.  If the books metioned above that involve homosexuality and they are explicit then they too should be included.

    I find it very interesting that a group can suggest a new system and create a petition to promote it, yet give no indications of how this system would operate, who would govern it, and how it would be paid for.

    -Maria

    What I find interesting is that there are people not willing to take a simple step to protect children who may not be there own by moving the books a few feet and asking parent for a simple re-consent.  As for who will pay for it….it would probably be the same people who are paying to have sexually explicit books geared for children in the our library….us, the taxpayers.

    Remember that the people behind the petition are average everyday citizens, all we know is that we want obscenity out of the YA Zone, but not the library.  We are taking this one step at a time, doing the best we can.  We don’t have all the answers, but many questions.  One thing we do know for sure…that the books that are in question are obscene.  We are happy to work with others to iron out the process.  I do think the library board should be in control, but right now they seem out of control. So perhaps the first step is finding a board that better reflexs the feelings of the community it serves.

    elovrich- good point and I guess that could be said for Cap & Tax too.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 1449 hrs
    
    
    

41. #34- Kelly,  your response doesn’t make sense. If you have parents that can give re-consent over the phone, then those same parents can go to the library and read the books themselves if they are concerned about the content. There is no reason to get the librarians involved in a family matter.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 1702 hrs
    
    
    

42. Elizabeth- Exactly!  So if the parents aren’t involved and can not reconsent then those children will not have access to sexually explicit books.  Those children who have parents who would come down and consent would have access to the sexually explicit books.

    Parents could not give permission over the phone, but would be informed to come down in person to give consent.

    Librarian’s are all ready involved when they hand the form for a library card.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 1737 hrs
    
    
    

43. They already have consent with the first library card. If you keep the books from them because the library cannot get reconsent you are withholding books written for people their age based on subjective criteria. That is censorship.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 1803 hrs
    
    
    

44. not to mention- it is still undefined criteria- will no one tell us how books will be decided upon as objectionable? Ginny? How can the complaint even be taken seriously if you don’t put forth a remedy?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 1827 hrs
    
    
    

45. Elizabeth,

    You seem to have a particularly prickly burr in your saddle about Ginny.  You’d do better to debate the issue instead of constantly engaging in some sort of personal tiff.

    Posted by Owen on June 29, 2009 at 1840 hrs
    
    
    

46. Owen, I mentioned Ginny because she is the one who brought the complaint and refuses to answer the question.  ( many times. I have posted the question on her blog as well.) I have a “prickly burr in my saddle” about anyone who tries to censor books.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 1854 hrs
    
    
    

47. Yet many others have also expressed their thoughts on the matter, but you obsess about Ginny’s actions.  You seem to have some issues with her that go beyond a rational discussion of library policy.  It’s a bit disturbing.

    Posted by Owen on June 29, 2009 at 1907 hrs
    
    
    

48. Kelly, I do appreciate your efforts to discuss what I feel are the major issues, but—long sigh here—you still have not addressed them fully enough.

    First, a quick response to your commentary on my last contribution (35):

    You correctly quote me, “By the way, the library is already unrestricted. The age categories are more conveniences to help patrons find material they might like or need faster. To my knowledge, no one stops an adult from reading a child’s picture book or a child from browsing through a book in the adult section.”

    Then you respond: “If that is true then let’s just make it all one library…a free for all.”

    I believe what I said is true. I’m not sure what you consider “a free for all,” but if you mean allow anyone the freedom to read whatever they please, I agree.

    Elsewhere, you write, “One thing we do know for sure…that the books that are in question are obscene.”

    Ah, now we get to the crux of our discussion. No, “we,” as in everyone in this community, do not agree the books in question are obscene. (By the way, does anyone have an exact list of the books being questioned? I would like to see it. By any chance is it on the national Safe Libraries website?) I’m afraid not one of these books, however many there are, falls under the legal definition of obscene as defined by Wisconsin state statute and the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The content of a book must be judged “as a whole,” which means in its entirety, before it can be ruled legally obscene. I’m sorry, but pointing to a few sexual words, a sentence or two, a whole paragraph, an entire scene, even a chapter or more in a book does not constitute legally obscene.

    That means your core premise, that these books you dislike are obscene, would not stand up in court if challenged. And I think we both can agree there would be a legal challenge.

    But let’s set that little difficulty aside for the moment. Let’s assume we can create a rating system based on your “sexually explicit” criteria.

    You still have not defined what “sexually explicit” means? Imagine the debate and time spent by any committee trying to parse if each book it must look at is “sexually explicit.” One person’s explicit might just be risque to another and even informative to a third. I hope you can see my point.

    I won’t bother to repeat my query as to who gets to decide what is “sexually explicit” and how that person or persons is chosen for such a task.

    Kelly, you also wrote: “What I find interesting is that there are people not willing to take a simple step to protect children who may not be there own by moving the books a few feet and asking parent for a simple re-consent.”

    What I have been trying to point out is it is not “a simple step” at all. It would be difficult to define, hard to administer, expensive to run, morally repugnant for a country founded on freedom of expression, and ultimately illegal.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 29, 2009 at 2229 hrs
    
    
    

49. I’ve done a bit of checking and currently, no books are being challenge.  Listing books and arguing over each and every book could be a waste of time.  What needs to take place is a policy change.

    Obscene:

    “Main Entry: ob·scene
    Pronunciation: \äb-?s?n, ?b-\
    Function: adjective
    Etymology: Middle French, from Latin obscenus, obscaenus
    Date: 1593
    1: disgusting to the senses : repulsive
    2 a: abhorrent to morality or virtue ; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b: containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics> c: repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles <an obscene misuse of power> d: so excessive as to be offensive <obscene wealth> <obscene waste>-MWDictionary”

    We all know that Dave is all for letting children read adult material including Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler, books on bomb making.  Needless to say I think that is way too extreme. So Dave, if you think that children should be allowed to read ANYTHING…then would you take one of the books in question and read it to a group of children in a park?

    Elizabeth-  Yes, having a library card. is consent.  However, we as parents were under the assumption that the library was a safe place.  This is no longer true and our children are exposed to obscene materials in the childrens section.  Therefore parents NEED to know what their children are being exposed to…this is the libraries duty.  If the library made every attempt to contact the parents and did not, then the responsibilty falls onto the parent. 

    Let me ask you this Elizabeth.  Say the library instituted a new system for the library card which made the ones we have now useless.  The library made notice of it and attempted to contact the parents, but failed.  So when a child entered the library he/she would be unable to check out a book, would that be censorship?  Would the fact that their are children out there right now without a library, would that be considered censorship?  No.  It’s called not having a card.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0646 hrs
    
    
    

50. Kelly, and all the others pushing for ‘re-consent’:

    By allowing their children to keep their library card, parents are consenting every day. If you do not want your children exposed to the material in the library, take away their card. It is not up to you to ‘protect’ anyone else’s children from ideas or images or language that you find obscene or repulsive. It is not possible, nor in my mind even desirable, to protect children from everything that can harm them. Failing grades, losing at competitions, having pets, friends and family die—they are all unpleasant, that all hurt, but if you don’t experience it when you are younger, and at home with family to help deal with it, and learn how to handle life’s rejections and tribulations, how in the name of all that you may find holy, do you think they will when they turn 21 and their brains are ‘fully-developed’?  The brain ‘develops’ because it deals with those issues. Chemically, physically, it is developed long before that, and in fact is already dying at age 21. It isn’t that a switch is flipped and a child is suddenly an adult. Are these books going to be too much for some kids? Yes. But then again, there are novels that are too much for some adults. Are the depictions in the books gratuitous? I am not sure, the stories could conceivably be told without them, but would they have the same impact? Is the purpose simply to shock and titillate? I don’t believe so.  For a very weak analogy, consider 2 movies, Robocop and Saving Private Ryan. The beginnings of both of these movies are very violent. In the case of the former I feel the violence is simply to show what the film-makers could do with their special effects, to shock the audience, that it added very little directly to the story. In Saving…, the violence was, IMO, needed to set the backdrop for what was accomplished, it was the canvas that the rest of the story is played against. It would not have been as compelling a film had it not been there.  That is perhaps what needs to be looked at:  is the story being told a worthwhile one, and are the images contributory to telling them?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0723 hrs
    
    
    

51. Kelly, thank you for reprinting a dictionary definition of the word obscenity. But that still does not define a precise criterium by which you or anyone can legally label a written work obscene.

    What is an obscene misuse of power? You might say it is a president having an affair with an intern. I might call it a president dragging the entire country into an unnecessary war.

    What is obscene wealth? Obscene lyrics?

    My point is, each is a subjective opinion determined by each individual. To establish the kind of organized book restriction system you want to see, there needes to be a much more precise list of criteria.

    At this time, the only criteria I have heard are these: Kelly read a book and thinks it is obscene, therefore it is obscene. That I cannot accept as a method of restricting books.

    I would rather see you advocate that no book in the YA category can mention sex. I wouldn’t agree with it, I would fight against such a criterium, but at least that would be a definable standard to be debated.

    Thank you for the invitation to read out loud in the park. Since I am not much of a public speaker, I will politely decline.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0808 hrs
    
    
    

52. Owen, your last two comments to Elizabeth have me baffled.  While I typically don’t agree with your stance on issues, and while we certainly disagree over the library issue, I have found your posts to be well thought out and on point.  These comments, however, have me scratching my head.

    How has Elizabeth engaged in a personal tiff with Ginny?  Ginny is the one who launched the original complaint, and she is the one behind the current version of the complaint, requesting that library policies be changed so that books could be segregated based on “sexual content.”  Why is it inappropriate for those of us who are against such a policy to ask her how her proposed policy/system would work?  That is all that Elizabeth (and Dave, and I, and others) have done.  That is not a personal attack on Ginny, it is a legitimate question.  I have asked it from the beginning of this issue, and never gotten an explanation.

    Dave has asked the same points here.  What would be considered “sexual content” (would it be kissing, or certain kinds of touch, etc.?) in a novel?  At what point is it too explicit for the YA patrons?  Who decides that?  Ginny and WBCFSL keeps pushing for the library to reflect “community standards”; who gets to decide what those standards are?  Ginny?  WBCFSL?  Is a special committee formed?  If so, how are those people chosen and what makes them experts or gives them the right to represent the “community”?  Is it decided by local government?  Do residents vote on the issue?  These are all questions that Ginny, WBCFSL, Kelly, you, and others that support the idea of “simply moving the books” refuse to answer.  As Dave has pointed out, it is not simple.

    Posted by Maria Hanrahan on June 30, 2009 at 0820 hrs
    
    
    

53. It is not up to you to ‘protect’ anyone else’s children from ideas or images or language that you find obscene or repulsive. -elvo

    Oh really so tell me why we the taxpayers give free breakfast and lunch to children?  Tell me why we are required to keep our children in booster seats?  Tell me why there is a curfew? We do protect those who need it and this should just be added to the list.  Reading obscene material does not make your brain develop.  Children and these are children need an adult to guide them and help them understand.

    Dave- the library right now has their own version of what is obscene or not obscene.  If they didn’t there would be Hustler in the childrens section.

    I find this type of reasoning (as well as your comments about allowing children to read adult material) particularly disturbing.  You continue to assume that all parents want obscene, yes “obscene” as defined in the dictionary, materials shotgunned out to all children who are patrons of our library.  That is what your bottom line is.  Don’t give parents a choice.  Don’t give kids a choice.  Leave it there for all, so all must succumb to the sub-standards of the author and the publisher, and the obvious poor choices of the librarians on behalf of the West Bend citizens they serve.  The West Bend library policy, itself, states that it promises to uphold community standards. This means that if parents would prefer to have the assistance of the library as they assist their children in making good choices, they need to offer this.  Period.  Community standards.  Most of us, despite your irrational picks for kids, consider obscene materials for children to be a very low standard in our community.  One that is objectionable and does not fit with the care we project onto the children in our city and surrounding areas served by our library.  How about if we do this?  Remove the librarians who cannot seem to follow the West Bend Library policy to uphold community standards.  Yes, I said that.  And I meant it.

    You asked me what I deemed obscene and I replied with my definition…the dictionary version.  Now I ask you….what do YOU, personally deem obscene?

    I’ve asked this question before to others and no one has told me what their own personal views are regarding obscene. 

    Dave, you still haven’t answered my question:
    Would you read one of these books to a group of children in a park?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0828 hrs
    
    
    

54. I’ve asked this question before to others and no one has told me what their own personal views are regarding obscene.

    Kelly, this is the exact reason everyone needs to question the policy change/new system proposed by WBCFSL and supporters like yourself.  Everyone has a different viewpoint on what is obscene. There’s the rub; how do you set a community standard for what is obscene when everyone has a different definition of it?  Which definition do we use?  And what indication do you have that WBCFSL’s policy change does indeed reflect “community standards” when the community (via the opposing petitions, comments at the library board meeting, and letters to the editor) have been equally split between supporting a new system and opposing it?

    Parents currently have control over making decisions about what reading material their children can access.  True, some parents do not choose to enforce their control, but that does not mean they relinquish their parental rights.  Re-consent for material is not needed; parents have already given consent (for all materials) by getting their kid a library card.  If they feel there is material they don’t want their kid to check out, they can cancel that library card or keep it in their possession.  They can help their kid select material.  In a nutshell, they can be a parent.  No new policy or program is needed.  No new expenses will be incurred by creating a new operational system, so no additional burden will fall on taxpayers for funding such a change.

    Posted by Maria Hanrahan on June 30, 2009 at 0850 hrs
    
    
    

55. Kelly,

    A very nice strawman you have constructed. Free and reduced price breakfast and lunch, seatbelt and boosterseat laws. curfews. none of these ‘protect’ children from ideas, images, or language. Apples and bowling balls.

    I did not say that reading obscenity helps a brain to develop, I said that part of growing up is to learn to make choices, to live with adversity. This penchant to child-proof the world is, IMO, doing all a disservice. In addition, and I am not thi first to say this, you have yet to define what comprises obscene. Yes, you posted a dictionary definiton of an adjective. How about an example of what would just qualify as obscene to you? and what is just on the other side of the line but would be acceptable. In other words, what is the threshhold?

    A final thought, and I apologize if this comes across as an ad hominem attack; I agree that children need adults as guides and mentors, but what qualifies YOU as that person for anyone other than your own children? Are you a professional in library science? Child development? Education? Religion? What are your credentials to persuade us to allow yuou to be in a position to raise our children other that the fact you are a concerned adult?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 0949 hrs
    
    
    

56. Maria - policies are all ready in place at the library in regards to what can go into the childrens section…this would just narrow the margins.

    Re-consent for material is not needed; parents have already given consent (for all materials) by getting their kid a library card.  If they feel there is material they don’t want their kid to check out, they can cancel that library card or keep it in their possession. -Maria

    The parents were not fully informed at the time they signed up for the current library card about the sexually explicit books accessible to children. Thus they need to be informed from the library and re-consent.

    Elvo- Although reading and seat belts are different they both protect children and afterall this what this disagreement is about.

    I said that part of growing up is to learn to make choices, to live with adversity. -elvo

    Children as young as 11 are not fully capable of making choices regarding sex.  Most girls that age aren’t even menstrating and you want them to know about bl** j*** on their own w/o an adult?  When do you think it’s the right time for children to learn how to give/get a bl** j**?

    The books in question are obscene to me and my definition of obscene is the same as the dictionary. Instructing minor children how to mas***** or give/get a bl** j** is obscene to me. Once again…I ask to Elvo, Dave, Maria, Elizabeth and so on:

    What is your personal definition of obscene?? Is anything you personally would find obscene?

    Elvo- I am a concerned citizen, tax payer and mother and I think that this world would be a better place if more people cared.  I guess I’m stupid for caring for others….silly me.  I guess the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving were stupid too when they cared enough to start their organization.  By having the library ask for re-consent I am not making choices for anyone…that would fall to parent, because the books would still be in the library.

    If I see a child crossing a busy road by him/herself I would make sure the child crosses safely.  Should I not interfer and just let the child wing it by themselves because they are not my child?

    Give the parents the correct information as to what our children have access to and let them make decisions based on ALL the information.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1503 hrs
    
    
    

57. All this rhetoric. 

    We’ve gotten one person to cherry pick a few books he would read to 14-17 year old kids (Stanley).  We’ve gotten one person (Bob) to claim he’d read the books to kids, then fell off the face of the map when called on it.

    Still don’t have one lefty who is willing to come forward and share these books with the kids they are trying to protect.

    Lots of rhetoric.  Not a lot of backbone…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1528 hrs
    
    
    

58. It’s true…they seem to think nothing is obscene, but yet no one will state what they personally believe is obscene nor would they read the books out loud to children.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1552 hrs
    
    
    

59. Ok, this discussion has been all over the map, and I am a late-comer to the party. That being said, I will try to address what I see as the most salient and pertinent points.

    Kelly,

    You argue that parents should get the opportunity to re-consent to their children having library cards because they did not know what materials were available. I answer that parents re-consent every day that they allow their children to maintain and use the same card. If they did not know what was in the collection prior to consenting the first time, then shame on them as adults and parents. They should revoke the child’s borrowing privileges if the books now in the collection are bothersome. If the books in question have been added after the fact, then my question to you is do you propose that parents re-consent every time a new title is added?

    Your next argument is to equate ‘protecting’ children from ideas, images and words with the protection from hunger and injury that other programs/laws provide. Am I correct in inferring from that argument that you consider the works in question to be a clear and imminent threat to the safety and lives of children?

    Next, you state that I want eleven year-old children to arn about oral sex without the guidance of adults. I have never said that, and it is a false characterization of my arguments. You ask when I think children should learn about oral sex,my answer to that is, “Before they become sexually active, preferably from their parents.”

    In the same paragraph you state that the books in question are obscene to you. I cannot refute that, it is an opinion and you are welcome to have it. You go on to say that the dictionary definition of obscene is your definition; I assume it is not the first listed, as your senses are not involved.

    The second definition is a possibility, but then to invoke that would mean your are saying your morality should be the morality that is used as a measuring stick, in addition it presumes the the design of the work was to incite to lust or depravity. I do not feel that is the case in the works under review, since they must be taken in their entirety.

    Perhaps, and most likely, you mean definition 2b, “containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage,” but I wold argue that as a written work of prose, it is not primarily intended for public discourse, and the definition seems to not apply. Definitions 2c and 2d do not seem to apply at all. If I have made an error in my assessment, please feel free to correct me.

    In your next paragraph, you state the reason WHY you care, all very laudable and I support your right to exercise them, and agree, the world would be a better place if more people cared. However, you are suggesting that the way you care is the “best” way and should be policy, and I ask again, other than having a caring heart, do you have any background that would lead a reasonable person to accept your suggestions over those who have professional credentials?

    If I see a child in imminent danger, of course I will do my bes to ensure his/her safety. Reading books does not cause imminent danger.

    You stated, “Instructing minor children how to mas***** or give/get a bl** j** is obscene to me.” Since a child is in his minority to age 18, I would argue that NOT teaching him about sex is obscene, an obscene oversight and dereliction of duty, and by that I mean definition 2c. “repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles.”

    And just to but an argument to rest, it can be seen by my other posts on this site, that I am NOT a lefty or a liberal, so let’s stop making this a left/right issue and take the argument on its merits.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1713 hrs
    
    
    

60. I apologize for the last post being a bit long. Decided to take a break before I offer a possible solution.

    Not being a library science major, I do not know if this is viable, but it seems to me part of the problem here is the definition of what YA comprises. I have seen everything fro 11-17 to 10-19. In 1802, when the term was first used, it meant 14-21. There is another category that perhaps should be utilized, Middle grade literature. Used for ages 10-13, the traditional middle school or junior high school grades. With YA reserved for 14-17 year-olds. Would that satisfy Kelly, who seems to keep going back to eleven year-olds?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1719 hrs
    
    
    

61. Elvo-
    #1Parents were unaware at the time of obtaining a library card of sexually explicit books in the childrens section.  It was the libraries error to not warn parents.  I think if the parents are informed in the beginning and give consent, consent would not be needed each time a new title is released.  Unless a book does not conform to the library and community policy on standards.

    #2 Yes, books that entice minor children to participate in sexual behavior can be risky…emotionally and physically. Especially if read w/o an adult to guide them.  STD’s, pregnancys, AID’s can be harmful.

    #3 If these books are read w/o an adult to guide them these books could very well be taken out of context.  Especially to an 11, 12, 13 year child. Give the books to a kid and ask them what they remember…I have two teenage boys and I’m pretty sure they’ll remember the “naughty” parts before the the so-called message.

    #4 Why does someone have to have creditials in order to determine what is obscene? I don’t think a doctor, lawyer or teacher has any more credibility than me, a mom, citizen, taxpayer to distinguish what is obscene.

    #5 I’ve been hearing it’s the parents job and so forth, well, isn’t its the parents job to teach the children about sex, about what is right or wrong?  So what gives an author or librarian the right to surpass my parental rights?

    Now I ask you Elvo and others, what do you personally deem as obscene?  What line would have to be crossed before you deem something to obscene for children? Not one person in all my blogging here has answered that.  Well, Dave may have…because he thinks kids should be able to read all adult books.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 30, 2009 at 1836 hrs
    
    
    

62. Kelly, I’ve truly enjoyed our conversation in this blog. It’s been enlightening and entertaining to observe how you both totally ignore everything I say and twist parts of my comments to fit your world view “Kelly, moral, good; Dave, immoral, bad.

    Since I like to respond to comments where my name is invoked, here we go.

    Kelly stated: “We all know that Dave is all for letting children read adult material including Penthouse, Playboy, Hustler, books on bomb making.  Needless to say I think that is way too extreme. So Dave, if you think that children should be allowed to read ANYTHING…then would you take one of the books in question and read it to a group of children in a park?”

    My response: Kelly, you enjoy tossing out the word “children” without defining the age group. Convenient for you to solicit moral outrage, but intelllectuallly a cheap shot since we are supposed to be talking about YA books for teenagers. But to respond to your comment, Kelly, what is so dangerous about reading anything? The younger the child the less likely they will find anything of interest to read or even comprehend in a so-called “adult” publication. Kelly, you also toss around the phrase “adult material” without defining what you mean. I assume you mean any publication on any subject written for people age 18 and up. By the way, there is nothing wrong in reading a book about bomb making, its informative and offers insight into a few scientific principles. Now, building a bomb and deploying it is another matter. That is illegal and indicates a sick, criminal mind.

    Kelly wrote: “Dave- the library right now has their own version of what is obscene or not obscene.  If they didn’t there would be Hustler in the childrens section.”

    My response: Kelly, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

    Kelly wrote: “Now I ask you….what do YOU, personally deem obscene?”

    My response: This wasn’t written specifically to me, but I’ll answer it anyway. Obscene is any ideology that demonizes another human being, that sanctions violence against others because they do not agree with you, look like you, or think like you. Obscene is trying to stomp out the ability to learn about and discuss any idea. Obscene is injuring anyone else and putting your selfish ambitions ahead of the good of others. Sex is not obscene, it’s just another bodily function, like digestion. This country is way to hung up on sex and there are more significant things to talk about.

    Kelly wrote: “Dave, you still haven’t answered my question: Would you read one of these books to a group of children in a park?”

    My response: Kelly, since you seem obsessed about this silly hypothetical which will never take place, I will answer you. First, by “one of these books” I assume you mean the library’s YA books you call obscene. I’ll also just accept your concept of “children” as being all-age-inclusive. Assuming you could force children of all ages to sit through a public reading by an old man who talks in a monotone, in a place with so many other more interesting things to do for a child, yes I would read “one of these books” to children in the park. Would I be embarrassed reading out loud passages of a sexual nature? Of course I would. I’m a child of the 50s and as much a prude as you are, Kelly. But is embarrassment cause to ban a book? No. Where I am different than you, Kelly, I do not believe an idea, the written word, should be hidden from view for any reason.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 0918 hrs
    
    
    

63. Dave- Over and over again I’ve mention 11-17 as the age group.  So that should cover your “children” quesiton.  Second even 15-17 are still considered children.

    As for my personal “line,” these days I’m thrilled to see a teen reading any book. If a child is capable of reading it, let them.-Dave

    So you have no line except they need to be teens?  Okay how about 11 and 12 year olds?

    I’ve responded to why I think minor children should not read these books without an adult to guide them (read the posts).

    You keep asking me what I think obscene and asked how I can draw that line and speak for others.  The library makes that decision every day and you don’t seem to have a problem with them speaking for you.  Interesting.

    Obscene is any ideology that demonizes another human being, that sanctions violence against others because they do not agree with you, look like you, or think like you. Obscene is trying to stomp out the ability to learn about and discuss any idea. Obscene is injuring anyone else and putting your selfish ambitions ahead of the good of others. Sex is not obscene, it’s just another bodily function, like digestion. This country is way to hung up on sex and there are more significant things to talk about. -Dave

    So books on Hilter are obscene?
    So kids should read books on how to use drugs, because that is learning?
    Dave these books do injury people….children 11-17 who are minors who may engage in behaviors that a) their parents do want them to b) can be dangerous to their own health (STD’s , AIDS, Pregnancys) and in some cases dangerous to an uborn baby.
    Are we “hung up on sex” or just doing the best to protect minor children from harming themselves?

    My response: Kelly, since you seem obsessed about this silly hypothetical which will never take place, I will answer you. First, by “one of these books” I assume you mean the library’s YA books you call obscene. I’ll also just accept your concept of “children” as being all-age-inclusive. Assuming you could force children of all ages to sit through a public reading by an old man who talks in a monotone, in a place with so many other more interesting things to do for a child, yes I would read “one of these books” to children in the park. Would I be embarrassed reading out loud passages of a sexual nature? Of course I would. I’m a child of the 50s and as much a prude as you are, Kelly. But is embarrassment cause to ban a book? No. Where I am different than you, Kelly, I do not believe an idea, the written word, should be hidden from view for any reason. -Dave

    Dave, why appreciate you answering my question, you know full well as do others here, that if you were to read these books to minors in a park the cops would haul you off in hand cuffs, you’d be scorned as a dirty old man in the community, your job would be at risk and your name all over the news.  Why?  Because these books are obscene.

    I do not believe an idea, the written word, should be hidden from view for any reason. -Dave

    You may think that children (minor children 11-17) can read anything they want, but I think even the library would disagree with that.  If your statement above was law then children 11-17, minors would be able to view and read Penthouse, Hustler, the Bible, Koran and a host of other adult materials all for the sake of reading. 

    From what I can tell is that you are putting books and reading above the well fare of children 11-17.  You would not inform parents that their children would have access to sexually explicit and obscene materials, thus you would over-ride their parental rights all for the sake of a book.

    I would not.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1244 hrs
    
    
    

64. Kelly, Kelly, Kelly ...

    These YA books are not obscene and I would not risk arrest for reading one.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1258 hrs
    
    
    

65. Tomato-Tomato….
    I think they are obscene and because you wouldn’t “risk arrest” reading them out loud that leads me to believe that you do think that many others would think they are obscene.

    These YA books are not obscene and I would not risk arrest for reading one. -Dave

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1330 hrs
    
    
    

66. There is nothing hypothetical about the fact that no one will come forward and share this smut with kids…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1333 hrs
    
    
    

67. ...no nothing.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1405 hrs
    
    
    

68. Does anyone know when the we will find out what was in the Open Records Request??

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1422 hrs
    
    
    

69. Kelly, obviously I did not make myself clear in my last comment. You misinterpreted what I meant.

    “I think they are obscene and because you wouldn’t “risk arrest” reading them out loud that leads me to believe that you do think that many others would think they are obscene.”

    I wrote, “These YA books are not obscene and I would not risk arrest for reading one.” I’m sorry you choose to interpret that statement as some sort of weasel-mouthed nonsequitur.

    What I should have written, what I meant, and I hope I am not obtuse about it here, “The YA books you condemn are not obscene. If I read one of these books from the library out loud with children listening to me I would not be arrested.”

    Prove me wrong. Ask the district attorney.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1516 hrs
    
    
    

70. @ #63 last 2 paragraphs—

    Kelly, did you just say that the Bible and the Koran are adult material that chldren should not be reading?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1521 hrs
    
    
    

71. ... lots of dodging and parrying; still no one coming forward to read this smut to kids…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1538 hrs
    
    
    

72. Elvo- No I did not, but others have suggested it.  I am saying that if Dave had his way kids would be able to read everything from the Bible, the Koran and Hustler.

    Dave you can prove yourself wrong and read the books out loud…perhaps at Music on Main or do a reading at Regner.  I’ll even supply you with a book or two.  If you think these books are not obscene and you think you won’t be arrested, then surely nothing is holding you back from doing it. I’m sure I could get money donated to help spread the word that you are going to do a reading.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 01, 2009 at 1553 hrs
    
    
    

73. Kelly, you ask: “Dave you can prove yourself wrong and read the books out loud…”

    I’ll ket you star in your own media circus, Kelly. Perhaps Smeety would volunteer to turn pages for you. I have nothing to disprove. You, on the other hand, have much to prove—that anything about your basic premise has a leg to stand on.

    E Pluribus Unum.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2009 at 0730 hrs
    
    
    

74. Dodging and parrying in the form of rhetoric, courtesy of Dave.

    Still can’t find someone to actually READ these books with the kids they are trying to protect…

    Posted by Smeety on July 02, 2009 at 0737 hrs
    
    
    

75. The FACT that you WON’T read the books out loud to a group of children PROVES my point. Thanks Dave

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2009 at 0749 hrs
    
    
    

76. Kelly says, “The FACT that you WON’T read the books out loud to a group of children PROVES my point. Thanks Dave”

    And what FACT is that? That you can’t sucker anyone into participating in a pointless public spectacle while you smirk in the background out of the limelight?

    No. I think you’ve more than proven my point that you have little FACT supporting your position about the YA books in the West Bend library. and have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion.

    In other words, Kelly, what you have to say is no longer worth responding to. If you wish to consider that a personal victory, so be it. It’s about as meaningful as being the last one shouting in a playground argument.

    You’re welcome, Kelly

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2009 at 0927 hrs
    
    
    

77. Dave,

    A simple ‘I wouldn’t be caught dead reading that smut to kids” would suffice.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2009 at 1012 hrs
    
    
    

78. Dave - It’s called putting your money where your mouth is. 

    If you claim that these books with sexually explicit content aren’t obscene and you wouldn’t get arrested, you should be able to stand behind your argument.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 02, 2009 at 1053 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.