West Bend Library Folks to Hold Panel “Discussion” at ALA Conference
This is too funny.
The fight over which books should be allowed in the young adult category of the West Bend library will be the subject of a panel discussion during the nation’s largest gathering of librarians this month in Chicago.
West Bend Community Memorial Library Director Michael Tyree, Young Adult Librarian Kristin Pekoll, Library Board Chairman Barbara Deters, former library Board trustee Mary Reilly-Kliss and community organizer Maria Hanrahan, who started West Bend Parents for Free Speech, will conduct a panel discussion about the West Bend book controversy Monday, July 13, during the seven-day American Library Association (ALA) annual conference.
[...]
Hanrahan said she will participate on the panel as “someone who is involved in the situation from a library patron’s perspective.”
In other words, there was a big kerfuffle over some library books and all of the people who agree with each other will sit around and talk about it. Yeah, that should be a balanced discussion of the issue
:zpopcorn:
Hm! Imagine that! Sounds very professional!
They are creating a PowerPoint themselves to present? Who thinks it will be biased? C’mon! You KNOW what they are doing…..
I can hear it now. The almighty ALA triumphs over yet another small city/town that insists on having community standards met.
WHO has been censoring?
Posted by GAMazy on July 03, 2009 at 1230 hrs
On your mark…
Get set…
:zzdeadhorse:
Posted by Jed on July 03, 2009 at 1239 hrs
Yeah ... like a Safe Libraries conference would invide anyone other than Ginny M., Owen R. anf Terry Vrana to present a fair and balanced representation of the controversy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2009 at 1324 hrs
Would that be a comment from the same Dave Rank that’s been covering this issue in the Daily News?
Posted by Owen on July 03, 2009 at 1332 hrs
As someone who is participating in the panel, I’d like to know, Owen and Ginny, what you would expect such a panel to discuss at a conference for librarians. Owen calls for “balance” and Ginny claims the presentation will be “biased.” This is not a debate, and the panel will oversee a discussion that will be of benefit to libraries and their personnel.
Obviously, library staff and board members and library patrons such as myself who are against the idea of moving books based on someone’s opinion of their content are going to lead a discussion that helps other libraries protect themselves against censorship. I’m not sure why this would be surprising to either of you.
Ginny, once again, who made you the spokesperson for West Bend’s “community standards” and what criteria are you basing these standards upon? And, for the record, your attempts to restrict the YA books is censorship, so you are the would-be censor.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 03, 2009 at 1336 hrs
Maria,
If they are letting a library patron to participate, then why not two - one from each side of the controversy? If it’s for librarians, then wouldn’t they benefit from hearing about the controversy from all sides so that they can better serve their patrons?
Posted by Owen on July 03, 2009 at 1339 hrs
I’d love to see Maria address the fact that she herself would not read these books to kids that have access to this smut…
How about a discussion about how Maria prefers to have federal judges choose what our kids have access to over their parents.
Maybe Maria and Dave could start the discussion by reading the most explicit portions of the books in order to put the discussion into the proper perspective….
Awesome. I heard that following this program the West Bend School Board will have a panel to discuss the need for more money for the schools…
Posted by Smeety on July 03, 2009 at 1345 hrs
Owen,
I’m not the organizer of the panel, but to my understanding, it exists to help libraries and their staff address book challenges to YA materials and protect their collections from attempts to censor them. If Ginny, you or another supporter from her viewpoint of the issue would like to draw up some notes that will help protect library collections, I would be happy to take the notes with me.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 03, 2009 at 1351 hrs
They really should include a lawyer on the panel.
Much of the heartburn could be avoided in the future if the library/libraries would just come up with a procedure that meets constitutional requirements, and stick to it. It would actually be fairly simple.
There would still be some argument over the subjective determination of obscene/inappropriate or not, but at least the debate would be largely limited to that point.
Posted by Jed on July 03, 2009 at 1353 hrs
There would still be some argument over the subjective determination of obscene/inappropriate or not, but at least the debate would be largely limited to that point.
... being able to actually share the material with kids would be a good starting point…
Posted by Smeety on July 03, 2009 at 1416 hrs
... being able to actually share the material with kids would be a good starting point…
That’s putting the horse before the cart. The whole point of the determination is to determine whether it’s the type of material that should be shown to kids. The kids’ opinions are irrelevant.
Posted by Jed on July 03, 2009 at 1426 hrs
Yeah ... like a Safe Libraries conference would invide anyone other than Ginny M., Owen R. anf Terry Vrana to present a fair and balanced representation of the controversy.
Posted by Dave on July 03, 2009 at 1324 hrs
Biased reporting, but we can’t say it was covert! Busted, Dave.
Posted by GAMazy on July 03, 2009 at 1437 hrs
I just find it very telling that those crying “free speech” and “censorship” will not include in a panel discussion anyone who does not agree with them. I guess they are not very intellectual and can’t handle REAL discussion about this topic. I also think they are afraid of the reasoning of good, common sense, folks and don’t want to let us be heard. Very sad for them indeed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2009 at 1504 hrs
“it exists to help libraries and their staff address book challenges to YA materials and protect their collections from attempts to censor them”
It exists to help libraries bow to the almighty ALA and stomp the community standards of the small towns. Keep talking, Maria. You sound sillier and sillier.
“If Ginny, you or another supporter from her viewpoint of the issue would like to draw up some notes that will help protect library collections, I would be happy to take the notes with me.”
Thanks for the offer, but I am waiting for Deb Stone to send me an invite. After all, if you are going as a community representative, then I should be afforded the same opportunity, right? Like I said, sillier and sillier.
“Ginny, once again, who made you the spokesperson”
Right back at ya, Maria.
Posted by GAMazy on July 03, 2009 at 1504 hrs
You guys need to stop on this issue, and deal with the bigger problem. Stop worriying about those books and simply get rid of the board and fire the librarian.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2009 at 1510 hrs
Jed,
I understand what your point, and I wrote my comment fully aware it was jumping the gun.
With that point made, I wrote earlier in another posting that ultimately this whole argument is on the determination of ‘the line’ between what should and should not be accessible to kids.
(As an aside I am aware that 17 year olds are not kids, but 11 year olds are kids. That is my purpose behind constant use of the word)
I view the defense of the current location of the books as endorsement of their content and it’s applicability to 11 year olds. All of these partially relevant legal precedences are their strawman. The librarians could have simply not added the books to the library. The Library Board or mayor could have subsequently shut the door on this smut. There are plenty of libraries that simply do not have this material because the appropriate official responsibly and quietly chose to omit the books.
If someone endorses the books in their current location, they should be willing to share ALL of the books in this location with their kids, or as a community leader, share ALL of the books with ALL kids with access to this area.
I’ve never heard the argument for allowing your kids to read books that you are not comfortable sharing with them.
My argument couldn’t be simpler and it can’t be debunked. I will continue to pound it.
Maria can’t stand up to this argument. Dave hasn’t really addressed it. He came back with quite the strawman. I’m actually very tempted to send a hypothetical situation to ten D.A.s with the most explicit content and ask how they would feel if someone reported a man reading this to an eleven year old girl/boy in a park. Elizabeth, Bob, the whole crowd… simply can’t debunk this common sense…
I’m honestly not even that passionate about this issue. It’s just so irresponsible to give kids access to this material. Nice work, Ginny…
Posted by Smeety on July 03, 2009 at 1520 hrs
It exists to help libraries bow to the almighty ALA and stomp the community standards of the small towns. Keep talking, Maria. You sound sillier and sillier.
Ginny it is you who want to be exhaulted as the almighty of library standards. You want it to be a dictatorship not democracy. At least whre yor beliefs are concerned. You DO NOT speak for the West Bend communiy as a whole. For your group maybe, but the majority.It is you that wants to stomp out community standards.
Thanks for the offer, but I am waiting for Deb Stone to send me an invite. After all, if you are going as a community representative, then I should be afforded the same opportunity, right? Like I said, sillier and sillier.
Why don’t you drive to Chi-town and ask to participate? However, if you do make sure you tell them YOU ARE NOT A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF WEST BEND! Township is not city. You think Maria asked to be invited? They prob. called her. As much of a spotlight you have brought to the library, board, and the CC just as much is being brought on to you. Every word spoken or in print is all the evidence we need against you. Silly? Silly is you lying to the news about having re-filed your complaint to the oard in April. You didn’t. but it was a good sound bite for you right? Truth Ginny, Truth. If anyone needs proof of her comments I have them. Direct quotes, not paraphrased. Her own mouth opened and closed and spewed the words… Want them I got them. She cannot deny them which is why she has repeatedly ignored my questions about them. That is her tactic. Ignore the truth when it is against her. Or her position.
Don’t change halfway through and then say you NEVER said certain things when the record shows you have…
All eyes…. are wide open. If it’s the schools harrassment policy, books at the public library or school libraries all eyes are wide open and aware of you tactics.
OK, I am going to stop now before I totally unload it all here. So much frustration not enough tim,e. But I too have tricks up my sleeve. Ginny is not the only one.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2009 at 2037 hrs
Wouldn’t they benefit more from attending a seminar on complying with open records requests?
Posted by james wigderson on July 03, 2009 at 2122 hrs
“Ginny, once again, who made you the spokesperson”
Right back at ya, Maria.
Ginny, I never claimed to be a spokesperson for the community, only for West Bend Parents for Free Speech. I will not be participating in the panel to represent West Bend as a whole, but rather to represent my group and other citizens that believe the YA materials should remain where they are and that parents should be the ones to parent their kids. You conveniently ignore my request for explanation of what the “community standards” are, and on what criteria you are basing this assumption that you are representing the majority of the community.
Gardeninggirl, your comments are amusing. The panel discussion is not a debate about appropriateness of books, whether or not they should be moved or labeled or otherwise restricted, etc. The discussion is to help other libraries and their staff be better prepared to face book challenges in their communities and to help them protect their collections from attempts at censorship, which includes moving materials based on subjective opinions. I would guess that the OIF has determined that you, Ginny and other WBCFSL supporters do not have anything to offer in that regard, and therefore did not extend an invitation.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 03, 2009 at 2126 hrs
Calm down folks. First, Jed says that there should be a lawyer on the panel at the ALA. Well, Jed, the person who addressed the audience at the meeting on June 2 in West Bend IS a lawyer. She is the Acting Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom in the ALA. I suspect that she will be part of any panel discussion as she is a specialist in this field of law. She explained quite clearly on June 2, that the PUBLIC definition of obscenity requires that a book be considered—as a whole—not with excerpt—but AS A WHOLE. In fact it says that FOUR times in the Statute in case some of you weren’t listening. I guess you are still not listening. Wisconsin case law (Ms. Caldwell-Stone has the citation) states clearly that one or more sexually explicit passages do NOT make a book obscene.
Let’s look again at the Wisconsin obscenity statute. You book banners and burners and movers have been harassing libraries for many decades. The Legislature saw you folks coming in advance and tried to warn you off, but you didn’t listen. Here’s the beginning of the Statute. 944.21 Obscene material or performance. (1) The legislature
intends that the authority to prosecute violations of this
section shall be used primarily to combat the obscenity industry
and shall never be used for harassment or censorship purposes
against materials or performances having serious artistic, literary, political, educational or scientific value. The legislature further intends that the enforcement of this section shall be consistent with the first amendment to the U.S. constitution, article I, section 3, of the Wisconsin constitution and the compelling state interest in protecting the free flow of ideas.”
This isn’t a paraphrase. It is cut and pasted from the statute.
But the Legislature still knew that you guys either can’t read or don’t understand. So, just to make sure that your bullying political tactics don’t sway a weak willed prosecutor, they gave library staff and boards and school staff and boards total immunity from prosecution under both the obscenity law and the m,aterials harmful to children law. How do they explain that? Here is the quotation from the Statute.
“(8) (a) The legislature finds that the libraries and educational
institutions under par. (b) carry out the essential purpose of making available to all citizens a current, balanced collection of books, reference materials, periodicals, sound recordings and audiovisual materials that reflect the cultural diversity and pluralistic nature of American society. The legislature further finds that it is in the interest of the state to protect the financial resources of libraries and educational institutions from being expended in litigation and to permit these resources to be used to the greatest extent possible for fulfilling the essential purpose of libraries and educational institutions.” Why was immunity given? Because our lawmakers trusted—and still trust librarians and educators much much more than the wing nuts who try to stifle real literature and learning.
So, that’s the law in Wisconsin. Not my words or opinion, but quotes taken directly from the Statute. But, so I won’t be criticized for using only excerpts, go read the whole statutes at Wi. Stats. Sec 944.21. and while you are there, check out the “Materials Harmful to Children Statute at Wis. Stats. Sec. 948.11. Ginny should also check out the definition of “child pornography” as contained in Sec. 948.12. Despite being chewed out at the June 2 hearing about including that phrase three times in her petition, she has never changed the petition, explained whatever dreamed up definition SHE uses, or apologized to the staff and Board for its use.
What is Ginny’s definition of “obscene”, “child pornography” and “materials harmful to children”? That’s an important question. It’s clear it isn’t the statutory one. So, of all her signatures on petitions, what did the people know what SHE meant by those terms? And don’t give me some nonsense that “everybody knows what those terms mean.” They don’t. The brightest minds and legal scholars took decades to come up with a definition. It’s one that has been agreed upon for more than 30 years. It’s the one in “Miller. California” and in the Wisconsin statutes. But who knows what Ginny means?
Oh, and “due process”?? There is a due process at the Library for challenging books. Ginny’s initial complaint was not about any specific books, but about the Library web site and the lack of “ex-gay” literature. (Which she admits cutting and pasting from a homophobic website.) When her complaint transmogrified into complaints about individual books of both hetero and gay themes, she was told she needed to file a protest and challenge on each book. At her very own public meeting at Silverbrook School she promised to follow up and do the challenges. ( I know because she sent out DVDs of her making that promise.) She also said the same thing IN BOLD LETTERS on her blog. Well, she didn’t. She tried to create her own uniquely made up procedure by petition. Individual challenges are still available to her, but it seems if she can’t find the answers on convenient web sites (like where she got all of her book lists and quotes) she isn’t capable of following due procedure herself.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 03, 2009 at 2215 hrs
Bob resurfaces again.
If you review the DVD from the Town Hall meeting, you would find that I stated we were asked to begin again, and I assured everyone we were going to to just that, only this time in the form of requesting policies to be put into place.
Bob, you stated “This isn’t a paraphrase. It is cut and pasted from the statute.”
My initial letter was not a paraphrase. It was copied with authorization from a legitimate and knowledgeable source, created for the purpose of public usage.
As Dan Gerstein says “But the reality is that it is those who cry “Censorship!” the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others.”
Posted by GAMazy on July 03, 2009 at 2316 hrs
Methinks Kristina needs some valium.
“Why don’t you drive to Chi-town and ask to participate? However, if you do make sure you tell them YOU ARE NOT A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF WEST BEND! Township is not city.”
What exactly does this mean? It makes no sense. (None of it actually does, but I was curious about this in particular.)
Posted by GAMazy on July 03, 2009 at 2325 hrs
“Yeah ... like a Safe Libraries conference would invide anyone other than Ginny M., Owen R. anf Terry Vrana to present a fair and balanced representation of the controversy. Posted by Dave on July 03, 2009 at 1324 hrs”
Dave, is that you, the author of the article? Cool!
Dave, you are SERIOUSLY WRONG. I had to put that in caps because of how seriously wrong you are. The ALA, the very same Office for Intellectual Freedom, denied me access to classes open to all lawyers, but I was excluded after I was identified as SafeLibraries although I completed the application and sent in the money. Does that sound like intellectual freedom to you? See for yourself: “Unequal Access.”
It gets worse. An organization called Family Friendly Libraries had a meeting and invited the ALA to attend. It did, and the ALA person took copious notes. When the ALA had a meeting on the same topic, it refused access to, guess who, Family Friendly Libraries.
Dave, you are simply wrong, in fact it is the exact opposite. Groups like mine welcome everyone, while the ALA excludes people having certain viewpoints. The self-arrogated free speech people consistently exclude opposing viewpoints. Is that unreal or what?
Dave, you are not only seriously wrong, but you have revealed a definite bias. I believe you are a news reporter, not an opinion writer, would that be correct? If you would like accurate information, instead of relying on bias or ALA propaganda, please contact me and I will direct you toward various reliable sources. Definitely start with US v. ALA.
Dave, based on the above, will you retract or modify your statement I quoted?
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 04, 2009 at 0056 hrs
Maria, it’s not censorship to keep inappropriate material from children. US v. ALA: “The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.”
So long as you keep claiming it is, you are misleading people.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 04, 2009 at 0128 hrs
Since all of you who are in favor of moving books didn’t have any problems with Terry Vrana calling the library a porn shop during a Common Council meeting, I would think that you wouldn’t have any problem with Dave expressing his opinion either. At least Dave is doing it as a private person, not at work, and not as an elected official. Then again, you’re known for your hypocrisy.
Posted by Limor on July 04, 2009 at 0934 hrs
GMaze. Golly, gee you continue to amaze me. How about answering the question I asked directly, “What are YOUR definitions of ‘obscene’, materials harmful to children’ and ‘child pornography’. And why did you want to change the rules and create some new method all your own? Why do you believe that you are entitled to special treatment compared to everyone else? And why hasn’t anybody even challenged a book yet, rather than just sentences?
Answer the real questions just for once. Explain your definitions, if you have any. And please, stop calling PFOX a legitimate and knowledgeable source. It is primarily a homophobic web site. Oh, and I never accused you of paraphrasing. You don’t even have that ability. I have always said and you have admitted that you cut and pasted your initial complaint either from PFOX or Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. The statement that I made about paraphrasing was my referring to was my statement about the statutes.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 1129 hrs
The rhetoric continues, yet no community leader comes forward to share this smut with kids.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 1132 hrs
Dan, you are the one who misleads when you constantly quote a statement made about (and a case about) internet material and apply it to all materials in a library collection. You take these statements out of context, with no indications that the justices would apply this same statement to other material, such as the YA novels and nonfiction addressed in West Bend.
My understanding is the fact that you were not qualified to attend ALA classes is what prevented you from being able to go. If you were trying to attend classes that required participants to be currently licensed, practicing attorneys (which you have indicated to me that you are not), than you were ineligible to attend. This is because of your own choices, not because of an ALA conspiracy.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 04, 2009 at 1210 hrs
Maria, in my own blog I admitted you are effective in getting your message out. And you are. But your message is almost always misguided.
Case in point is how your comment here, yet again, ignores the issues raised and attacks the person. You did not address the issue I raised. Your attacking me has nothing to do with the issue raises. The issue was that Dave Rank was 100% wrong, it was the total opposite of what he said, and he revealed a clear bias. I asked him if he wished to rephrase what he said on the off chance he was not making himself clear.
Your reaction, Maria, was to attack me. And even if you successfully did that, you still have not addressed the issue about the Family Friendly Libraries.
You see, Maria, you have basically defined your message as one of person attack. SO While you are effective in getting your message out, it’s often one that does not address the issues.
On another topic, you once again sound like an ALA OIF protege. I have no idea why you defend them so. You are making excuses for why the, get this, the Office for Intellectual Freedom, would deny my access to a class about library law. The ALA was required by court rules to allow me access. The ALA defied the court rules. The court rules require classes providing CLE credit be open to all attorneys. ALL attorneys. Status is irrelevant. Do you no why? No. You would rather attack. It is open to all attorneys because discrimination is not legal, and because inactive attorneys are REQUIRED to take CLE classes to be placed back on the active list. I was perfectly qualified to attend. It was solely the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom’s discriminatory actions that kept me out. Ironic, no?
Recently a librarian complained about a seven year old patron because the kid was in the wrong library. Ridiculous, right? Well so is defying court rules to keep someone interested in library law from taking classes on the topic. Frankly, with Judith Krug gone, I may have been irreparable harmed since no one at the ALA is as good as Judith Krug on that subject matter. Not even close.
And I love your out of context statement. You made that same erroneous statement before, I corrected you, yet here you are making it again. Now that’s true ALA OIF argument. At the same time you tell everyone US v. ALA does not apply, you busily go about telling everyone Sund does apply! You cannot have it both ways. I am simply not intimidated by your legal legerdemain. No one else is either.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 04, 2009 at 1512 hrs
Let’s not forget Maria does not even represent a majority of West Bend residents.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 1519 hrs
And neither does GInny, Smeety, so everyone should just shut up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 1543 hrs
I am planning to attend this panel if I can, but not to bash Ginny or pat the library on the back. This is simply an interesting case that the WB library had to deal with, which frankly could happen anywhere. I’m interested in finding out the library’s procedures, because unlike either Ginny or Maria, the library staff and board was not able to blog about their procedures to the general public. And that’s how it should be.
However, as someone in the profession, I have more than a passing interest in the way they handeled this challenge internally. And frankly, this is a professional conference for librarians, who are not under any obligation to present the challenger’s side. This is not a debate about whether or not the WB library did the right thing. We’ve all had challenges, but what is important is how different libraries handle those challenges. That’s what I want to hear.
And I know that there is a lot of anti-library organization sentiment out there, but I personally have been to a professional conference whose keynote speaker was a library director who had to deal with a large number of challenges, and the point of his speech was the fact that patrons who challenge books shouldn’t be treated as the enemy. The entire speech was about respectfully explaining library policy and procedure, while working with challengers to determine what the outcome of the challenge should be. This speech was standing room only. It was a room filled with librarians interested in more effectively handling patron challenges in a way that will satisfy the patron while upholding library policy. It IS important to librarians to accomplish this. It might not always be possible, but we do try, whether you believe it or not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 1607 hrs
Libby, I agree with you. From what i understand of the West Bend matter, what you describe did not happen in West Bend, and that is exactly why we are where we are.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 04, 2009 at 1614 hrs
What public libraries have accepted safelibraries.org’s guidelines?
I have found NONE. Must be due to legal issues???Facebook.com: Support Intellectual Freedom and the West Bend (WI) Public Library: 912 members
Note: Many of the people who are signed onto this group are from out of town (like many of the people who signed Ginny’s petition).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 1750 hrs
I heard Larry Flynt is a member of that facebook group.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 1819 hrs
I have no guidelines. I merely provide information.
For example, I provide advise to communities that libraries destroy records to spite the former Bush administration and the USA PATRIOT Act. Result? A week later a library director in Holyoke, MA, is called out by one of her own librarians for failing to report child pornography as a result of, what? That’s right, the USA PATRIOT Act. I not only provide information, but I can back it up with reliable sources, and it happens again and again.
Communities are free to ignore my information. They are not free to ignore the ALA’s misinformation.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 04, 2009 at 1829 hrs
This is kind of off topic but…...A buddy of mine noticed something interesting going on at the library. They had two magazines side by side. One was a liberal magazine, the other a conservative one. My buddy noticed that a guy came around, looked around, then grabbed a whole bunch of the conservative magazines. He proceeded to take them and hide them under his jacket, then throw them away. Then he walked away. My buddy came back the same time the next day, and waited. Sure enough. The same guy, wearing different clothes came by and picked up the conservative magazines and threw them away. Just leaving the liberal ones.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 2038 hrs
Yes, a_bender, that is off topic, not to mention unverifiable.
And, Smeety, just stop with your meaningless tirades.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 04, 2009 at 2048 hrs
Dan (and other readers here), how is my discussion of your comments an attack? If you are referring to the fact that I said some of your statements mislead people, you said the very same thing about me in post #24. So if I attacked, so did you…..but I think reasonable people would agree neither of us went on the attack.
You obviously feel the ALA prevented you from attending classes that you were eligible to attend. From what I’ve read, including the links and you’ve provided here and on your website, you were not qualified/eligible to attend, but that is just my opinion. If you want to further discuss that issue, feel free to take it up with me privately so no more time is spent on it here. I’ve discussed with you on your blog about Sund, so I won’t repeat that discussion here, either, in the interest of the other readers following this separate topic.
I thought the point of Owen posting about this ALA conference panel was to discuss that issue. The ALA is a professional organization and has every right to establish the parameters for who can participate in its conference, classes, panel discussions, etc., just as any other organization does.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 04, 2009 at 2317 hrs
Methinks Kristina needs some valium.
“Why don’t you drive to Chi-town and ask to participate? However, if you do make sure you tell them YOU ARE NOT A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF WEST BEND! Township is not city.”
What exactly does this mean? It makes no sense. (None of it actually does, but I was curious about this in particular.)What don’t you understand? You said if Maria gets to go so should you. It is my understanding you DO NOT live in the
City of WB. Nor is Maria going as a representitive of the city either.
Also Ginny you still have yet to answer any questions. Why? You know that ther is the best evidence out there against you? If youmade a mistake in your complaint I get that. You are an ordinary person not an attorney. I get that. But an out right lie? You told Channel 12 news that you had in fact re -filed your complaint to the library in April. This statement was made the night you help your meeting at Silverbrook. Why did you say that when you did NOT refile?
All we are asking for is the truth. We all know your opinion on things from the library to the schools harrassment policy. You want open records but you will not reveal what was in your last ORR. What are you requesting?
Why to you pawn yourself as a resident of WB? Why do you want everyone else to be open but not you? I understand you are a ordinary person and do not fall under ORR regulations but you are the one making the complaints and accusations.
So you and DAN SAFELIBRARIES say that Maria is not answering the to the issue or questions pose but neither is Ginny.
What’s the quote for that? Isn’t it ironic? Alanis Morrissett (sp)
The library is safe for families. If you are concerned about it go with your children. Or review the books they check out when they come home. I know this is possible because whenI worked with at risk youth in Cali if they went to the library by themselves myself or the other staff ALWAYS checked what they brought back to the facility. If it was inappropriate for them with their issues or another resident in the facility it was confiscated and returned by the staff. If it was ify we talked to them about it. Asked them why they checked it out? What about it interested them.
We had 1 boy in particular that did in fact check out books with a homosexual theme. We talked to him. Asked him about it. We opened up a clear dialoug (sp) with him. Open communication, that is what parents or guardians need to do.
As far as the ALA conference Maria was invited as an individual. Ginny if you want to go drive down to CHi-town and ask to get in. See what they say. But if you do speak the truth.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2009 at 0228 hrs
Maria, you must think you are clever. You continue your personal attacks unabated, same arguments even, then you head off further response by telling people to contact you privately. Further, you imply that responses to your personal attacks are themselves personal attacks, as if people should not respond to you at all. They should just let you malign them and distort the facts because any attempt to respond is characterized by you as just another personal attack.
“Dan, you are the one who misleads when you constantly quote a statement made about (and a case about) internet material and apply it to all materials in a library collection.” That’s an attack. I am allowed to cite a US Supreme Court case that said it is legitimate and even compelling to protect children from inappropriate material without your telling people I’m “misleading” them.
“[Y]ou were not qualified to attend ALA classes….” That’s an attack. I was and am fully qualified to attend CLE (continuing legal education) classes, including the ALA’s CLE class, yet you say I am “not qualified.” You really got nerve telling the world I’m not qualified. You’ll do anything, anything at all, to justify the ALA’s possibly discriminatory actions, won’t you.
“If you were trying to attend classes that required participants to be currently licensed, practicing attorneys (which you have indicated to me that you are not), than you were ineligible to attend.” That’s an attack. Clearly you read my Unequal Access page. So you know CLE requirements do not require one to be practicing; indeed nonpracticing attorneys are expected to attend CLE classes to regain active status like the one the ALA gave. Yet you come on this page and say I was ineligible to attend. That is totally and completely false, you know it’s false, yet you only care to besmirch me again and again. That’s a personal attack.
“The ALA is a professional organization and has every right to establish the parameters for who can participate in its conference, classes, panel discussions, etc., just as any other organization does.” You are correct. But you mislead again. You make no mention of the irony. The Office for Intellectual Freedom is fighting to ensure children retain access to inappropriate material it is legal to keep from them, while at the very same time excluding any opposition whatsoever. Just like the ALA excluded me. Just like the ALA excluded Family Friendly Libraries. How does the OIF get taken seriously when it excludes the free speech or intellectual freedom of others? (Why did Judith Krug say she wished she could “drown” the jailed Cuban librarians issue instead of supporting them, for example.)
Maria, if you want to fight censorship, do it with organizations fighting censorship, don’t do it by those using or condoning false censorship arguments to keep children awash in inappropriate material it is legal to keep from them, let alone common sense.
Stop attacking me then telling me to respond to you privately. If you attack me publicly, I’m going to respond publicly. NowI ‘m concerned you have attacked me elsewhere and I have not yet noticed. I suppose you’ll attack me at the ALA conference like your role model Deborah Caldwell-Stone did in West Bend. You must have really loved that—truth and logical argument being irrelevant to you as it is.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 05, 2009 at 0244 hrs
Dan,
Regarding: “... don’t do it by those using or condoning false censorship arguments to keep children awash in inappropriate material it is legal to keep from them, let alone common sense.”1. WB library’s Internet use is monitored well and fine. Go and look up porn at the library and monitor how fast a staff member is on your case based on someone’s complaint. This community is vigilant.
2. Ginny, et a, wants sexually explicit books marked and moved from children’s and young adult library sections to the adult sections. If this occurred; children under (17) need permission to acquire those books. A big issues is that this would lead to someone requesting that all sexually explicit books in the adult section be marked or children under 17 need to be escorted through there to keep them safe, and based on the rancor and passion of Ginny et al, this is not a slippery slope argument thus resisting the request is common sense.
The WB library’s Unattended Child Policy reads “Children 7 and younger must have a parent or caregiver in the immediate vicinity of and in eye contact with the child.”
Ginny, et al, is asking for more (local) government “protection”, more government assistance, more nanny state. They are requesting to be government assisted with monitoring what their children read for a quality that I see as an artistic tool to make a plot realistic or a non-fiction book thorough.
Artistic tool or not, why can’t Ginny, et al, take up that responsibility? Why does it have to be governments?
I do not understand why Ginny, et al, cannot simply ask their children what they are reading, talk about books with kids, trust their children are telling the truth about what they are reading , etc. But (I suspect) it’s difficult to trust a kid to tell one the truth about what s/he is reading when one knows the child fears what will happen if s/he (inadvertently) gives the wrong answer.
Based on the rancor Ginny, et all, is expressing, as a child, out of fear, I’d lie or stop reading.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2009 at 0746 hrs
StanleyGingleshtimer, I’m not talking about porn.
On another issue, you make a good point. Why should government get involved? Could it be that the government, as you put it, is making inappropriate material available to children in the first place?
Turn it around. It is legal to keep inappropriate material from children. Why should the government get to circumvent that, then expect the parents enforce what’s legal?
You ask why should the government get involved. Might it be it is already involved by making inappropriate material available to children?
Nice argument, but it works both way, not only your way.
By the way, if the government is making inappropriate material available to children as a consequence of adherence to ALA policy, doesn’t that violate the public trust and perhaps a law or two?
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 05, 2009 at 1122 hrs
Dan - there is no low that requires “inappropriate” material be kept from minors. There are “obscenity” laws in Wisconsin, and these materials do not meet that legal definition. End of debate.
Posted by Concerned West Bend Citizen on July 05, 2009 at 1231 hrs
For starters:
“The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.” US Supreme Court in a case the ALA lost.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 05, 2009 at 1239 hrs
Dan, you were the first to accuse me of “misleading” people in post #24. So if calling someone’s comments “misleading” qualifies as a personal attack (and I don’t agree that it does), you went there first.
The CLE regulations available on the ABA website clearly state that courses must be available to any interested lawyer
EXCEPT FOR COURSES OR ACTIVITIES OFFERED BY PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS PRIMARILY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE EDUCATION OF THEIR MEMBERS
. In the instance you discussed from 2007, it is my understanding that it was determined that you were ineligible because you were not an active, practicing attorney that was retained by a library to provide legal counsel to that library, a requirement for the course(s.) The ALA, to my knowledge, set those requirements fairly, as a professional organization, and determined you were ineligible to attend. If you disagreed with that assessment and felt you were unfairly excluded from the course(s), I’m sure you pursued whatever recourse was available to you.
I suggested pursuing this discussion elsewhere because it does not pertain to the topic of the panel discussion in Chicago/the original blog post. That suggestion was out of courtesy to the other readers here and blog owner Owen; no subterfuge.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 05, 2009 at 1240 hrs
Maria, you don’t stop, do you. You bore in on a target, freeze it, destroy it in true Saul Alinsky fashion. Truth is irrelevant.
The CLE was for attorneys, not for ALA members. It was not “PRIMARILY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE EDUCATION OF THEIR MEMBERS” as you assert. The whole purpose was to reach out to the legal community, not ALA members.
About 17 attorneys actually attending the class that had 60 slots. I would have been #18 but I was excluded by the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. Obviously, intellectual freedom is only for certain viewpoints and you think that’s just fine.
You keep saying I was ineligible, true, but irrelevant. Ineligible attorneys are required to take the classes to become active again! Ineligible attorneys cannot become active again without taking CLE classes! I’ve been in CLE classes that had lots of ineligible attorneys.
Maria, you evidence, yet again, that you do not know what you are talking about, you defend the ALA to the degree that you actually get into the details of CLE court rules, and you use ad hominem argument to avoid speaking to the issues. Really, Maria, I am shocked you have not experienced what I have, yet you regally judge me as ineligible and rightfully subject to the ALA’s discriminatory actions.
Then you claim it’s out of “courtesy”!!!!!! Keep taking, Maria, you are West Bend’s best advocate for protecting children in the West Bend library via legal means.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 05, 2009 at 1256 hrs
Further, Maria, I said you were misleading people because you were. Specifically, I said in post #24:
“Maria, it’s not censorship to keep inappropriate material from children. US v. ALA: ‘The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree.’ So long as you keep claiming it is, you are misleading people.”
My comment was addressed to a central issue, namely that it is NOT censorship to keep children from inappropriate material. You assert it is. I cited the US Supreme Court, pointed out how you say the exact opposite, then said you are misleading people. That is NOT personal attack.
Contrast that with you, Maria. You mislead and assert untruthful information, and you do so on side issues such as personal characteristics of people with whom you disagree. My saying so now is not personal attack, it is merely responding to yours and setting the record straight.
And your using my post #24 to go on a Saul Alinsky attack expedition just exposes you even more for what you are.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 05, 2009 at 1320 hrs
Danny boy: A SCOTUS opinion that notes a “compelling interest” regarding internet filters of “obscene or pornographic” content does not mean there is a law that requires the WB library remove material deemed “inappropriate” by less than 3% of the community. Stop trying to cloud the issue with your false-knowledge claims.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2009 at 1632 hrs
Correct. But it runs 100% counter to the claim that it is censorship to keep children from inappropriate material. The case is filled with more information that runs counter to what the ALA/Maria are saying. Go read it in full.
Further, there may be laws that are relevant. Will you please find and publish the very law, statute, charter, whatever that created the WB library in the first place? I’ll bet it says what the library is for, and inappropriate material for children is not included. Please, find that law. Publish it here. Thanks.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 05, 2009 at 1646 hrs
A SCOTUS opinion that notes a “compelling interest” regarding internet filters of “obscene or pornographic” content does not mean there is a law that requires the WB library remove material deemed “inappropriate” by less than 3% of the community…
I highly doubt a city-wide referendum would show that 3% of the voters want to keep this smut where it is… I honestly believe this should be the direction. City referendum in Nov 2010….
Don’t forget… there is not one person in all of WB willing to read this smut to kids…
This thread has gotten very revealing. Maria and her group keeps contending that federal judges and lawyers know better than WB citizens as to what their kids should have access. Bob has gone so far as to say parents can’t make determination of what is obscene.
I need to create and post a video. I’m thinking about reading passages of the books online, meanwhile showing all of the quotes from the porn protectors. The visualization would be powerful.
Referendum. Referendum. Referendum.
Posted by Smeety on July 05, 2009 at 1654 hrs
Referendum. Referendum. Referendum.
I looked into this early on. Either called a special election or having the measure put on the Nov. ballot. Neither can be done. The library does not operate by election or the outcome. I can’t remember exactly what I was told when I asked about it but many people told me legally it can’t happen.
Not to mention if it were put to ballet the author of WISSUP still couldn’t vote. City remember.
HastaPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2009 at 1725 hrs
Technically, the library is an extension of the city. Wisconsin has a direct legislation statute. So there could be a referendum forcing the city to pass an ordinance doing whatever the people want - up to and including just closing down the library or making the library board elected. Should the new ordinance survive a legal challenge (remember the Milwaukee sick day ordinance failed muster), then it would be the law of the land.
Posted by Owen on July 05, 2009 at 1730 hrs
Smeety, if you make that video, please let me know the URL.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 05, 2009 at 1757 hrs
Sorry, Owen. No go on your library proposal. Library Boards and appointments and powers of library boards are regulated by STATE, not municipal law. The city has no power to make the library board elective. The city’s only power regarding the board is the approval of the budget and approval of appointees to the library board. Appointments to the library board can only be made by the mayor. Money bequeathed or donated to the library is under the exclusive control of the library board—- not the city. Why don’t you just read Chapter 43 of the State of Wisconsin Statutes. And remember, any reference to a SYSTEM is a totally different entity than that of a municipal library board. West Bend is a municipal library which has some minor governance by the County library board and is also a member of a larger system involving several counties.
No one in the state may elect a library board without changing state law.
And closing the library???? What the heck is the matter with you? Ginny has frequently said that all she wants to do is move books and mark books. Now you want to censor the whole thing?? It shows how wildly out of control you folks are getting. Closing the Library for idealogical reasons would never, ever pass constitutional muster. Step back and look at how crazy you people are getting. Now you want to suppress every book in the library?????
People are voting on this issue every day. And every day you lose more and more. Library circulation statistics are up. Summer reading enrollments for children have far exceeded last years record level. People are voting with their feet and their library cards. Maybe we should thank you for reminding city residents what a gem of an asset the library is.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2009 at 2108 hrs
Owen’s statement wasn’t an endorsement of closing the library.
But it’s a nice strawman, Bob. Try again….
Posted by Smeety on July 05, 2009 at 2114 hrs
Bob said, “People are voting on this issue every day. And every day you lose more and more.”
No, Bob, you do.
Examples:
“7-1 Vote FOR Internet Filters in Owosso, MI”
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 05, 2009 at 2119 hrs
Uh, yeah Bob. I wasn’t advocating closing the library. I like the library and consider it an asset to West Bend, but I do happen to disagree with their conduct on this issue.
But point taken. The citizens could not close the library with direct legislation, but they could take it off the city tax rolls.
Posted by Owen on July 05, 2009 at 2137 hrs
Dan,
No, it the books in question are not “porn” or “smut” by definition. In writing, an industry equivalent to porn would be Penthouse letters. The books are not close to that despite the excerpts (It be like excerpting my swearing every time I ran a home improvement project and using those excerpts to decide if I belonged in WB.).Yes, a government entity is making controversial material available to children, and the USA is not the former USSR. “Inappropriate material” is an individual judgment call.
“It is legal to keep inappropriate material from children[?]” Yes, if it’s pornography: “Sexually [or violently] explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.” The materials in questions do not have sexual arousal as a primary purpose.
The “Inappropriate material” has not been proven to harm readers. Reading realistic stories about a gay kid, teens discussing sex (like they do anyway), masturbation, a girl reflecting on being raped, etc, has not been proven by anyone to do any harm, increase sexual acts/deviance, cause pregnancy or grow hair on one’s palms. It only been proven in WB to drive some passionate people (who are extremely uncomfortable with sex in literature and one nonfiction book, bureaucracy, and book reconsideration policy guidelines) to stretch the definition of integrity.
If Ginny, et al, wants a book removed, they can challenge them title by title and they can guide their children’s reading without government assistance as to what is inappropriate material. Then there’s no tagging and moving books, no parent permission slips, no walls between children’s and adults sections, no parents using the place as a free babysitting service, no censorship lawsuits, and no more beating this dead horse (which gives Owen’s blog more hits and raises his ad income potential (which I am OK with in principle)).
Oh Smeety, I would read this smut to the appropriate age group, but I would focus on the prologue and warn the audience that there is some controversial, realistic sexual situations, and I’d briefly explain why. Book talks often fail if they go over 2-3 minutes. After that I’d try a sci-fi, a mystery, a romance, whatever. No one forces anyone to read the books in question. No one ever has.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 05, 2009 at 2221 hrs
Stan,
Respectfully, I don’t believe you. I’ve heard this song and dance before. Bob ran for the hills when called on this last time. Maria made every excuse in the book.
By definition the appropriate age group is 11-17. You bring the kids (if you can find parents this irresponsible), and I’ll bring the books and video camera.
Posted by Smeety on July 05, 2009 at 2328 hrs
My comment was addressed to a central issue, namely that it is NOT censorship to keep children from inappropriate material. You assert it is.
No, Dan, I assert that it is censorship to move books (such as from the YA section to the adult section) with the intention of restricting access to certain library patrons. I have stated this very clearly, but I’m sorry that you misunderstood.
Of the 17 attorneys that attended the class you could not attend, were they all practicing, licensed attorneys that were providing legal advice to libraries?
You keep saying I was ineligible, true, but irrelevant. Ineligible attorneys are required to take the classes to become active again! Ineligible attorneys cannot become active again without taking CLE classes!
I’m not an attorney, but it would seem to me that there would be other CLE courses one could take to satisfy the yearly hours requirement to be considered active again; it would not be restricted to the library law course you were unable attend. Once active, an attorney could be be retained by a library as legal counsel and therefore be eligible to attend a library law course such as this.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 05, 2009 at 2337 hrs
StanleyGingleshtimer said, “The ‘Inappropriate material’ has not been proven to harm readers.” Okay everyone. Throw out US v. ALA. Throw out Board of Education v. Pico. The US Supreme Court was wrong. StanleyGingleshtimer knows better.
Maria said, “it is censorship to move books (such as from the YA section to the adult section) with the intention of restricting access to certain library patrons.” Okay everyone. Throw out US v. ALA. Throw out Board of Education v. Pico. The US Supreme Court was wrong. Maria knows better. The ALA’s “Library Bill of Rights” knows better and controls public libraries nationwide. The ALA/ACLU person who first added the word “age” to the “Library Bill of Rights” trumps every single community nationwide and it is discrimination to keep children from any material whatsoever, no matter what the US Supreme Court said, because a single person knows better than anyone else.
Maria, you don’t know what censorship means, do you.
And I am shocked you continue to hammer away on something about which you know nothing. First of all, whether or not one provides legal advice to libraries or to anybody at all is irrelevant to the court rules requiring access to ALL attorneys. ALL attorneys, Maria, not only those the CLE vendor approves.
Second, you say, “it would seem to me that there would be other CLE courses one could take to satisfy the yearly hours requirement.” Maria, who died and made you queen? Do you realize what you have just said? YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED THE ALA WAS WRONG BUT IT IS ABOVE THE LAW!!! Are you serious? The court rules require all courses be open to all, the ALA OIF discriminated possibly illegally against me, and your response is that I should just pick another class to attend? Hey Maria, tell those people who are being illegally discriminated against in that restaurant to get over it and go to the restaurant next door that doesn’t discriminate.
Maria, you are no longer the slightest bit credible to me. You condone possibly discriminatory activity by the ALA and use the flimsy excuse that other vendors would not discriminate against me like the ALA did. You purposefully ignore the total irony that the so-called “Office for Intellectual Freedom” may have shut down my intellectual freedom in an illegal fashion.
There is nothing you won’t say or do to defend the ALA’s efforts to control local public libraries, including in West Bend. You complain about citizens trying to get control of the library, in your opinion, while the ALA controlling your library, and you acting as one of its local agents, is of no consequence to you. The US Supreme Court is of no consequence to you. Right and wrong is a relative concept to you. Anything goes justifies anything as well, doesn’t it.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 06, 2009 at 0607 hrs
And I am shocked you continue to hammer away
Actually, Dan, you are the only who won’t let this issue drop. I am merely responding to your accusations against me.
YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED THE ALA WAS WRONG BUT IT IS ABOVE THE LAW
Actually, I did not admit any wrongdoing by the ALA. If CLE rules require for lawyers, active/licensed or not, to be able to attend all CLE courses in any state and are not allowed to have eligibility requirements for courses, it would appear you should be allowed to attend any course. However, that does not seem to be the case according to the sites you reference and others I’ve read on the subject.
I am not condoning discrimination against you or anyone. However, if being active was a requirement of the library law course you wanted to take and you were inactive, that is only because of the choices you have made concerning satisfying the CLE requirement. You cannot blame the ALA because you were ineligible.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 06, 2009 at 0744 hrs
Dan, research project for you: What is the legal significance of a plurality decision such as U.S. v. A.L.A.?
I’ll make it easy for you: It holds no precedent.
The SCOTUS agreed only to the result but not on how to get to that result. As you can see, there is no majority opinion and thus, U.S. v. A.L.A. holds no precedent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2009 at 1245 hrs
Maria, research project:
What percentage of West Bend residents want federal judges deciding what their kids have access?
Or…
How many adults are willing to share this smut with kids? Answer: zero
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2009 at 1507 hrs
Research project:
Why are these books not being shared in middle schools or high schools?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2009 at 1511 hrs
Most of them ARE in the public school libraries, Smeety.
Posted by GAMazy on July 06, 2009 at 1516 hrs
Owen has a good point; If this is a conference for libraries, librarians and board members then why is Maria invited? If the library and the supporters of obscene materials for children are concerned with free speech then shouldn’t a member or two from the opposition be invited? Double standards?
Curt also raises a good point. Perhaps we need to focus on ousting the current board and YA Zone librarian.
Maria and Dave have both refused to read these obscene books out loud to children. Maria has never given her personal stance on what is obscene. Dave seems to think that kids should be able to read anything (and I mean anything including adult materials…see topic about Belling rips WB Library Board). Can I get a YIKES!?
Why not let the parents decide what their kids can and can not read? Why not let the parents re-consent for their kids instead of you telling them.
Give this back to the parents and let the parents RECONSENT. Let’s inform the parents of what materials their minor children have access to at the taxpayer funded library, so they can re-consent or not re-consent to a library card.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2009 at 1526 hrs
Are they in the WB schools?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2009 at 1528 hrs
YES, Smeety. They sure are. Lots of ‘em. The school board is so afraid that they began trying to figure out how to build a case against WBCFSL when we come their way. My ORR shows them frantically putting out the APB to other WI public school librarians to compile lists and compare. Essentially, they did all the work for us. I have the lists. This is factual. They even asked the Milwaukee Public Schools how they deal with these issues. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! AS IF. Sure hope they don’t think that just because other public schools have ‘em, we have to have ‘em, too. Our schools, our kids, our tax money, our choice. This whole thing of having other people sneak low-class, offensive, sexually-explicit and sex-based materials into our libraries, both city and public school, is quite disturbing. The citizens are becoming more and more educated and fired up about this issue as they realize how they are being duped.
Posted by GAMazy on July 06, 2009 at 1539 hrs
“YES, Smeety. They sure are. Lots of ‘em. The school board is so afraid that they began trying to figure out how to build a case against WBCFSL when we come their way. My ORR shows them frantically putting out the APB to other WI public school librarians to compile lists and compare. Essentially, they did all the work for us. I have the lists. This is factual. They even asked the Milwaukee Public Schools how they deal with these issues. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! AS IF. Sure hope they don’t think that just because other public schools have ‘em, we have to have ‘em, too. Our schools, our kids, our tax money, our choice. This whole thing of having other people sneak low-class, offensive, sexually-explicit and sex-based materials into our libraries, both city and public school, is quite disturbing. The citizens are becoming more and more educated and fired up about this issue as they realize how they are being duped. “
Posted by GAMazy on July 06, 2009 at 1539 hrs
Ginny,
Your tactics make no sense. Giving it up before? What is the word you would use? oh ya InterestingPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2009 at 2137 hrs
“Our schools, our kids, our tax money, our choice.”
The books in the public schools are paid for out of the common school fund. Google it. The fund is not created through tax dollars.
Dan, I never said the ALA knows better. I said no one has proven these books do harm. If anyone has a case, a study, anything, bring it forth. These books are not pornography or smut: It’s literature with occasional explicit scenes. By the way, Dan, this is the future. This is what the person you are assisting is about:
Gee whiz, GAMazy, like no one could have figured you would consider going after the public schools in West Bend again after your failed attempt at altering the harassment policy for protecting sexual preference (as well as religion and disabilities) (Freedom of Speech and “stop promoting teen sex” were your slogans). Your tenacious badgering of the public schools to ensure that there are no gay support groups working on the public dole is impressive.
Bet your going to start your third sexually-related campaign in the Fall when the district starts up the referendum campaign. You can throw this whole book issue into the gears as a red herring and use it and Boots and Sabers as a recruitment tool. Owen gets on the pedestal, more blog hits, more site ad income. You get to post letters from the district and news from the Daily News and insert your snappy, red font comments. Can’t wait to see you change the complaint three or more times so the district can’t address the moving target. Don’t forget to get the TV news and Glenn Grothman involved.
Perhaps the school district will lend you a gymnasium so you can read excerpts again. You can burn them from the inside!Oh, and don’t forget to remind your minions to call those librarians and aides at work and at home to remind them they are all going to hell. That was a great intimidation tactic used on the public library folks.
Maybe the students will start actually reading books again.
Note to self: Ask librarians how much circulation of the books Ginny names increases after her campaign starts. I’m betting 300%.
Looking forward to Fall and Winter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 06, 2009 at 2226 hrs
Ginny, can you please explain what you mean whey you describe these books “low-class”?
Posted by Concerned West Bend Citizen on July 06, 2009 at 2236 hrs
Maria said, “You cannot blame the ALA because you were ineligible.” Maria, you don’t give up even when you are wrong. Well you are wrong. I was eligible to take the class just like any other attorney—it was open to all attorneys of any stripe for any reason. The ALA violated court rules to keep me out. The intellectual freedom people kept me out. Simple as that. Repeat it again and I’ll say the same thing.
Super ID said, “The SCOTUS agreed only to the result but not on how to get to that result. As you can see, there is no majority opinion and thus, U.S. v. A.L.A. holds no precedent.” Here’s another one that says US v. ALA does not apply, but ALA guidance does. Some people will say anything to justify allowing children access to inappropriate material.
Kelly said, “Perhaps we need to focus on ousting the current board and YA Zone librarian.” That’s a joke, right?
StanleyGingleshtimer said, “Dan, I never said the ALA knows better. I said no one has proven these books do harm. If anyone has a case, a study, anything, bring it forth.” Irrelevant. The US Supreme Court in Bd of Educ v. Pico and in US v. ALA says inappropriate material may be kept from children. There was no need to prove harm. How would you do that anyway? And the SCOTUS cases would be moot if we are all supposed to stand down until you get the evidence you want. SCOTUS cases cannot so easily be set aside.
He also said, “Owen gets on the pedestal, more blog hits….” I have to admit, I’m jealous those guys get hundreds of comments on a single post. (Most of them are by Maria repeating the same calumny against me.)
Concerned West Bend Citizen said, “Ginny, can you please explain what you mean whey you describe these books ‘low-class’”? She doesn’t have to. The ALA has already done it for her. It describes some books, for example, as “perhaps not the most literary.” See “Racy Reading; Gossip Girl Series is Latest Installment in Provocative Teen Fiction, and It’s As Popular As It Is Controversial, by Linda Shrieves, The Orlando Sentinel, 6 Aug 2005.
Readers may also wish to see what Naomi Wolf said: “Young Adult Fiction: Wild Things,” by Naomi Wolf, The New York Times, 12 March 2006. And she’s no conservative.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 06, 2009 at 2357 hrs
STANLEY,
Ok, I would not normally do this but well said. It has been known for a while WBCFSL new or should I say revisiting of an old rival was going to be the school distrct. WBCFSL filed their ORR a while ago. Although WBCFSL was somewhat baffling when she / they did not pick up the list the district put togther for her right away. I will have more info on that later today I think.
I hope to have it to put up on my blog later today.
Maybe if WBCFSL once again has not spoken the truth and has not picked it up yet, Maybe WBCFSL will today because as I have said all eyes are watching and all ears are listening. I tried to tell her if she was going to keep doing these things she needed to just do make 1 public statement and them back off and let it take it’s course. It’s become obvious that she does not really care if her requests are really granted or not. WBCFSL wants to holler, scream, do a bunch of media blitzing, throw acusations around, spin words and so on.
Hey I have a great idea for a career path for WBCFSL. They could become Sarah Palins new spin doctor if she / they decides to run for prez. The experience is there and I am sure many people wolud be willing to write a glowing references. Wait! No need to write them. Palins camp can look at all the blogs, all the comments to all the media outlets, the morphing of the ONLY complaint ever formally filed and Poof the job would be filled.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 0630 hrs
What percentage of West Bend residents want federal judges deciding what their kids have access?
Or…
How many adults are willing to share this smut with kids? Answer: zero
Posted by SmeetySmeety.
What percentage of West Bend residents want one small local group deciding what everyone elses young adults can read from books in the section specifically set aside for them?Answer: Zero
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 0634 hrs
KELLY asked:
Why not let the parents decide what their kids can and can not read?Exactly that is the whole point? To take your post further who would pay for the cost that would be incurred is getting ALL the parents to re-consent? Ginny? Nope! Remember she can rack up all the expenses she wants with her complaints against the library or the school district and not have her taxes pinged or have any of the fiscal public responsibility. She is the loop hole with living outside of city limits.
When she does go after the school district again you know who suffers for that? The students. Legal fees and everything come out of the budget. They have to hire attorneys and everything else. That means less money going into the schools. So the next time I hear about art or music or other extra things being cut we have one specific group to thank, WBCFSL. They aready have taken money away from the students upcoming tear of education. We all know the district like most others is strapped for cash so hey why not make them shell out more for legal fees and stuff that really don’t stand much chance of gong through.
Yet, WBCFSL say they are protecting all the little children? Yup, makes sense to me. ake money from their schools while you protect them from a very small section that have a diff sexual orientation. Make sense right? NOT!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 0647 hrs
“...who would pay for the cost that would be incurred is getting ALL the parents to re-consent? - Kristina”
I am glad that you agree the parents should decide, so let’s do just that….let the parents re-consent and this issue is over.
All they [the parent] would have to do is come down to the library, re-sign a form and a sticker would be on the library card. I’ll pay for the stickers & I’ll volunteer to call the library patrons.
I guess the librarian and the board should have thought about “expenses” when they decided to promote sexually explicit books on the library website.
The way the public schools spend money, one would hardly think they are strapped for cash, but that’s not the point here. If they removed the books or had parents consent for their children to read such materials at school there would be very little money spent. Again, give it over to the parents and let them decide.
You are comparing WBCFSL with the Sarah Palin…I take that as a compliment! She’s smart and she’s attractive, that’s a good combination. Has nothing to do with the library, but w/e.
Let the parents re-consent and all will be well.
P.S. Kristina I am sure Owen thanks you for your many posts
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 0727 hrs
I am glad that you agree the parents should decide, so let’s do just that….let the parents re-consent and this issue is over.
~ Kelly
Kelly, I don’t know why you hold on with such zeal to this idea of re-consent. You claim parents were not aware of these books when they signed up their kids for library cards, and that’s why re-consent is needed. I disagree; I think that virtually all parents are aware there are books in the public library that they would not approve for their kids, just as there are toys that they don’t approve of in stores, and activities that they don’t want their kids to participate in at school or other places. It is the right and responsibility for those parents to make those decisions, but at the library, going through the process of re-consent is unnecessary. All parents have to do is take the library card away if they are concerned about what their child is checking out, and/or attend the library with the child, and have a discussion about what books are appropriate in their family/home. The beauty of this is that parents have always had this power.
This means that the power remains in the hands of the parents and is not transferred to another group (or to library staff) to individually monitor each and every minor library patron’s selections.
Your offer to volunteer to do handle this for the library is commendable but misguided. Do you realize how many area citizens have library cards? Tens of thousands! A large portion of these are under age 18. Instead of calling thousands of people on your own time (and covering the cost of those calls, and stickers to label library cards), why not make a donation to the library instead (either in money or in some books you have and no longer read.) Not saying you don’t already do that, but I think it is a more reasonable alternative than your idea.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 07, 2009 at 0758 hrs
Instead of calling thousands of people on your own time (and covering the cost of those calls, and stickers to label library cards), why not make a donation to the library instead (either in money or in some books you have and no longer read.) Not saying you don’t already do that, but I think it is a more reasonable alternative than your idea.
Now we have people telling others how to volunteer their time? This gets more and more amusing as it goes along!
:zpopcorn:
Posted by GAMazy on July 07, 2009 at 0803 hrs
Maria, what is wrong with re-consent? You do want the parents to choose, don’t you? You say that parents could just take away the library card. Well, they could, but then they couldn’t get any books. You don’t want them to stop reading do you? Sure parents could go with them, but having them
re-consent would solve the issure of minor children who are unattended. Really, it’s the best solution for all concerned.Maria, your second paragraph is mixing apples and oranges. One can donate books or money to the library AND volunteer to call library partrons. I am sure I could gather plenty of volunteers to help.
I think we’ve come to the heart of the issue and frankly, it makes sense and there is no real reason why this could not work.
a) Call library patrons (using volunteers) and let them know that if they want their children to have access to sexually explicit materials they would need to come down to the library and re-consent.
b) Parents who come down and get the sticker (donated by members of the community) on their library cards. Those who don’t have the sticker are unable to access sexually explicit books unless a parent is along
c) You can also donate money or books to the library (optional)
This would give parents total control, take the burden off the library.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 0834 hrs
Actually, Ginny, volunteering in such a way as Kelly suggests would be bad for the library. Kelly is not a library staff member and has no right to access information about library patrons (private info). She cannot get lists of library card holders, nor or call them (therefore acting as a representative of the library) because she is not a representative of the library. Volunteers are used as library pages and to provide assistance for events, etc., not to serve as representatives of the library or get access to private information. I’m sure we can all agree that would be a bad idea (and in fact would likely lead to more lawsuits in West Bend!)
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 07, 2009 at 0835 hrs
Those who don’t have the sticker are unable to access sexually explicit books unless a parent is along
This would give parents total control, take the burden off the library.
Kelly, you conveniently ignore the fact that some parameters would have to be established to determine if books are “explicit” or not. What criteria would be used? Who would decide it? Since we all have different opinions about what is explicit and what isn’t, how are you going to set that criteria and who would be in charge of it? Such a system takes the control away from the parent, Kelly.
Unattended minors, whether at the library or not, always remain the responsibility of the parent. The “burden” is not on the library to monitor children, it never has been, and it never will be.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 07, 2009 at 0841 hrs
Kristina,
Pay attention. Where did I infer I wanted a small group to decide where books go? Aren’t I the one suggesting referendum?
Referendum. Referendum. Referendum.
Posted by Smeety on July 07, 2009 at 0844 hrs
Maria, you say
82.Actually, Ginny, volunteering in such a way as Kelly suggests would be bad for the library. Kelly is not a library staff member and has no right to access information about library patrons
yet, just before that you say
79. Instead of calling thousands of people on your own time (and covering the cost of those calls, and stickers to label library cards), why not make a donation
Your dissertation on library information reaks strongly of Michael Tyree, but I’d hide, too, if I were a library director pushing sexually explicit books down the throats of the local community’s kids. A shame.
Posted by GAMazy on July 07, 2009 at 0900 hrs
Maria- The community would decide what is obscene:
“Obscene matter” means matter, taken as a whole, that to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, that, taken as a whole, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and that, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
(this is the CA code)“Drafted before an electronic age, many states define “materials” as covering any writing, written matter, picture, pictorial representation, film or motion picture, or sound recording.
“Obscenity” is typically defined as material which, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, and taken as a whole: 1) predominantly appeals to prurient interests, 2) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, and 3) depicts or describes nudity, sex, or excretion in a patently offensive way” -http://www.lorenavedon.com/laws.htm
Let’s give the power back to the parents and the community.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 0912 hrs
Thank you, Ginny, for yet again making a personal attack on someone instead if sticking to the issues.
Thanks also for the compliment of comparing my comments to those of Michael Tyree, a wonderful asset to this community and a stand up guy.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 07, 2009 at 0938 hrs
Well, Kelly, that is great because none of the material fits what you quote, the legal definition of obscene!
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 07, 2009 at 0940 hrs
If West Bend residents were to accept Maria’s criteria of having federal judges and lawyers decide what our kids have access…
Pretty much all of the material fits that descrption, Maria.
Posted by Smeety on July 07, 2009 at 1027 hrs
Maria- you are a member of the community and that is your opinion. Personally, I think they are obscene for minor children. So now that we know Maria’s view on what’s not obscene, I’m still curious as to what she personally thinks is obscene for children. Care to answer that? Now Maria, let the rest of community have their say.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1047 hrs
Kelly, the rest of the community did “have their say”- more people signed the petition to keep the books in place than did to have them moved.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1052 hrs
Elizabeth, so we in this country decide things by petitions? I thought it was voting?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1102 hrs
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!
Signing of petitions does not accurately represent an entire community, Elizabeth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1104 hrs
If I recall correctly, it was WBCFSL that started the whole petition drive to begin with. With the intent of showing the library board that the community wanted the books moved. However, the opposing group, West Bend Parents for Free Speech was able to garner more support with their counter-petition.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1117 hrs
Your dissertation on library information reaks strongly of Michael Tyree, but I’d hide, too, if I were a library director pushing sexually explicit books down the throats of the local community’s kids. A shame.
I am going to officially offer my services to Mr. Tyree Pro bono basis to represent him in a civil action against you for the above statement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1117 hrs
Good luck with that, JD…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1133 hrs
If they work for the community, then the community should decide for themselves.
Elizabeth - a petition is to garner support for a cause it is not the deciding factor. In this case, perhaps voting is.
Mr. Tyree please accept JD’s offer for respresentation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1203 hrs
Kelly, that is exactly my point. You and smeety keep referring to “community standards,” and that WBCFSL is representative of those standards. However, if you look at amount of signatures on the petitions, more members of the community asked that the books remain where they are, as opposed to moving them. Now, maybe if you had a vote, you would get more people, but so might West Bend Parents for Free Speech. But to say, as of now, the WBCFSL is representative of “community standards” is not accurate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1219 hrs
I never wrote WBCFSL is the rep for those standards.
I have my own criteria: you must be willing to share with your kids the material your kids have access to in the library.
The material in these books needs to be brought to the forefront of these blogs. I’ll take that responsibility on myself…
Just curious, does Maria quote the material she protects in her blog? Or is is censored?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1228 hrs
Elizabeth - having more signatures means just that….it is not legal or binding. A vote however would be. That’s the difference.
So following up on Smeety’s point…
.....Elizabeth, I know you are for this material and I ask you, would you take these books to a park or Music on Main and do a public reading to a group of minor children? What is your personal line regarding obscenity for minor children?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1349 hrs
“I am going to officially offer my services to Mr. Tyree Pro bono basis to represent him in a civil action against you for the above statement.”
And we need to know this because?
Are you trying to intimidate me, JD? Censor me, perhaps?
Posted by GAMazy on July 07, 2009 at 1525 hrs
Just curious, does Maria quote the material she protects in her blog? Or is is censored?
Smeety, I don’t have any excerpts from the books on my site because I don’t believe quoting brief excerpts from a novel is an accurate representation of the work, and I don’t want to quote passages out of context.
Also, my group was founded to protect the rights of parents and library patrons to decide for themselves what material is appropriate for themselves/their families. Our position is not one of endorsing the material as appropriate or not for anyone, but of protect the right of parents to retain that decision-making power.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 07, 2009 at 1712 hrs
Maria- if you really want parents to decide then let them
re-consent to a library card.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 1747 hrs
I’m confused. Will someone please explain what “re-consent to a library card” means?
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 07, 2009 at 1750 hrs
Maria,
A simple, ‘I wouldn’t be caught dead with that smut on my blog’ would suffice…
Do you have discussions on your blog?
If I were to add excerpts from the books in question into discussions on your blog, would you censor me?
Just curious…
Posted by Smeety on July 07, 2009 at 1804 hrs
Smeety, irrelevant, her web site is not designed to be promoted to children, neither does it win top awards from the ALA as the top web site for children 12 and up.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on July 07, 2009 at 1808 hrs
Kristina,
Pay attention. Where did I infer I wanted a small group to decide where books go? Aren’t I the one suggesting referendum?
Referendum. Referendum. Referendum.
Posted by Smeety on July 07, 2009 at 0844 hrsSmeety,
I think it is you who needs to pay attention. The referendum issue has already been bebunked and not only not legal but not possible.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 2035 hrs
Kristina,
Do you honestly believe the referendum issue has been debunked?
“While rationalism at the individual level is a plea for more personal autonomy from cultural norms, at the social level it is often a claim- or arrogation- of power to stifle the autonomy of others.” - Thomas Sowell
Posted by Smeety on July 07, 2009 at 2111 hrs
Can anyone guess if the following quote is from Penthouse Forum or a book in the kid’s section at the WB Library?
Charlie watches a couple at party when he was 11-12 years old: “And the boy kept working up the girl’s shirt, and a much as she said no, he kept working it. After a few minutes, she stopped protesting, and he pulled her shirt off, and she had a white bra on with lace…He took off her bra and started to kiss her breasts…he put his hands down her pants, and she started moaning…He reached to take off her pants, but she started crying…so he reached for his own. He pulled his pants and underwear down to his knees. ‘Please Dave. No.’ But the boy just talked soft to her about how good she looked and things like that, and she grabbed his penis with her hands and started moving it. …after a few minutes, the boy pushed the girl’s head down, and she started to kiss his penis. She was still crying. Finally, she stopped crying because he put his penis in her mouth, and I don’t think you can cry in that position. I had to stop watching at that point because I started to feel sick, but it kept going on, and they kept doing other things, and she kept saying ‘no.’”
I’ll give a hint. Bob claimed he would read this books to kids.
Smeety,
Yes, I would. Because, for example, “Perks of Being a Wallflower”,,,Posted by Smeety on July 07, 2009 at 2117 hrs
I am 11 years old and Smeety just dissam- dissumum- dissembulated… typed in some naughty words on the internet where kids like me can see ‘em and he better turn himself in to the police right away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 07, 2009 at 2220 hrs
Hey Lil’ Jr. - If you had filters on your computer you wouldn’t be able to access this.
Anyway…re-consent the way I see it is:
Volunteers (like myself) would call library patrons asking them to come to the library to re-sign a consent form stating that if you do sign your child up for a library card that he/she would have access to obscene materials in the YA Zone. If the parent says yes, that is fine… a sticker (donated stickers) would be applied to the library card. If no, no sticker would be added.Before anyone jumps on it:
How do you define obscene? Read some posts back, but the community would decide what is obscene.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 0714 hrs
Smeety,
You posted a drunk date-rape scene which a young character, Charlie, witnessed. The language used to describe body parts is clinical. Sounds like what the child witnessed caused him to be emotionally distraught. It does not appear he or the female who is crying enjoyed the situation. Sounds like the message is rape is wrong and rape hurts women. This excerpt was a real downer for me. It was not sensational. It did not excite me. I feel pity for the female and Charlie.I think reading this excerpt prevents rapes and encourages reporting of rapes. I would not mind if convicted rapists had their stuff removed. I know people who have been raped (often while intoxicated or covertly drugged) - It scars them.
What does the book publisher say is the appropriate age of the audience? What is your view?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1746 hrs
Bob,
With complete sincerity ... I feel this book should not be accidentally stumbled upon by my daughter when she is eleven years old.
Smeety
Posted by Smeety on July 08, 2009 at 1858 hrs
Bob, Stan or whomever…I read this book cover to cover and an 11 year old child would hardly understand what is happening. The book, and more than this quote is obscene. Sorry, but that is the way I see it.
More over, this books should not, I repeat not be read unless there is an adult to explain and help process such information.
It’s a crude book with dispicable acts that emotional could affect a child.
Give the power back to the parents and the community.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 1914 hrs
I feel this book should not be accidentally stumbled upon by my daughter when she is eleven years old.
I agree, Smeety, but how is your daughter going to “accidentally stumble upon” this book? Is it going to throw itself into her path as she’s walking through the library? If she does happen to select it from the shelf, what are the chances she would land on the page you quote (which was not quoted word for word as it appears in the book; Smeety has edited the passage)? I realize (since I have read the entire book) that there are other passages that include sexual content, but what are the chances of her opening the book to one of those pages? And if she did happen to read one of those passages, what do you think would happen? (I have an almost 11 year old, and when this whole controversy began, I asked him what he would do if he found a sexual scene/passage in a book. He said he’d think “gross!” and put the book back, and maybe talk with me about it.)
If your 11 year old daughter does choose to check out one of these books, it is your responsibility as her parent to find this out and take action if you feel it is inappropriate for her. This is not the public library’s role; public libraries do not act in loco parentis. And why would you want the library (or anyone else) to determine which books are appropriate or not for your child? Why would you want to give that power away?
Please answer these questions instead of merely challenging me or someone else to read passages in public or making attacks on someone else’s character. I would honestly like to hear your reasoning for wanting this kind of change. And let’s not forget that the YA section serves ages 11-adult/age 18. We cannot expect every book to be “appropriate” for everyone in that category, just as not every adult book in the library is “appropriate” for every adult.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on July 08, 2009 at 2129 hrs
Kelly and Smeety,
I disagree the book is crude. Yes, it has “despicable acts that emotionally could affect a child.” And, for the sake of humanity I hope it does.
Appropriate for Smeety’s 11-year old? That’s already Smeety’s call right now.
Let’s say the 11-year old stumbles on it. I imagine she will be shocked and find rape despicable. She may put the book back. Every book has its reader, every reader his or her book. She might ask Smeety questions about rape, an important dialog for every female, child or women. I am positive the incredibly important discussion can be framed in an appropriate light that is rewarding for both daughter and parent and friends and family of the daughter.
However, tagging the book, moving it, and requiring consent forms is a slippery slope. Harsh case in point (True story): Down the road from my childhood home lived a man who went to church, had a large family, and he would have likely resisted allowing his daughters to have permission to read a book like this. Why? He had been raping three them over the years.
I want rape victims (and their friends and family) to have as many access points to help and prevention that can exist. This book is an access point for prevention and help. And considering the date rape drug is present in Washington County, well, you can see where I am going with this.
Secondly, to adopt the policy change described above is really trusting that society isn’t going to get more intolerant and that the next generations might develop an intolerance for books with illicit drug use, a particular political persuasion, religion, or race focus.
Hence, I would sincerely prefer your group target the titles you find particularly despicable, file a reconsideration form, make your arguments, talk it out with the board, and continue to monitor what is being made available.
You all already have quite a bit of power and this particular work in question will, if read, deter rape in this community.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 08, 2009 at 2136 hrs
If your 11 year old daughter does choose to check out one of these books, it is your responsibility as her parent to find this out and take action if you feel it is inappropriate for her. This is not the public library’s role; public libraries do not act in loco parentis. And why would you want the library (or anyone else) to determine which books are appropriate or not for your child? Why would you want to give that power away? -Maria
The library is suppose to uphold community standards. I don’t think at this time that they are. I also feel for the children who may not have a parent involved. These books need to read with a parent so they understand. The library all ready is telling us what they think is a good read…sorry,but they have an obligation to live up to community standards.
Let the community have a say in what their tax dollars are paying for. Give the voice back to the people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 0717 hrs
Stan - While I see your point we have to think of the community as a whole. I’d rather have pamphlets at the library with information that children or adults could read with a number they could call for help. That would be more helpful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 09, 2009 at 0721 hrs
Kristina,
Please correct the spelling in your e-mail address or unsubscribe from this thread.
Thanks.
Posted by Jed on July 12, 2009 at 0705 hrs
Jed,
My email is correct but I did re - enter it. I know it is correct because I get an Email notification when a new comment has been left, and I got one from this blog telling me to correct it.
It does not make sense.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2009 at 0952 hrs
Kristina,
I think it was just on one comment (#107).
You may have subscribed under your correct e-mail on one comment, and under the misspelled one on #107.
I’m not getting the bounced e-mails anymore, so it must be fixed now. Thanks.
Posted by Jed on July 12, 2009 at 1024 hrs
Got it Jed thanks
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 12, 2009 at 1822 hrs
I heard Mark Belling on his radio show state he may end up filing a law suit against the City of West Bend for not complying with an ORR.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1300 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 07:56 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).