This is horrible. I haven't seen the book, but it doesn't sound like it's doing anything bad to me. I can't believe someone actually called it p*rnography. sad sad sad sad. I really wish this stuff didn't go on.
i dunno 10 and Up . . . I don't want anyone chatting at my kid about sex. I don't want my kid with a pent house in the corner Leave it on shelf though . . . I would not let my kid near it. . . . Rocket River
That's exactly it. If parents don't like the book, then the kids don't have to get it. Other parents may actually want the book, and to go over it with their children, or use it as the introduction to the proverbial 'birds and bees' speech.
Not that big of a deal. This is not the first time "It's Perfectly Normal" has been pulled off public library shelves. It was challenged in the Holland (Mass.) Public Library and moved from the children's to the adult section. An Albemarle County, Virginia school board voted 4 to 3 to keep the book on library shelves after parents complained, and it has been removed from some libraries in Florida, New Mexico and Alaska, after public hearings about its content. Massachussetts? Wow. I thought it was 'anything goes' there. The county should be able to decide what goes in their library.
Uhh, no, it shouldn't. The first amendment, at least as interpreted, applies to municipal, county, state, and federal government. In any event, what you call "the county" is more likely a vocal minority of people with nothing better to do seeking to impose their own moral code on others. So they shouldn't be able to decide what I can read.
They did decide didn't they? The only problem is that they decided on side of censorship. I guess that's there right, as long as freedom of speech wasn't violated. Hopefully the people who made that decision will lose elections or be fired from their jobs by whoever wins the next elections and is able to make those appointments. Though I kind of think that the library should be able to decide for itself. I think librarians usually have a better idea about books, since it's their jobs than politicians who run counties.
The issue here is that they PULLED IT . . . Honestly, the solution is. . . you never should have bought it in the 1st place. Their would not have been ANY fuss about it This is a case where they need to know what the hell they buying before they put it out there. On books like this they need to have some kind of Counsel to judge and make the decisions I don't want the d*mn Pyromaniac's Bible on the shelves. . . but if you put it there and then try to pull it. . . it only gonna make things worse. Rocket River Anyone ever grab a book off the bottom shelf in the back of the library . . . very few. . . million places to hide a book in the library Censorship .. it can come in many forms
So I guess we should start having a Penthouse/Hustler section of the library? Why shouldn't the people who pay for the library to exist not have a say in what books are there?
Why would u think that? Librarians are human too. Their job is to manage a library . . knowing books is just a perk. Also Politicians are suppose to be the representative of THE PEOPLE. In being so . . . They are the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. U know. . .sometimes the ENLIGHTENED kill me. [not directed at you or anyone in particular] In that, If the community wants it out. . . then in my opinion it goes. However, the ENLIGHTEN sometimes tends to say . . .well the majority is wrong. . and they need to be educated [which loosely translates to I KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THOSE IDIOTS . . MORESO THAN THEY DO . . . which is strangely enough what censorship is about] If a community [majority] don't want it .. . Hiding behind the 1st amendment is useless to me. . . The right to free speech is kewl but i think folx in a community should have some say in what enters into it .. . . Rocket River
Ah, Freak. As usual, arguing just to argue. The people who oppose the book in question are a group of 10 people including a minister and the head of the conservative Republicans of Montgomery County, a splinter group that is barely even recognized by the Montgomery County GOP which is conservative enough for most. The people in question are from Cut 'n Shoot, Texas and are mainly opposed to the fact that the book does not condemn homosexuality as immoral. The commissioners did the right thing by referring this to a panel of citizens and librarians. This is their job, not politicians.
True, Librarians make mistakes. But hopefully they know books, and how to run a library too. It may not always be right, but they do have background and their opinion should count. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Look at Britney Spears, Ricky Martin, Disco, Achey Breaky heart etc.
yeah, that's exactly what I said. Briefly stated, in the context of 1st amendment, regulation of speech on the basis of content is generally prohibited. In the school library context, we are generally (and rightly, IMO) recognized to have the right to receive information and the gov't isn't supposed to be able to filter that content. However, this doesn't apply to all kinds of speech, especially to commercial speech (advertising) and obscenity. These kinds of speech get much lower levels of protection. Some speech, like child p*rn, gets no protection at all, deservedly so. This book does not fit into those categories. It's a pretty decent system, though difficult at the margins, like all systems. I see no reason why Montgomery Cty should be exempt As for your "I pay the money so I should say what it pays for" argument, lets just apply it to every single context imaginable "I am against landmines, so my taxes shouldn't buy them" "I am against the death penalty, so I shouldn't have to pay for it" "I am against public education", blah blah blah. Essentially, this is useless.
Define obscenity. I believe a determination of obscenity would have to reflect community standards, since we're talking about the community's library (I could be wrong). If this county feels this book is obscene, they should have the right to pull it off the shelf, as has been done in at least 3 other states. Who should decide if the book is obscene? We're not talking about not having to pay taxes. These people are contacting their local representatives to affect change. The book is now getting reviewed. There will be a determination made on its inclusion in the library. If what Jeff says is true and this is really a miniscule amount of people we're talking about here, it will probably remain. That's the way it should work. I just don't see what the big deal is.
Obscene is legally defined (roughly) as catering only to prurient interests and lacking artistic social literary or cultural value, applying contemporary (average) community standards. You can use a local standard to determine the first part, but you need to use a national one to determine if it has value You might have a different definition, and you might lump anything that doesn't sufficiently condemn homosexuality in with Hustler or whatever, which is why you are free to ignore it, but the government has to apply, at an absolute minimum, a much looser (average person) standard, thanks to the First Amendment and the way its been interpreted. The very fact that this book was on other states library shelves to begin with, approved by the ALA, and whatever else (and that a libarian from the community willingly ordered it) indicates to me that it is almost impossible to determine that it has no literary, social etc. value under a national standard. I don't think it could fail the test at all. However, this test is applied by judges, so the county would be subject to judicial review in any event. If people want to affect change, they should do it in November at the ballot box. That is the method that we have in this country for getting rid of ideas we disagree with, not by having some governmental body unilaterally deeming ideas and expressions inappropriate.
I fail to see how they did this. As far as I can tell, anyone who desires to read this book can do so. They just can't get it from the public library. I really don't believe "freedom of speech" is equivalent to "has to be provided by the public library."
The supreme court has decided otherwise. Nobody said that it "had to be provided by the public library", but the government is explicitly forbidden to remove it because of its content bc of the reasons discussed above. I don't mind having a broadly interpreted first amendment. The problem is this: the people who don't want to read it have a perfect solution: to not read it. This solution is at no cost to people who do want to read it. THe other alternative, is for the government to take it away. The people who don't want to read it are in the same place, but now the people who do are less well off than before. That is a pretty stupid outcome, and fortunately our legal regime prevents it.
