The West Bend Library & Loony Nutjobs
June 3rd, 2009 by FuzzTagged as: west bend library.
If you haven’t heard already, the West Bend Library is immersed in controversy over whether or not books that contain explicit, adult-oriented material should be moved from the library’s young adult section to the regular adult section.
Those opposed to moving the books consider the proposal to be censorship.
I’m on the record as stating that both sides of the West Bend Library issue are flawed and unable to look at things logically. Last night’s library board meeting only highlighted my sentiments.
The side that wants to move the books is backed by an ultra-religious group that thinks that supplemental pro-Christian material (pamphlets, etc.) should be placed in the library to balance out all of “the smut.” Last night, in fact, one of the “move the books” proponents went as far as to say that books like Harry Potter should be torn up and burned.
Whooooooa, pops. You lost me.
There are books in the young adult (11-15 years old) section that talk about fellatio and all sorts of other sexual acts in great detail. I would feel more comfortable with the library moving those books the regular grown-up section. But burning books? Sorry, Hitler, this is America. We don’t do that here.
The problem with the opposing side is that they come off like they are forcing sexuality down everybody’s throat (so to speak). They say that sexually explicit books should be left in the youth section so that parents “have the choice” of whether or not their kids should be able to read them.
The “parents’ choice” concept sounds reasonable, but then that group also brings kids’ sexuality into the argument. Some of their speakers over the last few months have talked about their own sexuality and how hard it was for them as homosexual teens growing up. They use the adversity that they experienced as an argument for keeping the books where they currently reside.
This issue isn’t about being gay or straight, it’s about sexually explicit books that are mixed in with books written for 11-year-old children.
As a logical parent, without religious or sexual agendas, I would much rather see the books moved to the grown-ups’ section. Moving them still allows parents the ability to dictate what their children read, and since there are no age restrictions on any areas in the library, there is no actual censorship taking place. Everyone is a winner.
Last night, however, the board decided to leave the books amongst the rest. After hearing those screaming about burning books and how God was going to strike them down, there was no way that the board could have sided with those people. I don’t like their decision, but it was the right one at this time.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
Is it because there’s more information available to kids/teens nowadays, is that the reason why we (as a society) want to shelter our children more? Parents and adults need to feel more like gatekeepers of what young people should and should not be exposed to? Obviously my main problem is the religious nutbags that are using the “we want to balance the amount of alternative lifestyle info with faith-based stuff” reason to push their beliefs on younger people. No one buys the “the info should be equal” garbage. I don’t even think the graphic nature of the material is the point of their argument, it’s just easier to get people’s attention and while they’re hootin’ & hollerin’ about porn and all that, they get to hop on their religious agenda. Seems pretty simple to me.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
I took my four kids to the library on Monday. One of them raced to the Junie B. Jones section, another to the Mandie books, one to the early readers, and the other to the Young Adult section. We always meet at “our” table, and I flip through the books to make sure they meet my requirements. For the YA reader, I generally skim the last chapter because it usually if someone does the nasty, they usually refer to it in some way. So of the eight books my YA daughter chose, one of them had a bunch of cuss words in it, one had a cover picture of teenagers in a full-body embrace, one was Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables, two were vampire-y books that seemed generally harmless, and the rest were Nancy Drews.
I’m a hypocrite because I let her keep Les Mis, even though it includes side stories of prostitution and other questionable subjects. She also kept the Nancy Drews and one of the vampire-y books. Other parents might have made different choices. I’d love for the more explicit things to be moved to the adult section, but regardless of where books are, I’ll still have veto power over her choices.
This doesn’t have to be a city-dividing issue. It’s a shame that it’s gone this far.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
You don’t *like* their decision? Are you under the impression that they just went with their “feelings” on this? –even after some of the brilliant, lucid, historical and legal justifications they gave before the vote?
It’s been most interesting to note how everyone keeps dodging around the Constitution.
Each of the ‘requests’ our religiously conservative neighbors made in their evolving complaint had already been dealt with in Supreme Court case law — and rejected by the court.
The board understood those ruling and, more importantly, they understood the rationale behind those rulings.
If you’re suggesting that the Supreme Court simply got all of this wrong, then please let us know which arguments the court screwed up.
Fanatics always find the rule of law intolerable because they don’t believe it applies to them. Last night they were reminded it does.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:13 am
The board made the right decision in keeping the books where they are. The Constitution prohibits a public library from censoring material because some people find it offensive or distasteful. See http://ncac.org/Letter-Opposing-West-Bend-Decision
June 5th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
One correction- the YA section is for 6-12th grade, so approx. 11-12 thru 17-18 years old (not just 11-15). That’s quite an age range, so yeah, there’s going to be stuff there that’s not appropriate for the younger kids. Which is why parents need to do what Wendy above does. Obviously high school students, esp older high school students, often are having sex and the characters in books for them sometimes do too. But it seems obvious to point out that just b/c a kid reads about something doesn’t mean they are going to want to do it, but that seems to be the belief of alot of people supporting WBCSL. And being part of the “other group”, I really think it is inaccurate to portray any of us as “forcing sexuality down everybody’s throat “- quite the opposite. We believe it is the right of parents to decide and would never push these books on anyone. I don’t think personally I would allow my future teens to read “Deal With It” (although depending on my kids maturity, some other books on the list I wouldn’t have a problem with by mid teen age). I can’t speak for everyone, but many of the parents I’ve met seem to be pretty strict and involved with their kids, and would never dream of pushing their personal beliefs on other people’s kids.
Also, the other group uses the word “censorship” because 1) part of the definition is “suppression” or “suppressing information”, not just outright banning and 2) the courts/judges have actually used the word in similar court cases to describe books that were moved/restricted. (see Sund v City of Wichita Falls as one specific example)
June 6th, 2009 at 8:12 am
The government places reasonable limits on guns, yet the constitution explicitly forbids that. The FCC places limits on sexual topics and words that can be shown on TV and radio, and the constitution explicitly forbids that. The library places age limit of 18 on internet access, so a parents are aware that obscene or illegal material may be accessed through the internet and can closely monitor the child, if one so chooses. What’s the difference?
I’m not for banning, burning, or even moving the books, but a permission slip for those under 16 (the legal age of sexual consent) does not seem unreasonable, for books with explicit sexual content, nor a violation of constitutional rights, to me. I need to fill out a registration form if I want to buy a gun, do I not?
June 6th, 2009 at 8:17 am
The librarians should categorize all content as they see fit. Folks who support measures such as this in “the name of their children” are shooting themselves in the feet. Those kids shall consume literature with a disposition of guilt simply by titles being listed by their folks in the first place.
June 6th, 2009 at 8:58 am
James- The library does require parental permission for anyone under the age of 18 to get their own library card. The parent has to be there in person to sign off when the child applies. As the parent, by allowing a child to get a library card and then allowing them to go to the library alone, you are giving them permission to check out any books. Once the child has the library card, the librarians can’t possibly know which books a parent would deem to be “explicit”.
June 6th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Buzymom-”The library does require parental permission for anyone under the age of 18 to get their own library card.”
Thanks Buzymom, I did not know that. I learn something new every day. And that restriction satisfies me that a minor cannot have access to sexual content without a parents knowledge.