Appropriate to the Day

[lagilman]

In light of this being a day we celebrate those who gave much -- or all -- to protect our liberties, I think y'all should go read this.

http://neadods.livejournal.com/906512.html

"I'm doing this to protect you, whether you want me to or not." That would be "not," thank you very damn much. Especially if you're going to start digging around in information your fellow librarians fought to protect, when the government was doing the digging.

Feel free to comment here or there. This is something that needs to be discussed, and spread.

Comments

[celticboy.livejournal.com]

Hmm on one finger of one hand, I can understand someone being concerned over whether the book was appropriate for public consumption, and I applaud the thought.

But, this woman went about it ENTIRELY the wrong fricking way. Instead of firstly denying anyone the right to read it, have flagged it for discussion with anyone checking it out. If the 11 year old had turned up to collect it (hopefully with a parent/guardian), it's at that point she could have said to the parent/guardian "you may want to read this for yourself first, to make sure it's appropriate".

The second she contemplated examining the private details of someone in order to judge whether she should "allow" it, she's putting herself in place of that guardian. My response to that consists of two words, the second of which is Off and the first is not suitable for printing.

I'm GLAD they fired her. I'd also charge her with theft if she does not return the libraries property (said book), and prevent her from working in another library. her actions, though initially well-intentioned, were completely and utterly in contradiction of her position. This is a classic case of someone achieving a small degree of power and exploiting it to the ludicrous.

[lagilman]

Personally I find the phrase "appropriate for public consumption" to be directly in opposition to the First Amendment.

We can choose to not read something, we can choose to read something. But we do not have the right -- IMO -- to say "this is not acceptable for anyone to read." We get to patrol ourselves and our direct reports, and that's IT.

Hell, there's stuff I personally wouldn't touch with someone else's pole, but if you're going to let your kids read it, I have no right to do anything other than say "oh dear."

(that said, publishers also have the right to say "we don't want to publish this." That's not censorship, because they're not in a position to say "Nobody can publish this," just choosing for themselves.)

Hrm. Choice. Why is it that a certain portion of the world's population has such trouble with that word?

[celticboy.livejournal.com]

Firstly, I'm not an American. I think that the First Amendment is, in the main, an excellent thing to have, but sometimes, on occasion, it is the refuge of unsavouriness. Whilst it means that newspapers can publish things of Watergate importance, it also means that Jack Chick can publish utter bullshit and call it the truth. Swings & Roundabouts. I would never advocate that the 1st is a bad thing though, because the good it does and has done far outweights the bad.

What I meant by "appropriate for public consumption" is the fact that there are some things that people, if in possession of the facts, would choose not to read. For me a librarian (or my comic dealer) is a sainted thing. They know what I like to read, they know how I feel about certain topics and can make educated guesses as to what I might like or dislike. That's not censorship, it's guidance. And Guidance is what I like.

Let's be brutally honest, some parents are lousy. They don't care what their child sees, reads, says or does. It's at this point that a child needs guidance from an appropriate person, in this case, a librarian that can say "maybe this isn't suitable for you" In this case, the NON librarian should not have interfered with the process and instead said "Maybe this isn't something your daughter would like, because of this, this and this. If you still think it's ok for her to read it, then by all means, check the book out, but perhaps look through it just in case". I'd have been happy for that to happen. You're still giving the parent the final choice.

Personally, I have no problem with choice, but I still prefer informed choice.

[mtlawson.livejournal.com]

She began to go off the rails when she decided to check the book out in perpetuity. Once the one flaw in that scheme was exposed (someone placing the book on hold), her urge to keep the book away from patrons overrode any semblance of propriety. As an employee of a public institution, you can't go poking around in customer records like that and make decisions that are not yours to make.

(Short aside: at our local library, when you sign your kid up for a card, you can specify what type of book they are allowed to check out (all types, or childrens/young adult only). If this library system has the same process in place, then the kid's parents already approved her access to all adult materials. She is allowed to check the graphic novel out, and the responsibility for whether she should read it or not falls on her parents.

Amazing that the people who are so for keeping the government out of schools and people's lives are also so in favor of said government stepping in and blocking people's access to 'unacceptable' books.

[ex-fashioni.livejournal.com]

Let me guess... the Kentucky librarians?

The self-righteousness and sense of entitlement is staggering.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

Talk about a serious invasion of privacy and blatant abuse of the system. It's not so much censorship as it is the abuse of power by this person when they were employed by that Library.