Monday, November 9, 2009

ALA Controls Nicholasville, KY; Freedom of Speech Denied by Library; Library Director Says Kids Have First Amendment Right to Inappropriate Material

How many times has SafeLibraries pointed out how the American Library Association [ALA] controls local libraries? Well, here's an article that proves it and details how it's done: "Child Protection or Censorship? Library Employees Lose Jobs Over Book," by Amy Wilson, Lexington Herald-Leader, 8 November 2009.

First, let me set up the story (that I first presented in "Librarians Fired for Not Pornifying Child").

A library in Nicholasville, KY, has material that is inappropriate for children. All libraries do. This is not a problem. A library worker then sees that an 11 year old has placed a hold on some material she decided long ago is inappropriate for children. Whether or not she is correct is irrelevant. So she and another library worker delete the child's hold on the book. The very next day, both are fired by the library director at the behest of the library board.

The fired employees then act to prevent children from accessing inappropriate material in their own library. They and dozens of supporters go to the next library board meeting to express their views. But the library board refuses to hear any of them, saying they were not on the agenda.

Firing the two employees the day after the supposed offense was not on the agenda either, but that was done overnight. On the other hand, dozens of citizens show up at a library board meeting to discuss the firings and what can be done to protect children and they are all told they may not speak because they are not on the agenda. To me, that is a double standard—the firings were done overnight by the library board, but that same board refused to listen to anyone at a public meeting with the thinly-veiled excuse that it was not on the agenda. Are libraries supposed to be bastions of free speech or does free speech have to be on the agenda?

It gets worse. The library actually refuses to comply with the citizens. Why? It has accepted the ALA's so-called "Library Bill of Rights" as its guiding principles. Not what people want, not adherence to local law. No, it follows the ALA.

That "Library Bill of Rights" was once a worthy document. Then "age" discrimination was added to the document. Its inclusion was affirmed years later. Now it is considered a violation for a librarian to keep inappropriate material from children.

So you have a community that wants to protect children from inappropriate material, and you have a library that wants to ensure children retain access to that same inappropriate material. In that battle, guess who wins? The ALA. The children lose.

How does the ALA win? They have a huge organization called the "Office for Intellectual Freedom" that propagandizes the public with false information to convince librarians, library employees, and the people generally that the First Amendment requires communities to toss aside all common sense or adherence to local laws and interests. The ALA points out that preventing access to information is illegal. It may be, but that is not the issue. Inappropriate material for children is not "information," unless anyone considers graphic sexual descriptions of an x-rated nature to be "information." Could anyone imagine our Founder Fathers dying for the right to allow public libraries to make inappropriate material available to children? "Give my child porn, or give me death!"

The ALA also wins by attacking local individuals who oppose ALA policy and anyone who helps them. (Like me.) The local individuals are called "censors" and "book banners." Wait, it is bound to happen if it has not already. Here's the ALA laughing at people like this: "'What we're dealing with is a minority of people who are very vocal,' [Judith] Krug said. 'These people are small in number but they start screeching, and people start getting concerned.'" Source: "Parent Loses Fight to Ban Book; Committee Votes to Keep 'Abduction!' on Library Shelves," by Bao Ong, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 19 May 2006.

Krug. She's the same ALA leader who accused parents of being racist when they attempted to remove a bestiality book from public school, because the author was black.

So the ALA argues that laws covering instances of obscenity and pornography protect libraries, but neither of those are the real issues. The real issue is that a community gets to decide for itself what is appropriate in its own public library, and it need not be forced to leave children exposed to inappropriate material just because the ALA is effective at spreading its propaganda and besmirching local citizens.

Further, many local libraries are created by some legal instrument that may list what the library may or may not do. If the library follows ALA policy and acts outside this local law, the government has full authority to ensure the library acts within the law without breaching the library's veil of autonomy. I urge Nicholasville, KY, residents to find this local law and see if it helps them. (Perhaps post it in a comment below for all to see.)

Here is some truth you will never, not once, hear from the 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." That is from the US Supreme Court case of US v. ALA in 2003. The Court went on to protect children from inappropriate material on the Internet. The ALA would have you believe, however, that US v. ALA is irrelevant and that their own "Library Bill of Rights" somehow trumps the US Supreme Court, local law, community standards, and common sense.

The Nicholasville, KY, community is perfectly within its rights to decide to protect children from inappropriate material in the library. It can see to it that the library policy reflects the community's views and the local law. To the extent it does not, the offending library policy can be excised and removed. If the current library board will not do it, a new board can be appointed that will act in accordance with the community. For example, in West Bend, WI, four library board members were not reappointed after is was clear they were refusing to comply with their own materials reconsideration policy. See "West Bend, WI, Affirms Library Ouster Setting National Example of Local Control Despite Outside Influence." Other remedies are also available.

Now let's get back to that article I linked at the top. Let's look in that article to support the statements I have made.

The following shows the denial of the freedom of speech—keep in mind kids supposedly get access to inappropriate material as a matter of freedom of speech, but those who oppose ALA policies controlling their public library are quite obviously shut down:

On Oct. 21, at its first meeting after the firings, the library board of directors found they needed a policy for public comment. Fifty people showed up unannounced to tell the library what they thought on the board's recent personnel actions.

Also on hand were [Sharon] Cook and [Beth] Boisvert, who had prepared a power-point presentation of their case. It wasn't, they say, about keeping their jobs. It was about the fact that they had thought the book they found on the shelves of the library had originally been a mistake.

And the shock, they say, was that it wasn't. (The book had been bought originally because a patron had requested it.)

The presentation was created to explain that the Jessamine library's collection "currently contains material, readily available on its shelves, that is improper for children to view."

Moreover, they say they wanted to warn the library board that Kentucky law prohibits distribution of pornographic material to a child and they are concerned that the Jessamine library could be in felony violation.

They wanted to offer a plan for resolution: Because the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1973 that obscenity could be determined by local community standards, Jessamine County citizens should determine what they want their children to have access to.

They wanted to then suggest that the library change its policy on censorship.

Boisvert said she wanted them to know that "because we are a conservative community, we will choose to have our children protected."

Cook and Boisvert were never given the opportunity to speak. Neither was anyone else in the gallery. The reason given: It was not on the agenda.

People left really, really riled.

Director [Ron] Critchfield has repeatedly said the library will not comment on personnel matters. The library, instead, has been left to try to speak through its policies.

Next, this illustrates the double standard, in consideration of the above that the library board would not accept public comment because it was not on the agenda. Well, I am certain an overnight firing by the library board did not get on any agenda either:

On Sept. 22, Cook told two of her colleagues at the library about her dilemma, and Beth Boisvert made a decision. She would take the book off hold, thus disallowing the child — or the child's parents — ever to see the book.

On Sept. 23, both Cook and Boisvert were fired. They were told by library director Ron Critchfield the firings were a decision of the library board.

Now look at this from the article, showing how the library chooses to follow ALA direction instead of local direction. The library director actually intimates that children have a First Amendment right to inappropriate material:

The Jessamine library had, before any complaint, adopted the American Library Association's policy manual and code of ethics as its own. (It is also the policy and code of ethics adopted by the state library association.)

It states: "Expurgation of any parts of books or other library resources by the library, its agent, or its parent institution is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights because it denies access to the complete work, and, therefore, to the entire spectrum of ideas that the work was intended to express."

Further, in the ALA's Code of Ethics: "We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representations of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources."

Critchfield has made a form of public comment: an open letter in the Jessamine Journal. In part, he wrote:

"As customers of a public library there is a First Amendment expectation to respect the rights of all persons — what one person might view as questionable might be quite important and relevant to another."

Exactly what "ideas" does inappropriate material for children express that makes it worth tossing aside local interests and US Supreme Court statements and accepting instead the ALA's point of view? Keep in mind the ALA's policy on children was created on its own and forced into libraries by an ACLU member now with the ALA. The ALA/ACLU controls the Jessamine County Public Library, not the library's patrons and taxpayers?

Oh look, the ALA got directly involved, though in a legitimate, informational fashion:

As to the charge about Cook's concern that the library was in violation of the state obscenity laws?

Deborah Caldwell-Stone, acting director of the ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom, says no U.S. library employee has ever been charged with that in a situation like this. Most states, including Kentucky, have written in an exclusion provision to that law, barring prosecution of libraries and education and scientific institutions.

Nevermind obscenity is not the issue. We are all supposed to think that since the book does not meet the legal definition of obscenity, the library must shelve it and make it available to children.

Critchfield would not comment on the terminations because they are personnel matters.

Gee, that is not a surprise, given library directors do not discuss:

I suppose the Nicholasville, KY, community can relax knowing it is in good hands with Critchfield and the ALA.



  1. You synopsis of the events leaves out one thing in the opening paragraph, which you wrote: "A library in Nicholasville, KY, has material that is inappropriate for children. All libraries do. This is not a problem. A library worker then sees that an 11 year old has placed a hold on some material she decides is inappropriate for children. Whether or not she is correct is irrelevant. So she and another library worker delete the child's hold on the book. The very next day, both are fired by the library director at the behest of the library board."

    The library worker didn't 'see' that an 11 yera old girl wanted to check out the book....she saw a name of a person who placed the book on hold, weeks after the woman who worked at the library repeatedly checked out the book so that NOBODY (not just a child) could borrow the book.

    When the 11 year old girl placed the book on reserve, the woman who worked at the library was unable to renew the book.

    She then went into the system on her own, and looked to see the information stored in the computer and found that this young lady was 11 years old.

    This library worker was NOT protecting children, she was accessing records of who was taking out what at the library (a clear violation of library policies that are posted).

    She keeps saying that she is doing it to protect the child, but she had already taken the book out of circulation WEEKS before the 11 year old girl even requested it.

  2. Ron Thibodeau, thanks for commenting.

    I'll have to agree with you. Something was clearly not done correctly by those two women.

    Be that as it may, what the library board did does not seem on the up and up either. To fire them overnight while residents at a library board meeting are told to talk to the hand seems really bad. Freedom of speech was not on the agenda that night.

    Obviously the library board agreed to fire her, and obviously that agreement occurred overnight. Doesn't that violate some sort of open meetings law?

    The library can meet overnight to fire people but they refuse to listen to residents at a regularly scheduled board meeting?

    And why is the library director essentially saying children have a First Amendment right to inappropriate material? No they do not.

    Why does the US Supreme Court say it is appropriate to keep young library users from inappropriate material but the ALA's Library Bill of Rights is not amended accordingly, then is forced on local communities, like in Nicholasville. Heck even the library director believes kids have First Amendment rights to inappropriate materials.

    I'll make you a bet that if you polled the community to ask if the public library should ignore US Supreme Court cases and common sense and instead adhere to the ALA's "anything goes" policies that may violate local library laws, that would be the end of that.

    Thanks again for commenting.

  3. This is West Bend deja vu all over again.

    And I'll make you a bet that after you poll the community, the ALA and OIF will come in and stomp all over them and they will be forced to "go away" as the library director stands with satisfaction on his lips. Yeah, I think I'm right about that. But you don't have to take MY word for it.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  7. I am removing the comments of "Non-Censor" as he has resorted to personal attack, my blog posts are filled with his personal attacks, I recently got him to address the issues, but he has returned to personal attack.

  8. Kentucky has a clear-cut open meetings law. Board decisions must be made in public session, and special sessions must be publicly announced. It seems likely this wasn't the case with the board's decision to fire these employees.

  9. I don't know the Kentucky situation specifically, but generally speaking, personnel matters such as hiring, discipline, and firing are not discussed in open meetings. Such matters have a specific exemption in most open meeting laws.

  10. Right, Non-Censor, but don't they go into "executive session" for things like that? Doesn't there still have to be an open meeting in the first place during which the "executive session" is held? That's been my experience, at least.

  11. Answering that question requires a detailed knowledge of procedural specifics that neither of us has.

  12. SafeLibraries is correct. Boards in Kentucky cannot go into executive session unless they have convened a public meeting, made and passed a motion to go into closed session. After discussion of a closed matter (such as hiring, firing or discipline of an employee), the board must return to open session, make any decision it's going to make (no decision may be made in closed session), then adjourn the meeting. Meetings also must be publicized, and they're are specific guidelines for what must happen regarding a special meeting, as opposed to a regularly-scheduled meeting. For more information, visit

  13. As the above-quoted section of KY code says:

    61.810 Exceptions to open meetings

    (f) Discussions or hearings which might lead to the appointment, discipline, or dismissal of an individual employee, member, or student without restricting that employee's, member's, or student's right to a public hearing if requested. This exception shall not be interpreted to permit discussion of general personnel matters in secret;

  14. The key word in Non-Censor's quote is "discussion." Discussion can in fact happen in closed session, but in Kentucky, unannounced board meetings are illegal and decisions must be made in open session.

  15. More information on closed sessions in Kentucky is below. Read this (or the thing in its entirety) then go back and read the newspaper account of things. It's hard to reconcile the account with the legal requirements for board decisions.

    From KRS 61.815--Requirements for conducting closed sessions(

    (a) Notice shall be given in regular open meeting of the general nature of the business to be discussed in closed session, the reason for the closed session, and the specific provision of KRS 61.810 authorizing the closed session;
    (b) Closed sessions may be held only after a motion is made and carried by a majority vote in open, public session;
    (c) No final action may be taken at a closed session; and
    (d) No matters may be discussed at a closed session other than those publicly announced prior to convening the closed session.

    KRS 61.823--Special meetings -- Emergency meetings ( this about notifying the public of special meetings:

    "As soon as possible, written notice shall also be posted in a conspicuous place in the building where the special meeting will take place and in a conspicuous place in the building which houses the headquarters of the agency. The notice shall be calculated so that it shall be posted at least twenty-four (24) hours before the special meeting."

  16. I guess the point of all this back and forth about meeting procedures is to imply that somehow either the library director or the library board violated some procedures in terminating the two employees.

    I have no way of knowing if that happened. Neither does anybody else, unless and until the two fired employees reveal a great deal more detail about who said what to whom and when. None of the news sources reveal what personnel actions were taken in the past regarding these employees, nor describes in any detail the recent termination procedure.

    **IF** there was some procedural violation, I would agree there was certainly no excuse for that. The employees gave clear grounds for termination, and the newspaper article indicates that the library has had year to make sure its procedural i's are dotted and t's crossed. Everything should have been done strictly by the book.

  17. In your original comment, you stated, "Whether or not she is correct is irrelevant." On the contrary, it is highly relevant that she deliberately went against their library policy in her actions. That is insubordination and grounds for dismissal. Case closed. Had she not been fired, none of this would not have received the media attention it has. I feel that it is two disgruntled former employees who are trying to "get back at" the Library Board and the Library Director (whom by the way has a PhD). How formally educated are the two former employees?

  18. The last Anonymous is obviously different from the previous Anonymous. As to the previous Anonymous, thank you for you getting involved here and especially for, "Read this (or the thing in its entirety) then go back and read the newspaper account of things. It's hard to reconcile the account with the legal requirements for board decisions."

    Now, as to the last Anonymous, you are right, it is not irrelevant. But I was speaking in regard to the issues I am raising in this particular blog post, not any other context. Thanks for writing.

  19. You should always check your facts before writing such an article. Many of your "facts" are twisted and untrue. Jessamine County Public Library staff are a caring, knowledgeable staff, most of whom are parents themselves. It all comes down to the fact that two staff members went against policy on more than one occasion and was released of their duties because of their own acts. Where were the child's parents guidance during the library use? Parents should be responsible for their children's reading selection, not library staff.

  20. Library boards typically have one employee: the director. The director would make the decisions on hiring/firing for the rest of the staff. The Library might meet to discuss the director's decision but it is unlikely that they met to decide the termination overnight.

  21. SafeLibraries should be ashamed of themselves. ALA has nothing to do with this, they were just one of the weapons used in this fight against censorship, by the library's own employees no less. These ladies were fired for repeatedly breaking many library policies. No more, no less.

  22. In Kentucky, library boards do not have the power to hire/fire anyone other than the library director. So the information in the Herald-Leader's story was clearly mistaken. The employees could not have been fired by the board. It is my understanding that the library has properly followed open meeting procedure, and the public will be given the opportunity to address the board at its next meeting, because it has been placed on the agenda.

  23. Agreed with the Anonymous above. Take some time to learn about procedure. The board is NOT responsible for the hiring/firing of personnel other than the library director. There is no reason for a "secret meeting" with the board in this instance as that decision is under the jurisdiction of one person: the director.

  24. Various Anons have begun to address me and my "twisted and untrue" facts instead of the issues, and why I should be "ashamed." Therefore, know that:

    1) I have reread my original post and find nothing in it that addresses any library staff member other than those fired. I do address the library director's evident view that the First Amendment allows children access to inappropriate material, but I do not think a library director is considered part of the staff. I also address the library board's ironic free speech surprises (people were not allowed to speak and left "riled"--at my public meetings there are always open comments for the public no matter what's on the agenda) and possible illegal activity (firing people overnight, possibly more), but I do not consider the board to be part of the staff either.

    2) The issues I raised pertained to the library, the library director and board, their apparent allegiance to the ALA, the lack of local control over the library, and what the community can do to regain control. I intentionally set the fired library workers and their actions aside to focus on the issues I raised. It is perfectly legitimate to focus on the library's actions and responses thereto. To the extent I am being repeatedly skewered for "twisted and untrue" facts about the staff, etc., that only confirms to me that I have hit the nail on the head as attempts are made to raise nonissues to get others to ignore the true issues I raised. The true issue is that the library is not responsive to the local community, the reason is likely the ALA, and the community may take lawful action using existing and local law and other means to regain control of the library from local ALA acolytes.

    3) I am not "ashamed" of reporting on what was printed in the original article: "The Jessamine library had, before any complaint, adopted the American Library Association's policy manual and code of ethics as its own." Based on that, I assumed the library adopted the ALA's policy manual and code of ethics as its own. My assumption seems to have been confirmed by the library director who said, again reprinting from the article, "As customers of a public library there is a First Amendment expectation to respect the rights of all persons — what one person might view as questionable might be quite important and relevant to another." If people do not know, that is the essence of the ALA view and the very reason why the word "age" was added to its vaunted "Library Bill of Rights." Could you imagine the real Bill of Rights allowing children access to inappropriate material? I doubt allowing children access to inappropriate material is the view of Nicholasville, KY, residents, or this story would not be a story in the first place. Further, I know it is not the view of the US Supreme Court which said, as I quoted and hyperlinked in my original post, "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." I explained this in the original post. Obviously Anon's saying "SafeLibraries should be ashamed of themselves. ALA has nothing to do with this" is merely wishful thinking by those wishing to ensure children retain access to inappropriate material. In my opinion, the ALA's continuing to claim age discrimination in the library context is wrong despite the US Supreme saying in US v. ALA the exact opposite is the obvious problem, not my reporting that the ALA is defying the law and controlling local community libraries with ALA acolytes like Critchfield. Maybe it's the ALA that should be "ashamed."

    4) I appreciate everyone here commenting on the issues raised in the original blog post, especially those who understand the difference between censorship and keeping children from inappropriate material. Please consider subscribing to my blog as I have even hotter topics waiting in the wings.

  25. I don't know who said this originally, but “Slander is the revenge of a coward, and dissimulation his defense”.
    There is so much misinformation, energy and venom being used against the library management and Dr. Critchfield, it saddens me to think that such slanderous behavior may be witnessed by these opponents' children. Such behavior is not admirable; it is as despicable as the very wrong behaviors of which the library management is being wrongfully accused. Those of you who claim to know all about this issue, let me ask: How do you know? From your online sources? From your online "friends"? From the newspapers? Do not believe everything you read or hear, lest you be proven a fool later on. Would you tell your children to act upon everything they initially hear? To trust everyone they "meet" online as friends?
    Almost everything I have read or heard regarding the "facts" in this whole case have actually been nothing more than hearsay and slander, and I am disgusted to be reminded of how witch hunts, persecutions and other atrocities have been fueled over the centuries: by use of human ignorance and stupidity.

  26. "They have a huge organization called the "Office for Intellectual Freedom" that propagandizes the public with false information"

    The OIF consists of six staff members. Six, count 'em, six. That's huge, all right, if not on scale with your nonsense about ALA's evil minions controlling local libraries and your ongoing attacks on a dead woman. You must be so proud.

  27. Anonymous, another clever argument. It both belittles me and avoids the issues at the same time.

    The OIF being as "huge" to the ALA as it is is not my assessment. I am only reporting what everyone can read for themselves. That assessment comes from the Library Journal and the School Library Journal.

    In fact, you, Anonymous, are the one disgracing the woman. This is the woman you are disgracing by joking how small and insignificant is the OIF:

    "Like many of you, I became a librarian after the profession had been significantly shaped by Judith Krug. In fact, Krug, who died last month, had an influence on American librarianship that was so profound and far-reaching it was easy to take her contributions for granted, forgetting how much we owed this one woman.

    "Krug was director of the American Library Association’s (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom since its founding in 1967 and executive director of the Freedom to Read Foundation since 1969. It was her leadership that established intellectual freedom as one of the defining principles of our work, and in the past 40 years, ALA has emerged as a champion in protecting citizens’ rights to freedom of expression, freedom of inquiry, and privacy in seeking information."

    Source: "The Ultimate Role Model: Remembering Judith Krug; We Are All Part of Krug's Legacy," by Brian Kenney, Editor-in-Chief, School Library Journal, 1 May 2009.

    Apparently, Anonymous, it is you who has "take[n] her contributions for granted." You, Anonymous, are a disgrace to so belittle the very office, the very person, at the core of the ALA. I have never once done that, and reporting on her actual statements is not belittling her.

    "Krug's position in ALA was so strong that she easily convinced the association to spend huge amounts on intellectual freedom, even in rare battles ALA couldn't win in the courts. ALA can always dish up lip service to its values, but when it comes to spending money—especially endowment money guarded by trustees as if it were their own—it has often backed off. Until Krug, ALA had never paid such a high price for principles so crucial to the profession or for such difficult challenges."

    Source: "Blatant Berry: The Irreplaceable Krug," by John N. Berry III, Editor-at-Large, Library Journal, 16 April 2009.

    That's the "Six, count 'em, six. That's huge, all right" OIF that Anonymous is mocking. No wonder he remains "Anonymous."

    Here is more on the central role of the OIF to the ALA.

    I stand by my original statement, this time backed up by the leading library journals.

  28. Recent articles of note:

    "Jessamine Library Board Hears Public Comment About Book-Checkout Policy," by Amy Wilson, Lexington Herald-Leader, 19 November 2009:

    "Wednesday's meeting was the first chance for the public to address the issue in front of the board."

    No it wasn't. It was the second chance--it was just allowed for the first time. At the first chance, the library board refused to allow about 50 people to speak saying it was not on the agenda, as my blog post points out.

    "It's About Privacy, Not Porn," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 18 November 2009:

    "Despite the ALA's position that all materials should be available to people of all ages, most people regard this as nonsense. There's nothing wrong with keeping pornography from children. If any library disagrees, they're free to take my Library Porn Challenge by subscribing to Hustler Magazine and displaying it in the children's section. If any library does that, they'd have the full support of the ALA behind them, so why not take the challenge?"

  29. At least to a certain extent, Nicholasville, KY, controls the ALA! The book and many others like it have been moved to the adult section!

    And the ALA is angry. It acts like a sore loser. This from Deborah Caldwell-Stone of the ALA's so-called "Office for Intellectual Freedom":

    "'We're seeing increasing contentious challenges like this,' she says. 'They pursue a public relations campaign that divide communities and then don’t allow for reasoned thought about the books or library policy.'"

    Oh, okay, so residents in Nicholasville, KY, got the books moved "given community concerns over the current placement of graphic novels" by people dividing that community. Nice, ALA! And they "don't allow for reasoned thought about the books or library policy." That's code words for they bucked the ALA and how dare they.

    If any other community is seeing this, when you also prevail over the ALA, you too will be attacked as divisive and censorious.

    See for yourself:

    "KY Library Relocates Graphic Novels After Staffers Fired," by Lauren Barack, School Library Journal, 9 December 2009.

    Will the staffers be rehired now?

  30. A comment above has an outdated link. Here is the updated one:

    "It's About Privacy, Not Porn," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 18 November 2009.

  31. Honestly, I don't think it's either the library's job or the government's to decide what material is 'inappropriate' for my children. That's MY job as a parent. Period. A child who is 11 is, by definition, a minor under the control of her parents, and it should be her parents' decision, and no one else's, what she is and is not allowed to read. I'd find it just as offensive for a library employee to attempt to restrict access as I would any government organization insisting I provide access against my wishes.


Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.