OPEN LETTER TO WEST BEND COMMON COUNCIL
4 May 2009
West Bend Common Council
City of West Bend
1115 S. Main Street
West Bend, WI 53095
Dear Members of the West Bend Common Council,
Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the American Library Association's [ALA] new Acting Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom [OIF], has made objectively-discernible false and misleading public statements. Other pressure groups, such as the National Coalition Against Censorship, are similarly mistaken. The various statements may mislead governmental officials and citizens into choosing to continue to abide ALA policy instead of legally protecting community children from inappropriate material in the West Bend Community Memorial Library. This letter is an attempt to shine the light of truth on such statements so the West Bend Common Council might be fully informed before making any decision related to the public library.
Bear in mind that for almost a decade Caldwell-Stone has been with the OIF, including as Deputy Director, and should by now be expected to be knowledgeable in the facts and the law. Significantly false and misleading statements should be inexcusable at this point in her career.
Caldwell-Stone appeared on WORT-FM's weekly radio show in Madison, WI, called "Queery," to discuss the library controversy in West Bend, WI. The show aired on 29 April 2009 at 7 PM local time and can be heard in its entirety at this link.
Transcript of the ALA's Acting Director of the OIF
Here is a transcript of the relevant sections of the Caldwell-Stone interview (permissible under US Copyright §107 Fair Use). She provided some information that was for the most part factually correct, so those sections are not controversial and are not included. The questions from the show's hosts are included for context. Timestamps are provided for those desiring to jump to the relevant sections:
19:27 Host: And joining us next is Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the Acting Director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom to talk about the national context of these book challenges. Thanks for joining us.
19:39 Caldwell-Stone: Uh, thanks for having me on.
19:41 Host: Hi Debra, how common are these book challenges at public libraries?
19:46 Caldwell-Stone: Um-ah, there, they unfortunately happen a little too frequently for our taste, um, however, I will say that, ah, a majority of the challenges we saw this year occur in the school setting, but it doesn't prevent it from being raised in the public library setting as well, um, ah, and the attempts to go after young adult materials, specifically those aimed, um, at, um, ah, gay, lesbian and transgender, ah, youth or portraying characters, ah, in literature, ah, that are gay, lesbian or transgender is, ah, fairly common these days. Ah-um, we saw a similar challenge to the one going on in West Bend in St. Louis County, um, and, ah, and again in that instance the library preserved the young adult program and resisted the attempts to remove the books from the library, but, um, ah, unfortunately as I said we see this all too often.
22:04 Host: Um, ah, some of the, um, I guess, arguments for restricting the books, um, you're saying it's not banning, and it's not really censoring, it's not really preventing the people from from reading these books and, ah anyway these books say a-awful things like, um, you know, um, ah, a girl's breast grows over the summer, I know that was one of the things cited as pornographic on one of the web sites, so, you know, what's so bad about restricting access to these books?
22:34 Caldwell-Stone: When the, ah, hhh, when you take books away from the youth area, when you slap a label on them that says this is a bad book and we probably shouldn't be reading it, when you put roadblocks in the way of kids accessing information and ideas like oh you need your parent's written permission to get the book, it's a form of censorship. It's denying access because somebody disapproves of the content of the materials, and, uh, you know, in fact, you know, libraries have attempted this by saying we're only taking the book out of the children's room and put it, putting it in the adult area, and, li a library that actually attempted this in, ah, Wichita Falls, Texas, was sued by the local ACLU and a citizen's group and lost that lawsuit and the court ordered the books back into the children's room on the grounds that these are works that are written for and aimed for, ah, a youth audience, and by putting them in the adult section, by labeling them in a way that judges the content, um, they, the, there's a violation of the First Amendment rights of youth, which is sometimes forgotten in these debates because young people do have First Amendment rights, particularly, ah, young people who are coming of age, they have a right to access information and ideas in the library as much as anyone, and these kinds of restrictions that are solely designed to limit access, to make the books hidden, to try to prevent people from getting access to the information, um, fall under the category of this kind of censorship. So, uh, needless to say we have, you know, we, we've, oppo, you know, we really oppose these kinds of tactics, ah, because it it's a simply a way of blocking access to these books.
Factual Information Related to Transcript
A 2008 library controversy occurred in St. Louis County, MO. A citizens group sought to have certain books potentially inappropriate for children moved within the library. It also sought a means for providing parents with notice as to potentially inappropriate content for children. The group never requested the removal of any books. Ultimately, the library moved certain books to the adult section as a result of the group's request, however, it also moved some sua sponte. In addition, the labeling system adopted by the library board was meant to provide a means for notifying parents as to the contents of certain books.
A 1998 library controversy occurred in Wichita Falls, TX. The government passed a resolution allowing the signatures of 300 people to require the public library to move material. Two books where moved from the children's section to the adult section under the new resolution because they were deemed as promoting homosexuality. The ACLU sued and the court found the resolution to be unconstitutional because, among other things, it targeted a perceived viewpoint, namely, homosexuality. See Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, 121 F.Supp.2d 530 (N.D. Tex. 2000). The court said:
By conferring upon any 300 patrons the power to remove from the children's section any books they find objectionable, the Altman Resolution unconstitutionally confers a "heckler's veto" on the complaining patrons, effectively permitting them to veto lawful, fully-protected expression simply because of their adverse reaction to it. The Supreme Court repeatedly has invalidated other "heckler's veto" regulations as antithetical to core First Amendment values.
....
"Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them." .... Here, the Defendants have not made--and, indeed, could not possibly make--the suggestion that the targeted Books [Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate] are "obscene as to children" in the legal sense. There simply is no interest, let alone a compelling one, in restricting access to non-obscene, fully-protected library books solely on the basis of the majority's disagreement with their perceived message.
Analysis of the Facts Vis-a-Vis the ALA Statements
Caldwell-Stone said, "we saw a similar challenge to the one going on in West Bend in St. Louis County, um, and, ah, and again in that instance the library preserved the young adult program and resisted the attempts to remove the books from the library...." False. The library did not "preserve the young adult program." Rather, the library moved some books from the children's to the adult section on its own accord and some as a result of the actions of a citizen's group making claims substantially similar to those of another citizen group is making in West Bend.
Also, Caldwell-Stone says the St. Louis County library "resisted the attempts to remove the books from the library." False. That citizen's group never made any requests to remove any books from the library. Similarly, the West Bend citizen's group is not requesting any books be removed from the library. Yes, I am aware that a new group (the Milwaukee branch of the Christian Civil Liberties Union) is now making such a request, but that is extraneous to the matter at hand that has been ongoing for a while.
Caldwell-Stone said, "When ... you slap a label on them that says this is a bad book and we probably shouldn't be reading it...." False. The labels are not to mark a book as a "bad book." Rather, they give parents notice that they may wish to examine the contents for the existence of material that that may consider inappropriate for their children. The ALA does not provide such notice, not even on its award-winning books (like Looking For Alaska) or its "top ten" lists (like the one with Deal With It!), so the ALA cannot argue the parents are solely responsible for proper book decisions while at the same time recommending books without adequate notice as to the contents. Communities are allowed to attempt to provide parents with adequate notice as to book contents, just as St. Louis County has recently done.
She also said, "When ... you put roadblocks in the way of kids accessing information and ideas like oh you need your parent's written permission to get the book, it's a form of censorship." False. Parents keeping children from inappropriate material is not "censorship." That's called parenting. That's called common sense. It's not censorship. The public library belongs to the parents and the citizens, not the ALA. If the ALA claims it is censorship for parents to keep inappropriate material from children, and that is what it has done here, then West Bend is entitled to seriously discount the trustworthiness of guidance from the ALA. As the 40-year former Director of the OIF said, "Parents who would tell their children not to read Playboy 'don't really care about their kids growing up and learning to think and explore.'"
Indeed, in the 2003 US Supreme Court case, US v. ALA, considered an expensive loss for the ALA, the Court said the exact opposite of what the ALA's Acting Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom's Deborah Caldwell-Stone is saying to West Bend. West Bend citizens need to decide whether the ALA is authoritative when it says parents protecting children from inappropriate material is censorship, or whether the US Supreme Court is authoritative when it said to 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."
Caldwell-Stone then says, "It's denying access because somebody disapproves of the content of the materials, and, uh, you know, in fact, you know, libraries have attempted this by saying we're only taking the book out of the children's room and put it, putting it in the adult area, and, li a library that actually attempted this in, ah, Wichita Falls, Texas, was sued by the local ACLU and a citizen's group and lost that lawsuit and the court ordered the books back into the children's room on the grounds that these are works that are written for and aimed for, ah, a youth audience, and by putting them in the adult section, by labeling them in a way that judges the content, um, they, the, there's a violation of the First Amendment rights of youth, which is sometimes forgotten in these debates because young people do have First Amendment rights, particularly, ah, young people who are coming of age, they have a right to access information and ideas in the library as much as anyone, and these kinds of restrictions that are solely designed to limit access, to make the books hidden, to try to prevent people from getting access to the information, um, fall under the category of this kind of censorship."
False, because Caldwell-Stone is clearly implying books may never be moved from a children's section to an adult section. Leaving aside that she contradicts her own previous statements, she leaves out the circumstances of the matter. First, the content was not the only matter at issue, but also the "perceived viewpoint." In that Wichita Falls case, the perceived viewpoint being opposed was homosexuality. That is not the case in West Bend; it was initially, but that issue was dropped long ago (relatively speaking). The court's ruling was in part based on the opposition to homosexuality. That is simply no longer the case in West Bend despite how the ALA President, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ("[T]his Statement of Support is ... from the entire faculty, teaching academic staff, and the graduate student organization at the School of Information Studies at UW-Milwaukee."), and the like attempt to convince people an animus against homosexuality is still part of the current matter.
Caldwell-Stone also fails to reveal the Wichita case found a "heckler's veto" law unconstitutional, and that has nothing to do with West Bend. The actions of a library acting in accordance with its legitimate policies has nothing to do with "heckler's vetoes" and any concomitant First Amendment violations. Wichita Falls passed a resolution allowing 300 people to force the library to move a book. That's what was found unconstitutional, not the mere moving of inappropriate books.
Caldwell-Stone also fails to inform the listeners that the Wichita Falls court based its decision in part on the non-obscene nature of the books. The books dealt with homosexuality in a non-obscene fashion. Such books cannot be removed, and that's exactly what the case found, citing in part to a similar case. That is not the issue in West Bend. Non-obscene books of a homosexual nature are not being challenged. Rather, the concern is over material that may be inappropriate for children, the very material the US Supreme Court said was "legitimate, and even compelling" to keep from children in a public library. Homosexuality has nothing to do with any remaining issue in West Bend.
Similar False Statements from the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Association of American Publishers, and PEN American Center
Other major sources of pressure to prevent the application of legal means to protect children in West Bend are the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Association of American Publishers, and PEN American Center. In a letter dated 28 April 2009, similar misleading statements about Wichita Falls were made. Even worse, the groups continue to refer to matters dropped long ago, namely, the out-of-date homosexuality claims. They are not even addressing current issues such an Internet filtering. They want people to oppose several legal means of protecting children, and they attempt to convince people to do this by saying that some people's requests now oppose homosexuality, but that is simply not the truth anymore.
And you have to love the way the groups refer to the "critical acclaim" of the books. The ALA awarded a book for 12-year-olds and up (Looking For Alaska) a top award, though it contained oral sex and was otherwise pervasively vulgar. I got the author to admit he would not give his own book to his own 12-year-old if he had one. Is that the kind of critical acclaim to which they are referring? Are they also saying input from citizens should not be considered, but input for those providing critical acclaim should be? "These books are plainly not obscene and are fully protected under the First Amendment." Then why did the liberal New York City public school system remove one of the books from hundreds of public schools? Are they "plainly not obscene" to you? Would your constituents consider them "plainly not obscene"?
The Dog Not Barking
What is the dog not barking? What is no one discussing here? It is the very purpose of the library as defined by the legislative instrument that created the library. That instrument likely created the library for a certain purpose, and that purpose likely does not include an "anything goes" policy. I do not have the instrument, but I suggest consideration should be given to what it says and whether the ALA-like policies being applied in the library exceed the bounds of the legal instrument. If they do, the library is acting ultra vires, outside the law, and the government is perfectly free to act to enforce the law.
Library autonomy does not apply where the library is acting outside the law.
Conclusion
In summary, the ALA and other major pressure groups have provided guidance to the West Bend community that is objectively false and misleading. After listening to the ALA's Deborah Caldwell-Stone speaking on WORT's "Queery," a simple reading of the facts of the St. Louis County matter and the Wichita Falls case show that the ALA's trusted leader in the area of intellectual freedom is both factually incorrect and seriously misleading.
There is no need to take my word for it. The facts are available for all to see. The words are Caldwell-Stone's own words in her own voice. I have linked to the actual Wichita Falls court decision and numerous sources regarding the St. Louis County matter, among other sources such as US v ALA. Compare what you read there to the words of Deborah Caldwell-Stone. Decide for yourselves if the ALA is providing accurate information or if it is misleading you instead.
If you find the ALA is misleading you, if you find the other pressure groups are misleading you, that is not enough. You need to act legally to protect your children in the public library. If such action extends to the refusal to reappoint library board members who refuse to complete their own proffered materials reconsideration policy, among other things, so be it.
It is perfectly within your rights to protect children in a legal manner despite what the ALA and other pressure groups say otherwise. As Dan Gerstein said, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he 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."
I commend you for your actions to remove library board members who are "not serving the interest of the community." I strongly urge you to protect the right of all readers to read and think freely while at the same time legally protecting children from inappropriate material in the public library. By acting in such a fashion, you will demonstrate respect for your patrons and their choices; for the professionalism of the librarians who serve the reading public and not the American Library Association, and for the library's legislative instrument and its central role in ensuring the local public library remains local and does not fall under the control of outside influences who are using false and misleading information to bend you to their will.
If I may be of assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/s/
Dan Kleinman
Director
SafeLibraries.org
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928
www.SafeLibraries.org
SafeLibraries.blogspot.com
SafeLibraries@gmail.com
cc:
Mayor Kristine Deiss
Members of the West Bend Community Memorial Library
Media
As far as I can see (and I will admit I may not have seen everything relating to this situation) the group putting forth the challenge said they were challenging the material because it was providing “the overt indoctrination of the gay agenda in our community” requested the library include books in the collection “affirming traditional heterosexual perspectives.” This does not even address what you say the real issue is, that the books are obscene. You are right, that is a whole other matter, but the board would still have the right to review the books in question and decide they are not obscene and leave them where they were.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Jessica, for commenting. In return, I'll admit that the current stance of the matter differs substantially from the initial stance. The initial stance was one that I would not support. While the changes have been significant and steady, they are welcome and Ginny should be applauded for tossing aside certain initial requests.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, the current stance is based on legally available means to protect children, and such means I support fully.
The major pressure groups never, not once so far as I've seen, address the legal means; they focus almost exclusively on the initial stance that no one supports nor should support.
In other words, since Ginny used to ask for something repugnant, West Bend citizens are all supposed to throw out legal means to protect children. I'm not buying it, and from the actions of the local government, neither is West Bend. No wonder the pressure groups like the ALA are so desperate to squash down West Bend before it becomes an example for the nation.
Really, I've been at this for a while, and this is the biggest gang bang on a community yet. You got the ALA, the library school, the major pressure groups, even a publisher all lined up to pressure the locals to sidestep legal means to protect children because of what the initial proponent used to say but no longer.
This West Bend matter is very important to them. They have to squash it before other citizens nationwide realize they too can use legal means to protect children in public libraries and only ALA policy locally applied may be standing in the way.
Remember, the ALA is the organization that whitewashes child rape in public libraries. Only after I reported that did the ALA quietly change its tune, but not without an ad hominem attack on me in my blog's comments.
And West Bend is supposed to look to the ALA for guidance?
"Over the past three months, the Maziarkas, have amassed a couple thousand signatures in support on their online petition and gained the support [sic] ... as well as Dan Kleinman, director of the New Jersey-based SafeLibraries.org, which aims to keep children safe in public libraries while conducting a campaign of criticism against the American Library Association (ALA)."
ReplyDeleteSource: Wisconsin Library Challenge Heats Up, by Debra Lau Whelan, School Library Journal, 7 May 2009, emphasis mine.
I have commented there as follows:
"Dan Kleinman, director of the New Jersey-based SafeLibraries.org, which aims to keep children safe in public libraries while conducting a campaign of criticism against the American Library Association (ALA)."
I only wish the ALA would address the serious issue of censorship in a serious fashion, instead of using false and misleading information to force a community to do what the ALA wants. In making this statement, I have only to point to Deborah Caldwell-Stone's public statements and compare them to the facts. My views are irrelevant--it becomes clear to any honest person that what she says and what is the reality are totally different.
I have a transcript of what she said on this matter and the related facts here: "Facts Disprove ALA Statements Regarding West Bend, WI; ABFFE, NCAC, and Others Similarly Incorrect" at safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/05/facts-disprove-ala-statements-regarding.html
Given the above, while it is fair to say I'm "conducting a campaign of criticism against the ALA," it is the ALA itself making such false and misleading statements that opens the door to people like me.
Besides, sometimes the ALA responds to my criticism, like when it changed language from molested to rape in response to the following article: "ALA Whitewashes Rape and Blames Child; Removes Discussion of ALA's Possible Culpability for Rape" at safelibraries.blogspot.com/2009/04/ala-whitewashes-rape-and-blames-child.html
I think it is kind of funny that you say everyone should forget the past actions of Ginny, "In other words, since Ginny used to ask for something repugnant, West Bend citizens are all supposed to throw out legal means to protect children." But then you say people should dislike the ALA for their past actions "Remember, the ALA is the organization that whitewashes child rape in public libraries."
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, Jessica, consistency is important. The ALA library rape whitewash only recently occurred and merely continues in its actions to mislead the public. Why this very blog post is about how the ALA in this very West Bend matter continues to mislead West Bend.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a past action.
It is a current action and part of a pattern of continuing actions to mislead communities, like when when the ALA called parents in Howell, MI, racist for attempting to remove a book containing bestiality from the public school.
So consistency is important, and I am being consistent. Ginny has changed; the ALA has not.
Just a little FYI there Dan. Howell MI is known for its racist tendencies. Just ask anyone from MI.
ReplyDeleteEema-le, thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, I don't know, though I doubt it and think that view is just a label used to promote one side over another.
Be that as it may, the ALA raised the race issue itself. Many communities have issues with inappropriate books for children, even that very book in question. But the ALA, all on its own, raised the race issue in Howell, MI. As a result, the children still have access to the bestiality book in the public school.
Actually, since you say Howell is known for being racist, that lends evidence to the ALA's intentional use of that belief to achieve its own goals. Only in Howell did the ALA claim parents were racist. Only Howell is "known for its racist tendencies." To me, it sounds like the ALA is racist. I mean who would even think racism was the real reason behind efforts to remove bestiality books from public schools, something that is perfectly legal to do under Bd of Educ v. Pico and for other reasons.
Be honest. If parents wanted to remove an inappropriate book from a school, and if that book causes controversy in numerous school systems but never engenders claims of racism, and you were the leading authority on censorship in the ALA, and you knew the community was "known for its racist tendencies," then you argued the real motivation of the parents was that they were racist, don't you think it reasonable people might think you yourself were racist?
Do you think it is racist to seek the removal of a bestiality book from a public school? Does the race of the author make a difference in such a case? Why or why not?
Do you really think it's accurate to call The Bluest Eyes "the bestiality book"? Do you really think that accurately describes the book? Similarily, I believe you called Looking For Alaska a "book about oral sex" or was it "a book about blow jobs", can't remember.
ReplyDeleteTalk about using inaccurate and misleading labelling. It is one thing to believe the books are inappropriate for minors, but another to make those kind of dishonest and misleading statements.
Buzymom, thank you for commenting.
ReplyDeleteI have seen a lot of your comments on other blogs and they are usually ad hominem in nature.
Now I see this on my own blog.
I have not read that book and do not know for myself its contents. But that is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the Howell, MI, people thought and how they were put down by the ALA for being racist. I called it what I did because that's how the local people viewed, and it avoids my having to give repetitive disclaimers about why I call it what I call it that is irrelevant to the issue and boring.
As to "Looking For Alaska," the book contains oral sex and is otherwise pervasively vulgar. "Contains," not "about"--that's your spin. However, it is not pornography. And I even enjoyed the book. I also got the author to admit he wouldn't even give it to his own 12 year old if he had one, whereas the ALA said it was the best book of that year for 12 year olds and up--with no notice of the content other than how award winning it was.
Buzymom, do you really think making ad hominem arguments advances the issues the slightest bit? Will you never address the issues at all, let alone with your constant personal attacks?
I don't feel I have personally attacked you. I am calling out hypocrisy when I seen it- You complain about labelling and misleading and I feel you yourself engage in the same actions. You yourself also do not always "stick to the issues" (ie, referring to library rape, the ALA, using case law on filters that is irrelevant to YA books, repeating allegations WBSCL has made,etc in regards to the West Bend library issue). The reference to Looking For Alaska, on a caption you wrote (at least I assumed you were the author, I apologize if I am wrong) "ALA awarded oral sex book for 12 year olds next to Bob the Builder...". "Just a label used to promote one side over the other," as I see it.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with the author, I wouldn't give the book to a 12 yo either, but I certainly don't think that negates our arguments in West Bend-it only validates our viewpoints of parents being the ultimate censor for their children. Both Maria and Libby have summarized most of how I feel about the issues very well, I would be happy to address the issues further a bit later when I have more time but for now I gotta go.
Buzymom, here's an example of just how wrong you are. You said, "using case law on filters that is irrelevant to YA books." You apparently have not read the case. The Court found that filters are constitutional in part because they are merely an extension of the pre-existing library policies and practices that already apply to printed material. Such material includes YA books.
ReplyDeleteSo the Court looked at the policies that apply to printed materials, which includes YA books, and found the same policies can extend over the Internet.
Given that, would you care to reword your misleading statement about "using case law on filters that is irrelevant to YA books"?
Many (if not most I'll guess) of your other arguments are similarly flawed.
Be that as it may, I am happy to see you at least claiming not to use ad hominem argument. Yet I still don't see you addressing the issues.
And I see no complaints about the ALA, the UW-M, the NCAC, the ABFFE, etc., misleading anyone either. Nope. Just little old me. A caption on a picture and I'm suddenly misleading people -- talk about taking book passages out of context. You are really working hard to hide something. Please, continue to contribute.
OK- how's this: It is my opinion that the case law on filters that you use in your arguements is irrelevant to young adult books. And this is why, from the case:
ReplyDelete"The decisions by most libraries to exclude pornography from their print collections are not subjected to heightened scrutiny; it would make little sense to treat libraries' judgments to block online pornography any differently. Moreover, because of the vast quantity of material on the Internet and the rapid pace at which it changes, libraries cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all that is not. While a library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to review. Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead exclude certain categories of content, without making individualized judgments that everything made available has requisite and appropriate quality. Concerns over filtering software's tendency to erroneously "overblock" access to constitutionally protected speech that falls outside the categories software users intend to block are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled"
I read it to mean that filters are constitutional b/c filters exclude pornography, which is not considered to be a violation of the 1st amendment. And b/c if overblocking occurs, patrons may have the software disabled relatively easily, so adult users are not substantially burdened. The quote you often use "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" was in reference to material found on the internet. I don't believe that statement could be used as legal ground extending to library books that individuals or individual groups subjectively find to be inappropriate for minors.
And as I said, I will be happy to address the issues in regards to the first 3 policies the WBCSL would like to have put in place when I have a bit more time. Busy day today.
Well said, Buzymom.
ReplyDeleteWhat really needs to be done is that people should set aside emotions and deal with the issues. The big names have only focused on the emotions. ALA, ABFFE, NCAC, UW-M, etc. Right there that makes me wonder why, but I'm certain it is so people will not focus on the issues and instead be dazzled by the big names and broad-stroked signatures.
Ginny, for example, is asking for filters. US v. ALA is directly involved, at the very least in that issue. Nowhere have I found, however, the big names addressing that issue in a non-dismissive manner.
I would love to figure out a forum where all people can work together, without ad hominem argument or the raising of irrelevant issues like Ginny's view on homosexuality, on what's right for West Bend. Any ideas?
I forgot to add that in regards to the US vs ALA, that the court case was based on the constitutionality of using filters but does not require the use. It only requires them if the library receives federal funding for the computers and internet.
ReplyDeleteSo here are my reasons why the policies that the WBSCL currently wants to enact at the West Bend library are either unconstitutional in the case of 2 policies and illogical/impractical/unnecessary and costly in the case of 1 policy.
ReplyDelete1.)The moving of young adult books to the adult section based on sexual content:
Moving books that are currently properly classified (based on who the book is written for) to an area where they are now improperly classified and teens cannot find them is considered a violation of the 1st amendment as it is suppressing information. See Sund vs Wichita Falls Conclusions of Law #13:
http://www.ahcuah.com/lawsuit/federal/sund.htm.
In addition, conclusion #14 states:
“By authorizing the forced removal of children's books to the adult section of the Library, the Altman Resolution places a significant burden on Library patrons' ability to gain access to those books. Children searching specifically for those books in the designated children's areas of the Library will be unable to locate them. In addition, children who simply wish to browse in the children's sections of the Library will never find the censored books. Moreover, parents browsing the children's areas in search of books for their children will be unable to find the censored books. “ I know that the WBSCL does not ask for a resolution similar to the Altman; instead it uses the adaptation of new library policy to achieve the same goal. The end result is the same. And of course we are talking about the teen/YA section, not the children/juvenile section of the library in the West Bend case.
This case essentially says the public libraries cannot limit access to books based on content. It does not say that sexual content is an exception to this. To illustrate this, one expert witness gave testimony of examples of books that have been challenged based on sexual (and other) content. Safe Libraries seems to think that because the situation is West Bend has books with sexual content, and the 2 books in Wichita Falls case did not and were “non-obscene”, then that case does not apply in our situation. I would argue that the only reason for this case not to apply would be if any of the West Bend books meet the legal definition of obscenity. And to meet this, it would have to pass all 3 conditions of the Miller test, the 3rd of which is “Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political and scientific value.” None of the books mentioned by the WBCSL would pass this test and would not be in the library if they did. As far as whether or not they are “inappropriate for children”, that is a subjective matter left up to the parents.
When you cite the St Louis library controversy, I could not find anywhere where it says that teen books had been moved to the adult section. On her website, Laura Kostial states that while she would have preferred that, and had asked for it, it did not happen.
2. The labeling of books with sexual content:
First of all, any non-fiction books in question already are essentially labeled with the Dewey Decimal system. Sex ed books and books about teenage development and sexuality are categorized and shelved next to similar topic books, making it obvious to most people what the content is.
So then, if we are talking mostly about fiction books, there are the practical and financial considerations of labeling. To be accurate, all the books YA fiction books would need to be reviewed. Who would do this huge task? What criteria would be used to decide if a book is “explicit”? It is pretty obvious that there is not consensus in the community about this term and there never could be. If you take for example the book “It’s Perfectly Normal”, some parents view it as “pornography” and some parents view it simply as an appropriate sex education book for the ages it is written for. Or if instead you used the word “sexual content”, what exactly would that include? The answer would be different for everybody. To expect a public library to develop a costly encompassing labeling system similar to the movies, which is done by an independent and private agency, is completely unrealistic.
I have heard the consideration to doing the labeling on a case by case basis, or as complaints come in. To me, that would not help parents at all. Parents would develop a sense of complacency that if a book didn’t have a label, it should be fine for their child, which would not necessarily be true. They would do less of examining the books themselves for appropriateness. And for the teens who are allowed to go to the library and select books without parents, the labels would only serve as advertising. And as in the previously described all encompassing system, the library would also need to have a firmly defined criteria and thorough way of reviewing the books; a time-consuming and costly task that could never have consensus within the community.
3.The restriction of access to sexual content online:
First of all, the library does not have any sexual content online. It only has the description of books that contain sexual content. There is a big difference. The same arguments I gave for policy #1 also apply to policy #3; this policy suppresses information and makes books difficult to find and in doing so, violates the 1st amendment.
A couple of important sidenotes:
ReplyDelete*The WBSCL uses at least 2 books classified as young adult non-fiction as examples of why books need to be moved and labeled. These books are already shelved in the adult area, upstairs far away from the children’s section (and they are categorized via the Dewey Decimal system, so are “labeled” already). It seems like pure propaganda and misinformation to be using these books as their prime examples, and leading people to believe something other than the facts.
*SafeLibraries maintains that it is difficult for parents to decide whether or not books are appropriate for their children. The example of awards being given to books that have content that may not be appropriate for the younger teens in the age range of the awards is frequently used. While it may not always be easy for parents, and books may sometimes be missed, I would argue that it is a much easier (and constitutional) task than what is being asked of our library. Only parents know what their own values and morals are, what their OWN children are or are not ready for and how to apply that to book selection. There are plenty of resources on the internet for parents that want or need help in deciding on the appropriateness of books for their kids. Safe Libraries could become one of those resources, rather than encouraging and helping parents in their quest to demand their libraries enact policies that are in unconstitutional and that would inevitably lead to costly lawsuits.
*SafeLibraries is saying that the Maziarka’s are no longer objecting to books based on homosexual content but instead is now focused on sexual content. And that bringing up the past complaints is an ad hominem argument and off the topic. I would argue that it is still very relevant. The Maziarka’s “past” goal of suppressing access to information about homosexuality (or at least suppressing information/books that puts it in a positive or neutral light) would still be met under policy #1 and policy #3 and still appears to be one of their primary objectives and goals. The policies allow for books with any sexual content whatsoever that could be deemed offensive or inappropriate to minors be moved and online restricted. Their goal hasn’t changed, it has just expanded. Policy #4, asking for the addition of “ex-gay” literature to the collection, also further illustrates that homosexuality is still at least part of the issue.