For an example of the kind of tactics used by the pressure groups and why people should realize they are paper tigers, both the ALA and the NCAC have spoken out directly against me, likely because I have been scoring direct hits on them (example), then both have failed to respond to my legitimate questions/concerns about local control. Both hit and ran. No response from Deborah Caldwell-Stone of the ALA. No response from the NCAC.
What a coincidence, the West Bend library board members were not reappointed precisely because they provided no response to citizen concerns, just like the ALA/NCAC!
Please read, "West Bend City Council Refuses to Budge on Library Issue," by West Bend Citizen Advocate, WISSUP - Wisconsin Speaks Up, 18 May 2009, emphasis in original:
The motion to rescind the vote brought forth by Alderman Nick Dobberstein was soundly rejected by the City Council this evening.
Alderman Dobberstein began the request by listing off the attributes of the board members, i.e., attendance at meetings, advocation [sic], supervision and evaluation of the library director. Asking for questions or discussion from the other aldermen, Dobberstein was met with silence.
Alderman Lindbeck, citing personal reasons, stated he would not be voting this evening and abstained. Dobberstein questioned the abstention, asking the city attorney if this move was only used for those with a conflict of interest. The city attorney affirmed that the choice to abstain may be made for any reason at any time.
Alderman Dobberstein asked to speak further, making a list of other attributes of the four library board members in question. He made mention of their familiarity of intellectual freedom, their experience, their advanced degrees, their diligence and committment [sic] to reading books that we are currently questioning and the fact that they are just "good people."
Alderman Schlotfeldt made mention directly to Dobberstein of an earlier telephone conversation that he would not reiterate publicly.
Dobberstein asked the City Council members what he could do to get the library board reinstated. There was no response from the City Council.
The call to question the rescind was brought forward by Alderman Dobberstein.
Seconded by Alderman Kist.
A vote was taken to rescind:
All voted NO, except for Alderman Kist and Alderman Dobberstein.
A firm stand by the leaders of our community who truly know the people they serve.
.
Terry Vrana and the common council of West Bend were cowards and should be ashamed of themselves.
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing, Mike.
ReplyDeleteThere is an alternative to your view. Instead of thinking the council caved to Ginny, consider the possibility that the council actually stood up against tremendous pressure from numerous out-of-town organizations directing the council to reverse itself and basing their arguments on false and misleading information.
Mike, lots of communities cave to those same heavyweights purely out of fear. I have spoken with some governmental leaders and I hear this again and again. They are afraid to spend money defending against the ACLU. It's analogous to lawfare, and communities usually lose.
West Bend did not bend, however. It acting on behalf of its citizens, rather than out of fear of the ACLU, the ALA, the NCAC, etc. And look how those groups collapsed when forced to focus on the issues at hand and not on irrelevant side issues.
Mike, your community has actually set an example for communities nationwide to lose their fear of the heavyweights and to start acting as the citizens demand.
Mike, feel better. Apparently, you're in good hands. If I lived in West Bend, I'd be proud of them, not ashamed of the "cowards."
Let's look at this from the other side. If Ginny had handled this in a more responsible manner then none of those organizations would have become involved.
ReplyDeleteGinny and Mary embarrass this community everytime they start with their unending quest against gays. And yes, that is where this all started. Ginny didn't like some of the gay material that was referenced in the YA section of the library and on it's website. Don't forget her original solution to all of this was to have material supplied by the library that provided an alternative to the gay ideas. Specifically, materials that talked about people who were gay and had converted back.
The common council has not spent enough time investigating and questioning this whole issue. They have reacted like deer in headlights and made one bad move after another. Terry Vrana is just the most outspoken of the group.
i am embarassed by our common council and the lack of leadership from the mayors office.
Mike, Ginny started out that way but corrected herself. I say she should be applauded for that.
ReplyDeleteIs the community supposed to leave its children exposed to possible harm solely because Ginny was naughty when she first made her case?
Mike, is your only argument that Ginny was antigay in the past, therefore her efforts to seek perfectly legal means to protect children should be discarded? Is your only argument ad hominem in nature, like one council member "react[ing] like deer in headlights"?
Mike, have you ever directly addressed the legitimate and legal means being suggested for protecting children in West Bend?
Mike, I think your issue is that you simply have personality conflicts with both myself and Mary. Perhaps if you laid the personal issues aside and looked at what is being addressed right now, you could gain insight as to the "why" of the common council decision. Furthermore, since that is now in the past (not to make light of it, but it cannot be changed at this point), why not look forward into the library requests at hand and address them. I would be open for discussion. Or are you still not talking to me?
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing, West Bend Citizen Advocate.
ReplyDeleteMike? Any response? Please consider my blog to be open to open communications.
Hey, the Nazis liked burning gay books too, like Magnus Hirschfeld's library. Fortunately, the U.S. didn't let them keep exerting local control.
ReplyDeleteI'll take Ginny up on her offer to discuss the current library requests. I tried to post the following to Ginny's blog, but she does not publish my comments anymore.
ReplyDeleteAs for my/our disagreements to the petition requests, they focus primarily on the first 3 items. 1) WBCFSL requests a policy that will enable someone (unclear if it will be a person, group, etc.) to decide, based on sexual content in a work, whether YA material can be shelved within the YA category or if it belongs in the adult section. These decisions would result in material being moved. My problem - moving any of this material based on someone's opinion of it violates the rights of other library patrons and IS a form of censorship. This moving of material would be done with the intention of suppressing or limiting access to a certain group based on their age based on, again, someone's opinion. This is a decision that should be made for a minor only by his/her parents. 2) Visual Identification of sexual content in material. Again, this would be done based on someone's opinion. How can a community allow a person or group decide for the entire community what is appropriate and what isn't? This material does not meet any legal definitions of obscenity, so you can't use the law argument. 3) Restricted access to website material WBCFSL feels promotes the books in request #1. These online booklists are just that, lists. Lists of book titles and short descriptions of the plots. They are not recommendations, other than the idea that "if you like books with this theme, you may like these" kind of thing. And how could the library restrict access to a category of books listed on the website? And if we do it for one category based on a citizen's request, it can be done for other categories, too. So if citizens demand that book lists be restricted based on religious or political ideologies and beliefs, the precedent would have been established to allow that.
These kinds of changes do not bring unity to West Bend, and they take the right (and responsibility) of these decisions out of the hands of the citizens. That would not be good for anyone.
And Dan, as for your comment, "And look how those groups collapsed when forced to focus on the issues at hand and not on irrelevant side issues."
How did any of the groups you mentioned collapse? Is it any wonder that these national groups can't keep up with Ginny's ever-changing demands? And what legitimate and legal means do you refer to? These books do not meet the legal definition of obscenity.
Mike, if you haven't already joined us at westbendparentsforfreespeech.webs.com, you should!
ReplyDeleteLarry-bob and Maria Hanrahan, thanks for writing.
ReplyDeleteMaria, I'll respond soon, I've just been very busy. I'm likely to agree with you on some
things and not on others. So it should be interesting. Oh, the NCAC just recommended your blog/petition to someone. And I see I'm in another School Library Journal article: "West Bend City Council Fails to Reinstate Library Board Members."
I'm glad you describe the city council's act as an "ouster", cuz that's what it is, and any attempt to sugarcoat this politicization of the library board is naive.
ReplyDeleteConcerned West Bend Citizen, thanks for writing, and thanks for your comments.
ReplyDeleteIf there's any "politicization of the library board," it's a board that's responsive to the ALA and not the citizens.
The board refused to act. It refused to address the concerns solicited from a citizen under its own policy. It refused to comply with its own policy.
The government is right to oust the people who refuse to comply with their own policy. The government ousted the people pursuant to the proper exercise of governmental powers. New people will be appointed who will, it is hoped, finally comply with the policy and finally respond substantially to the citizen's complaint.
The government is perfectly within its rights to act as it has. The government was given the right of appointment and reappointment for precisely this purpose. It has acted justly.
The only "politicization" going on here was a board responsive to an out-of-town organization that cares absolutely nothing for your local laws, your local customs, and your local citizens. The board dragged its feet. Indeed the request for reconsideration is still outstanding after months. Like the Energizer Bunny, it keeps going and going. The board should have addressed it long ago.
The response is so long overdue that people are talking like it doesn't even exist:
"These were four very qualified people who collectively have a lot of experience on these issues," says library director Michael Tyree about the board members who were up for reappointment. "They were doing what they were supposed to do—wait for the Maziarkas to resubmit their reconsideration for library materials." See "West Bend City Council Fails to Reinstate Library Board Members, by Debra Lau Whelan, School Library Journal, 20 May 2009. The library decided on its own to drop it, now it claims it is waiting for resubmission. And the government isn't supposed to oust these people?
The board's last action was to issue a statement that it may never get around to responding as it should under its own policy. The government was forced to act under the circumstances to a board that was so "politicized" that it boldly stated it would refuse to respond to a request brought under its own policy.
That's what is really the problem here. That's why people are so desperate to make it appear like this is the government's problem when it is really the board's own internal problem borne by its adherence to out-of-state policies.
Had the board acted one way or another, this would not have happened. It's the board's own fault. Don't blame the government for refusing to reappoint people who refused to comply with their own policies.
Maria, I still need more time to respond to your legitimate concerns.
Dan, I see that you have still not found the time to address my points even though you have been able to find the time to make three rather lengthy blog posts in the interim.
ReplyDeleteI still invite you to comment on my points. WBCFSL wants a policy that will examine books that have any sexual content and allow someone to make a decision about whether or not that material is too explicit for the YA audience. This will result in materials being moved out of the YA section and placed into the adult section, thereby making them less accessible to the YA audience. These materials would be suppressed from the YA audience because 1) the YA patrons would not know of their existence, because they are not in the YA section 2) there would be a stigma attached to the books because they have been classified as too explicit for the YA audience and 3) circulation of the books may go down because the intended age range audience of library patrons is not finding the books, and the books could be removed after a time because of low circulation. This is CLEARLY censorship, watered down from the first complaint requests, yes, but it still suppresses the material from a group of patrons.
My other objections to the WBCFSL petition, in case they are in question, is that the request for a new policy in petition request #1 would give this power (to make the decisions about what material is too explicit) to someone or to a group/panel. How would that person/panel be chosen? How is their expertise more valuable than the librarians and other library staff that currently make decisions about how material is cataloged? How will the city pay for this new policy and corresponding process (someone will have to read through all the YA material, for example.) What happens when someone challenges a book being moved/reclassified as being an infringement upon their rights? Will the city be prepared to deal with the fallout of lawsuits, etc.?
I need to respond to your comment "The library decided on its own to drop it, now it claims it is waiting for resubmission. And the government isn't supposed to oust these people?"
The library did not decide on its own. The library was advised by the city attorney that the Maziarkas nullifed their complaint by continually changing their requests and by way of their own public statements that contradicted their library complaint. They may not have intended or wanted to do that, but their own actions led to their complaint being nullified. They were given the opportunity to restart the process, clearly stating their new demands/requests, but chose not to do so.
You are right, Maria, I haven't had the time yet, and sometimes it is precisely because of my continuing SafeLibraries activities. I'm not going to drop SafeLibraries just to address this single West Bend matter. Instead I put off the West Bend matter until I get a chance.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I am in no position to say what West Bend should do. But I am in a position to say the ALA often mislead communities, and West Bend may be the latest victim.
I know doing the right thing will be hard, but that does not mean it should not be done.
Your argument about a "stigma" is similar to the ACLU/ALA's argument about embarrassment. The Court in US v. ALA found that to be irrelevant. Likely, the same goes for "stigma."
YA not knowing of existence of books? Are you kidding? They won't show up in library catalog searches? The ALA does not promote these books enough? The public schools don't assign them as summer reading because the ALA gave them awards? Your own demonstrations will not promote them?
Censorship. Maria, drop that already. Call it something else. There's been no censorship in this country for about half a century. Just because the ALA/NCAC calls it censorship does not make it true. Are you a feminazi if Rush Limbaugh called you one? I doubt it.
Fallout from lawsuits? Seriously, you are using the ACLU hammer to club West Bend into submission. Look, the entire state of Virginia has required all library computers to be filtered and only two parties tried to stop it, the ACLU and the state version of the ALA. What a coincidence. Nobody took them seriously and the law passed overwhelmingly. Let the ACLU/ALA sue. They will be crushed just like they were in Virginia, and other places. See US v Talley: Library WiFi Allows Child Porn; Internet Filters Being "Too Costly" is an Excuse Proven False, but you already have. I hope you are enjoying my writing.
Finally, you said:
"I need to respond to your comment 'The library decided on its own to drop it, now it claims it is waiting for resubmission. And the government isn't supposed to oust these people?'
"The library did not decide on its own. The library was advised by the city attorney that the Maziarkas nullifed their complaint by continually changing their requests and by way of their own public statements that contradicted their library complaint. They may not have intended or wanted to do that, but their own actions led to their complaint being nullified. They were given the opportunity to restart the process, clearly stating their new demands/requests, but chose not to do so."
Are you serious? You know Ginny said and says she never dropped it. The library dropped it on its own, no matter what fancy cover story is used. You perpetuate that cover story, but that does not make it true, and it only goes to lessen your own credibility. You know, the library then said it may never get to deciding the issue at all. Curious they would think such a statement was necessary if the matter had truly been dropped. The library dropped the ball, not Ginny.
Make your arguments, Maria, but make them on the facts, not on the misinformation the library is promoting for CYA purposes, such as in the School Library Journal.
I'm going to again post this copied from another blog post here. I'll do it in parts b/c it is too long.
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.
1.)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.
2. The labeling of books with sexual content:
ReplyDeleteFirst 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.
The court clearly used the word "censored books" in this case, not just the ACLU or ALA. Another quote from this case, which they took from another case: ("[T]he possibility the Government could have imposed more draconian limitations on speech never has justified a lesser abridgment. Indeed, such an argument almost always is available; few of our First Amendment cases involve outright bans on speech.")
I think the concern about lawsuits is a VERY valid one and one West Bend would be very unlikely to win.
Dan, the people of West Bend don't give a flying fig what the ALA says is the right thing to do. Citizens of this city are concerned about doing the right thing for their families and for their community, and they are concerned about preserving the rights granted to them through the US Constitution, specifically the First Amendment. An overwhelming and growing majority of the community believes that the requests made by WBCFSL are censorship and that they violate the rights of other parents/library patrons.
ReplyDelete"There's been no censorship in this country for about half a century." Really, Dan? I think that there are thousands of citizens throughout the US that would disagree with you.
Censorship occurs every day. It occurs in my own home where my husband and I have channels blocked because we do not watch or approve of the programming. It occurs when I don't allow my children to watch a program or visit a website that I don't approve of. Parents are the ultimate censors, as they should rightfully be. This is what West Bend Parents for Free Speech asks; leave the decisions about what material is too explicit or inappropriate up to the parents, and don't allow a group or individual to make those determinations for everyone else. I haven't read anything to indicate that you are a parent, Dan, but if you are/were, would you feel comfortable allowing someone else to decide what reading material is appropriate for your kids and what isn't?
Yes, if books get moved based on sexual content, there will be a stigma attached to those books. With the exception of the two sexual education themed books, all of the books WBCFSL/the Maziarkas have publicly discussed as being sexually explicit come from the LGBT category. I think it is safe to imagine that these are among the books WBCFSL would want examined and potentially moved. So if an LGBT youth were to try to locate these books at the library and find that they have been placed in adult fiction (even though they are YA reading level material) and they've been labeled with some sort of sticker to indicate they are sexually explicit, you don't think that youth would get a sense that there was something wrong about checking out the book? That is a no-brainer; of course they would.
Yes, moved books will still come up in computer searches, but do you think that this is how YA patrons typically find books? These patrons (and probably the majority of adult patrons, too) locate material by frequenting the sections on the topics they enjoy. For example, I am an avid cook and I enjoy looking for new cookbooks at the library. Often, I simply browse the aisle of cooking books to locate titles that interest me. If a YA patron were to do this in the YA section, the books that were moved would no longer be in the YA section and the patrons might never know of their existence. The books would be moved with the precise intention of limiting their availability to youth; that is clearly a form of censorship.
I realize Ginny did not intend to drop her complaint, and I never said she "dropped" it. She did, however, nullify her own complaint by making statements that contradicted it. She has to take responsibility for that. She was given the opportunity to clarify her complaints/requests by beginning the complaint process so her complaint (reconsideration of library materials form) would address her new/changed requests and not her old ones, and she refused.
I am quite clear on the facts, as I live here and have been invested in this issue for more than two months and follow it on a daily basis. My arguments are based on fact and on the 5 points of the WBCFSL petition, and they are not influenced by outside sources such as the ALA or NCAC. And my credibility is intact, thanks for your concern.
Message 1 of 3....
ReplyDelete"Dan, the people of West Bend don't give a flying fig what the ALA says is the right thing to do." Maria, about forty years ago the ALA changed how libraries relate to children thanks to the influence of an ACLU leader named Judith Krug. No longer would librarians act to protect children. Since that is the policy West Bend seems to have in place at the moment, the figs are flying.
"Censorship occurs every day. It occurs in my own home where my husband and I have channels blocked because we do not watch or approve of the programming. It occurs when I don't allow my children to watch a program or visit a website that I don't approve of. Parents are the ultimate censors, as they should rightfully be." Maria, either you do not understand the meaning of censorship, in which case your opinion to oppose censorship is of little value, or you define it in such as way that it is actually the "rightful" thing to do, in which case your opinion to oppose censorship is of little value. Maria, you are the leader of a group purporting to oppose "censorship," yet you are either unaware of its true meaning or you define it in a way that actually portrays it as positive, even "rightful." I cannot figure how on what basis your statements should be considered anything other than alarmist.
"This is what West Bend Parents for Free Speech asks; leave the decisions about what material is too explicit or inappropriate up to the parents, and don't allow a group or individual to make those determinations for everyone else." West Bend parents are too large a group to have effective control in the library. Like the United States is a representative republic for the citizens of the United States, the West Bend library board is a representative board for the citizens of West Bend. No "parents" or "groups" or "individuals" will be deciding what's what in the library, and Ginny is not asking for that. She is merely asking that the library board be representative of the citizens, not of the special interests like those that have intervened with false and misleading statements, including the ALA, the NCAC, and the UW-M library school. Citizens are entitled to decide for themselves what's what in their own public library. The "anything goes" attitude you and the special interests display is remarkable for the persistence with which is it being pushed on West Bend citizens, but it in no way takes into account legal means for protecting children from harm in public libraries, including the simple application of existing law and policy.
"I haven't read anything to indicate that you are a parent, Dan, but if you are/were, would you feel comfortable allowing someone else to decide what reading material is appropriate for your kids and what isn't?" My views are irrelevant. Generally, however, yes, I would expect my local public library to prevent my children from having access to inappropriate material for children. The US Supreme Court said in US v. 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." I'll bet West Bend citizens agree as well. I'll bet they expect the library to "protect young library users from material inappropriate for minors." Maria, the lengths to which you bend and you lead your group to defy this very common sense concept is truly extraordinary. Certainly you should receive a special award from the ACLU or from the Playboy Foundation, like ALA librarians have received. I'm not trying to be funny. I seriously think your prodigious effort, even if misguided, is worthy of some recognition from the ACLU, the ALA, or the Playboy Foundation.
Message 2 of 3....
ReplyDelete"Yes, if books get moved based on sexual content, there will be a stigma attached to those books." In an analogous matter, US v. ALA said: "The District Court viewed unblocking and disabling as inadequate because some patrons may be too embarrassed to request them. 201 F. Supp. 2d, at 411. But the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment." Maria, drop the "stigma" claim. You'll only "embarrass" yourself.
"With the exception of the two sexual education themed books, all of the books WBCFSL/the Maziarkas have publicly discussed as being sexually explicit come from the LGBT category. I think it is safe to imagine that these are among the books WBCFSL would want examined and potentially moved." Maria, drop the LGBT claim. Yes, it is useful to whip up the crowd, but it is a nonissue. The issue is inappropriate material for children. LGBT material is not, in and of itself, inappropriate for children. Further, Ginny dropped any claims regarding LGBT material long ago. Get over it already.
"So if an LGBT youth were to try to locate these books at the library and find that they have been placed in adult fiction (even though they are YA reading level material) and they've been labeled with some sort of sticker to indicate they are sexually explicit, you don't think that youth would get a sense that there was something wrong about checking out the book? That is a no-brainer; of course they would." Maria, now you are implying LGBT youth are stupid. They will see legally available efforts regarding library materials will be applied equally, not only to certain LBGT materials. You are also implying West Bend citizens are stupid. Do you really think West Bend citizens will believe that "some sort of sticker" would frighten off a child? Quite the opposite. I'll bet such material becomes the most popular. Besides, your own public displays are working towards that very goal.
"Yes, moved books will still come up in computer searches, but do you think that this is how YA patrons typically find books?" Uh oh, Maria, there you go calling children stupid again.
"Often, I simply browse the aisle of cooking books to locate titles that interest me. If a YA patron were to do this in the YA section, the books that were moved would no longer be in the YA section and the patrons might never know of their existence." Uh oh, Maria, there you go thinking West Bend citizens are stupid again. The children will learn where are the juicy books and will simply look there as well. Further, the library will likely, and likely appropriately, produce a web page specifying the exact locations of these books.
Message 3 of 3....
ReplyDelete"The books would be moved with the precise intention of limiting their availability to youth; that is clearly a form of censorship." Maria, you previously defined censorship as being "rightful." Because your definition and use of the word "censorship" is wrong, it's nice see you arguing on Ginny's behalf for a change. Moving books within a library for reasons of age inappropriateness, among other reasons, is not censorship, or, as you define it, is "rightful" censorship.
"I realize Ginny did not intend to drop her complaint, and I never said she 'dropped' it." Maria, you just made an admission against interest. You admit Ginny "did not intend to drop her complaint." Now if you can only get the library director to be equally as honest.
"She did, however, nullify her own complaint by making statements that contradicted it." No, Maria, that is mere verbal legerdemain. That is "means justifies the ends" language. She can nullify her complaint by withdrawing it verbally or in writing. She has not done this. Actually, she states it remains in force, and that appears to be the case. She is allowed to speak out about the issue generally. Her statements, if at all contradictory, should not have caused the library to drop the complaint without further input from Ginny. The proper thing to have done would have been to seek clarification from Ginny if she wished to amend or drop her complaint, or to use her public statements as evidence when carrying out the library policy regarding the proper handling of the complaint. In other words, the library simply could have said, "We find against Ginny on the grounds that Ginny said this, that, and the other thing." But no, that's not what happened here. The library just dropped it right in the middle. Then it issued a statement that it will never consider the complaint at all. So I applaud you, Maria, for continuing to advocate for your position, but the facts do not support your claims.
"She was given the opportunity to clarify her complaints/requests by beginning the complaint process so her complaint (reconsideration of library materials form) would address her new/changed requests and not her old ones, and she refused." Maria, the library likely acted wrongfully here. You are saying that it's Ginny fault that she did not respond properly to the library's wrongful action, the very action that resulted in four library board members not being reappointed. Maria, I just don't see why anyone should take you seriously for any reason when you make such outlandish claims. And you are the leader of the band on this. You better start thinking, Maria, or you'll become your own enemy.
"Citizens of this city are concerned about doing the right thing for their families and for their community, and they are concerned about preserving the rights granted to them through the US Constitution, specifically the First Amendment." Maria, please be aware that US v. ALA restated common sense when it said, "a public library does not have an obligation to add material to its collection simply because the material is constitutionally protected."
Dan, my first gut reaction is to pick apart your comment (or 3 separate comments; nice to know I am worthy of such bandwidth even though according to you I am an alarmist and apparently an idiot as well!)
ReplyDeleteOf course, then I realize responding to all of your off base and erroneous statements is not worth the effort. My goal was not to change your mind, it was to discuss WBCFSL petition points and why I think they infringe upon the rights of others, and how I think the changes suggested by the petition would effect library patrons. Since you cannot seem to grasp the idea that censorship is not limited to governmental action, and since you refuse to address my points without attacking me, I simply want to state that in no way do I believe that LGBT youth or other WB youth or citizens are stupid.
You are not a licensed, practicing attorney, are you, Dan? Since I do not believe you are, I will suggest to the West Bend readers of this blog that it would be a wise decision to value the advice of the West Bend city attorney over Dan Kleinman's "legal" interpretation of the events.
Finally, for someone who professes to be so against ad hominem attacks, you sure don't practice what you preach, do you?
Message 1 of 2, Set 2....
ReplyDeleteMaria,
What I said was in no way ad hominem. I painstakingly addressed your own comments, quoting nearly every one and commenting based on what you said. You are the local leader of the false and misleading effort to make wild exaggerations about censorship in West Bend. You make statements on my blog and elsewhere that are entirely false and misleading. I specifically point out exactly how and why your statements on my blog are false and misleading. Your response is to say that I used ad hominem argument? You understand, Maria, that ad hominem is ineffective, right?
Yes, you are alarmist when you are constantly, without end, claiming censorship. Then you defined censorship in such a way so that it is actually benign, even positive and "rightful." You clearly do not understand true censorship, yet you are alarming everyone about censorship, although it is not happening and is not even proposed. That's alarmism, Maria. That's not ad hominem comment.
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." That's you, Maria. You are the one locally crying censorship the loudest. You are the one trying to stifle speech by arguing Ginny's complaint has been dropped, among other ways. You are the one attempting to force your "anything goes" world view on West Bend while Ginny is merely seeking the application of existing legal means to protect children from harm, just as the US Supreme Court describes. You are the one making false ad hominem argument claims to cover your own argument's logical and factual fallacies, omissions, and evasions.
Message 2 of 2, Set 2....
ReplyDeleteThe following may seem like more ad hominem argument to you but it is not. Maria, you continue to be way, way off base. You have bent over backwards to explain why Ginny's complaint has been dropped, then you even now address the petition as if her complaint has not been dropped. Well which is it, Maria. Is it dropped or is it not dropped? And I never called you an idiot. But I did explain how and why the arguments you made assumed both children and West Bend residents were stupid. Really, in the past you said flagging books would make them really attractive, then you said flagging books would scare kids off. Again, Maria, which is it? Make up your mind.
You claim I refused to address your points without attacking you. I challenge anyone to review how I addressed each of your points and pointed out the logical fallacies. No ad hominem argument was used by me. Where Maria played on the assumed stupidity of people, I rightly pointed out the people are not stupid. I countered her own ad hominem argument.
"You are not a licensed, practicing attorney, are you, Dan? Since I do not believe you are, I will suggest to the West Bend readers of this blog that it would be a wise decision to value the advice of the West Bend city attorney over Dan Kleinman's 'legal' interpretation of the events." Yes, Maria, I am an attorney. The city attorney you promote is the very one who advised the library, that somehow led to the library dropping the ball on Ginny's complaint, that caused the library board members not to be reappointed. Further, I made few if any "legal interpretations." For the most part, I have been addressing the facts, and I have been doing so precisely because you, Maria, and others, have been twisting them to suit your arguments. Your efforts to claim censorship necessarily require the facts to be twisted. I am trying to untwist what you have been saying. It's the facts that led to the downfall of the library board members, not the law. Factually, they dropped the ball on Ginny. Legally, the Council is empowered to refuse to reappoint them. You, on the other hand, use alarmist statements about censorship to try to cow the government into reversing its decision and to try to fool the public into joining your effort to pressure your government. I am allowed to point out that you are doing this. And you are.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou have yet to address my comments and the fact that the court referred to books as being "censored" when they were moved to the adult section in the Sund vs Wichita Falls case.
Simple, Busymom. The materials in the Sund case were about LGBT themes and ideas. They contained no material that was inappropriate for children (unless one opposes homosexuality being presented to children, but that's a different issue). The materials in the West Bend matter are not opposed for LGBT content, if any. Rather they are opposed for containing material inappropriate for children. Opposing material based on ideas is totally different from opposing material based on content inappropriate for children, as discussed in Board of Education v. Pico, US Supreme Court, 1982. As you know from my comments above, the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA, 2003, said, "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." It did not say, "The interest in protecting young library users from LGBT material that does not otherwise contain material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." That's why what happened in the Sund case was wrong; the facts in West Bend are superficially similar but totally different.
ReplyDeleteDan, clearly you don't agree that what WBCFSL is asking for is censorship, but I do, and hundreds of other local citizens do as well. They don't believe your assertion that I have made false and misleading statements. They have simply read the WBCFSL petition and come to the determination that it does ask (by way of petition point #1) for materials to be censored (suppressed, removed from one's access, withheld, concealed, restricted; these are all common synonyms) from a group of library patrons based on the subjective opinion (not on any legal criteria) that the materials may be inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteMy point about censorship occurring every day and being rightful in some cases is valid. As a parent, I do have the right to restrict my own children from things I feel are inappropriate for them, whether it is books, videos games, movies, websites, etc. However, this cannot be compared to what WBCFSL asks for, which is a policy in which someone (whether it be a library staff person or someone else) will make decisions about where books are shelved/categorized based on their opinion of the sexual content and their perceptions about whether or not that material is appropriate for a certain age range. Ginny does not ask for materials to be examined (and potentially moved) on the basis that they are age inappropriate, and this is not suggested in the petition. Instead she uses hot button words like pornography (and even child pornography) to try to rearrange the library based on HER opinions of the material.
You need to stop insinuating that I have called any library patrons stupid, because I clearly did not. By pointing out how library patrons typically browse/locate material, I don't make any assumptions about their intellect. I did not say they couldn't find materials that were moved; materials will be restricted from some patrons who don't use the card catalog/computer searches to find material. Yes, some patrons may flock to books that have been red-tagged. Yes, other patrons will avoid them because they have been classified as "off limits" for a certain age group. Both scenarios would likely happen if books are labeled sexually explicit.
You are the one attempting to force your "anything goes" world view on West BendDan, I have never said (nor do I believe) that "anything goes" and that comment shows how little you know of my views. You have heard it enough times by now to surely understand that when I say parents should get to decide what is appropriate for their kids and what isn't, and that I don't want someone else taking that right and responsibility away from me, I am not saying "anything goes."
Dan, you say you are an attorney, but are you a licensed and practicing attorney?
Message 1 of 2, Set 3....
ReplyDeleteMaria, so we'll agree to disagree. You define legal means to protect children as "censorship," whereas I define legal means to protect children as common sense. Some people define "niggardly" as racist, whereas common sense defines it as stingy. So be it. It's a free world.
You point out hundreds of people support you. Right, you are wrong but you are persistent, so I'm not surprised. Ginny, I believe, has at least a thousand supporters. So if your argument is that many people believe your "censorship" claim, well ten times that many support common sense and the application of legal means to protect children.
Suppressed, removed from one's access, withheld, concealed, restricted are not synonyms of censorship, as you say. Suppressed may be close, but it depends on the context.
Maria, the US Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Pico and in US v. ALA restricted access by children to inappropriate materials. The way you define "censorship," the US Supreme Court is guilty of decades worth of censoring materials in public schools and public libraries nationwide. That's more evidence of how wrong you are.
"My point about censorship occurring every day and being rightful in some cases is valid." Thank you. My analysis of your previous statements was four square on the mark. Thank you. You are alarmist about censorship. I feel you do not know how serious an issue censorship is. If, as you say, censorship is practiced everyday and is even "rightful," then you have defined it in a way that takes away any of its sting. As you define it, yes, censorship occurs everywhere, including the public library. But as censorship is truly defined, censorship has not occurred in the USA in about a half century.
Message 2 of 2, Set 3....
ReplyDelete"However, this cannot be compared to what WBCFSL asks for, which is a policy in which someone (whether it be a library staff person or someone else) will make decisions about where books are shelved/categorized based on their opinion of the sexual content and their perceptions about whether or not that material is appropriate for a certain age range." Based on that, Maria, no law can ever be followed. No judge ever need decide a case. Why? Because no one will ever be in a position to actually make a judgment. No judgments, no need for courts and laws. You are asking for the impossible, Maria, that no one should ever make a single judgment about material for children, except that child's own parent. Then throw out all the case law and all the jurisprudence over the past several hundred years because Maria says no one is in a position to make a judgment. We live in a nation of laws, not of Marias, thank goodness.
"Instead she uses hot button words like pornography....." I agree with you on this one. But however inartfully she expressed her ideas, that does not mean legal means to protect children from inappropriate materials should not be used. You claim you don't want the whole thing to pass because of a single person ("try to rearrange the library based on HER opinions of the material"), yet you attempt to see the whole thing fail because of that same person. You can't have it both ways.
"Yes, some patrons may flock to books that have been red-tagged." Ah, you agree with me again. Thank you. I am happy that you changed your language based on my comments.
Since you asked, yes, I'm licensed, but I retired from practice, at least for now. I can be reinstated at any time of my choosing.
"Paranoia strike deep, into your life it will creep." I wouldn't consider West Bend Parents for Free Speech an outside group. Creating an "us v. them" scenario doesn't take away from the fact that the Maziarka's are trying mightily to impose their own pinched version of community standards. It's certainly not based on any faith that I'm familiar with.
ReplyDeleteDan, you continue to selectively quote my comments and try to put words into my mouth. I am not the one who is twisting things to make my argument, you are.
ReplyDeleteI am not against the points of the WBCFSL petition because they come from a certain person, I am against them because they are unsound, unfair, unrealistic and unconstitutional. To impose the subjective opinion of one person or group and make that policy for the entire library patronage infringes upon the rights of others. It is censorship. Your narrow view of censorship is just that; your view. I do not think many would agree with you, and certainly the hundreds of supporters of the West Bend Parents for Free Speech petition would agree. To my understanding, WBCFSL has turned in somewhere around 450 petition signatures to the library. They may have collected more since then, but to my knowledge the numbers do not total to "thousands"; this report was in error.
You make comment that according to my views, no law could ever be followed. I'm not talking about laws, Dan. I'm talking about how the policy changes asked for by WBCFSL are unconstitutional in the context of a public library.
Just to let you know, in the "original" part of this country (a.k.a. east coast), we all think you are a bunch of backward Nazis. Have a happy Fahrenheit 451 when you get around to it.
ReplyDeleteJeremy, thanks for writing.
ReplyDelete