This takes the cake. A university has a collection of soft porn that it promotes front and center in the school library. As a result, many women have ended up in therapy for porn addiction. Students, joined by their therapists, asked the school library to move the books back to the shelves, instead of front and center. The library refused claiming moving the books would be censorship!
See "Therapy: Part 2," by Lauren, The Barnes Family, 27 June 2009. See also "Romance Novels Pornography for Women," by Adrienne, Adrienne Bone, 27 June 2009. I have added these links to "Thomas Sowell on Banned Books Week - BBW is 'Shameless Propaganda ... Now Institutionalized With a Week of Its Own" because the American Library Association's false censorship claims are strikingly similar.
Censorship! Victims of real censorship would laugh about this, then cry that censorship has become so diluted that moving porn back to the shelves is considered the equivalent of, say, jailed Cuban librarians.
Citizens across the nation are beginning to ask public libraries to move material inappropriate for children to the adult section. St. Louis citizens just did this successfully. The false claim that it is "censorship" is made in every case. Children, they claim, have First Amendment rights to inappropriate material. They don't, but that's what they claim.
Along comes Brigham Young University [BYU]. This time the target of the false "censorship" claims is college-age women. So even without the presence of children, the same false "censorship" claims are being made. Result? The BYU Library keeps the porn collection front and center, library patrons continue to be harmed, and it may be a direct result of the library's policy. Potentially, the school may be directly liable for the harm caused to the women after the library refused to move the books using false censorship claims.
When will people stop being intimidated by those claiming moving books is censorship? It is BYU's library, not the library director's library. Get the library director to do what the university community wants, not what the library director wants. If he or she refuses to budge, take appropriate action and move on.
The blog posts discuss the many efforts of students and therapists trying to stop this injustice. The library and school administration has turned them away each time or broken promises. I won't. I hereby offer to assist anyone regarding this matter.
.
There is an error in your post. Your comments indicate that residents of the community of St. Louis were successful in moving "inappropriate" books for children to the adult section. When I followed the link, it says the group was not successful in doing this. The library did not move books, but it did institute a policy of labeling books "High School" in certain cases.
ReplyDeleteMaria, thank you for commenting.
ReplyDeleteI was involving quite a bit in the particular community's efforts regarding its public library.
Books were moved from the teen section to the adult section as a result of two separate actions. 1) The library director on his own moved at least one book, and 2) more books were moved as a direct result of citizen action.
Here, try looking at more media sources: St. Louis County Public Library Agrees to Move Inappropriate Books in Teen Section to Adult Section.
Maria, once again for emphasis, books were moved as a result of citizen action and as a result of the library acting on its own accord. Moving books is simply not censorship. Even the ALA has said this repeatedly.
And to bring it back to the BYU story, the false censorship claims are getting so ridiculous that now even moving books back to the university library shelves from whence they came before being put on display is being called censorship. Porn, no less.
I'm still not seeing anything that states the books were moved, only that the ratings system was established. The link you provided in the original post goes to knowyourlibrary.org and indicates a citizen group was successful in having materials moved to the adult section. However, when I visit this site's "Policy Change" page, it is stated: "While I would have preferred that they move the sexually graphic books up to the adult section, the books will remain in the teen area. However, the library board has approved a policy to label books as "high school," as opposed to "teen," if they are sexually graphic and/or excessively violent."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that act of moving books is not necessarily censorship. However, moving books with the purpose of restricting access to a certain individuals/patrons is censorship.
I'm not familiar with what is going on at BYU, but based on your post and other info I've read, I believe the material in question is romance novels? In your original post you call is "soft porn" and now in your comment it is "porn." Are we really talking about romance novels here, and do you really label them as porn?
Maria, I really appreciate your seriously thinking about this issue, asking good questions, and trying to get to the actual facts.
ReplyDeleteIn this St. Louis matter, I said the library director moved a book on his own, and the citizen action resulted in more books being moved.
I am now going to show you the library director, speaking his own words, stating that he moved a book and why. I'll then assume on your own you can prove the truth of my other statements.
"I-Team: Book Dispute Flares in St. Louis County."
By the way, moving books "with the purpose of restricting access to a certain individuals/patrons" is NOT censorship where the reason for the move is a stated 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."
Think again about what you just saw the library director say. Is he committing "censorship"?
Maria, I know you have been convinced by the ALA propaganda. Think for yourself. That St. Louis library director is not censoring anything. Moving books inappropriate for children is not censorship.
Your quote concerning the US vs. ALA concerns material on the Internet, which I would hope we would agree can be treated separately from the YA novels and nonfiction discussed in St. Louis and West Bend.
ReplyDeleteThe next passage following your quote from the case is:
Given this interest, and the failure to show that adult library users' access to the material is burdened in any significant degree, the statute is not unconstitutional on its face. If some libraries do not have the capacity to unblock specific Web sites or to disable the filter or if it is shown that an adult user's election to view constitutionally protected Internet material is burdened in some other substantial way, that would be the subject for an as-applied challenge, not this facial challenge.
My understanding is the courts found that in this case, adult users' access to materials is not burdened if/when filters can be turned off for these users to allow them to view constitutionally protected material.
The same would not apply in St. Louis or West Bend if books were moved. In moving the books to the adult section, YA patrons' access is restricted and they are burdened (as are their parents.) 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. ~ Sund v. City of Wichita Falls
You say the library director in St. Louis moved one book, and that "citizen action resulted in more books being moved." I still don't get confirmation of that from your links, either in the knowyourlibrary.org site (which says the library didn't move books, but instituted the ratings system instead) or the news clip.
Yes, I think in this case if the library director moved a book based on his opinion that the material was too explicit (and not on any library policies for how books are cataloged or a legal basis) it is censorship.
Dan, at the beginning of your comment you thank me for thinking seriously about this issue and asking good questions. At the end you insult my intelligence by saying I've been "convinced by the ALA propaganda." I think you can probably realize by know that I'm not easily swayed. I haven't been misled or "convinced" of anything. I have always held dear my right as a library patron to access materials freely. This extends to my children's right to the same freedom of access.
Maria,
ReplyDeleteThis time your response provides me with some entertainment.
For example, you say, "Your quote concerning the US vs. ALA concerns material on the Internet, which ... can be treated separately from the YA novels and nonfiction...."
If it is your view that Internet materials differ from written materials on the relevant issue, then I suppose the SCOTUS quote would be, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors on the Internet, and only on the Internet is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree, but it is not legitimate and not compelling if the same or substantially similar material appears in writing." Really, that is very funny, no joke.
More entertainment comes from your citing the Sund case as controlling. That case dealt with books having no "material inappropriate for minors," but having been written about homosexuality. In West Bend, it is the exact opposite. The material in West Bend is being challenged not for its homosexual content, but for its highly sexualized content making it "material inappropriate for children," or at least potentially so. It is the total opposite from Sund. To me, it is funny the Sund case gets used again and again as an excuse why children should have unlimited access to "material inappropriate for minors," especially when US Supreme Court cases say the exact opposite.
Maria, find me a case where keeping "material inappropriate for minors" from minors is itself inappropriate or illegal or censorship. Sund is not that case since the books were not inappropriate for anyone.
To you, Maria, the Sund case applies when it really does not, and the US v. ALA case does not apply when it really does. Do you see why I'm getting some entertainment from your comment?
Maria, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you weren't thinking clearly when you said, "Yes, I think in this case if the library director moved a book based on his opinion that the material was too explicit (and not on any library policies for how books are cataloged or a legal basis) it is censorship." He's the library director. If he can't make a decision, who can? Don't you think he acted in compliance with the library policy? So I find it amusing that you are essentially accusing St. Louis County Public Library Director Charles Pace of censorship for moving "material inappropriate for minors." Do you wish to rephrase anything?
Maria, are you auditioning for a job at the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom? As you said, "I haven't been misled or 'convinced' of anything," yet you sound just like an officer in the ALA's OIF. In fact, in all my years of doing this, I know of no other local advocate who so actively speaks and acts exactly as the ALA's OIF itself would speak and act, only the ALA is far more professional. (Honestly, that's through no fault of your own. No one will ever be as polished, as professional, as an organization with long experience in this area and major funding from Playboy Enterprises, George Soros, etc. People like you and me simply can't compete.)
Bravo!
Funny!
I don't know enough about the situation at BYU to comment so I will leave that alone. But looking through your links, I could only find that one book (Growng Up Gay in America) had been moved in the St Louis case. Whether there were a couple more more or not, I don't know, but it hardly makes the case for large scale policy of moving all teen books deemed explicit as was asked for in our community (West Bend) and initially in St Louis. Your blanket conclusion here and in other blog posts leads readers to believe that this policy was put in place in St Louis.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand, the material reconsideration policies allow for the review of individual books (by library staff and board, not community citizens) and libraries very occasionally will after careful review move selected books. And sometimes library staff will do this on their own without the challenge. But it is not done on a large scale through policy changes and should not be equated as such.
Glad I could provide entertainment for you, Dan. If I did, I apologize if your opportunities to be entertained are so few and far between that my blog comments are a source of entertainment. Perhaps you should take a break from the blogging and catch a movie or read a good book, or join some friends for coffee or cocktails.
ReplyDeleteI would think that most people would agree (and if anyone other than Buzymom is actually following this back and forth, perhaps they will chime in) that when we are discussing what is "inappropriate" for children on the Internet and what is "inappropriate" for children in novels and non-fiction is like comparing apples to alligators. I'm not an expert on psychology or child behavior, certainly, but I can imagine that a child can be negatively impacted quite easily by the graphic nature of sexually explicit websites. And without parental protection in place, these sites can be found through key word searches and innocently clicked on by a minor, who is then bombarded by graphic popup windows. I don't believe the same danger exists with books. Every library patron, including minors, have the means to easily close the book, put the book back on the shelf if they don't like it or it's not for them.
Sund is not that case since the books were not inappropriate for anyone.
You say comparing St. Louis or West Bend to the Sund case doesn't work, because it is not a matter of the books being inappropriate for children. Huh? The fact that the books were moved out of the children's section and into the adult section indicates someone thought they were inappropriate for minors. And if you read the passage I quoted from the Sund case, it discusses how the removal of books from the children's section places a burden on library patrons to locate those materials. Another conclusion of law in the Sund case states:
Defendants' claim that the City has a compelling interest in "shielding minors from an influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards," is similarly off the mark. It is true, as Defendants argue, that states may regulate children's access to materials not deemed obscene for adults; however, such regulation is permissible only where the restricted materials meet the stringent test for obscenity as to children, or "harmful to minors."
Re: St. Louis:
He's the library director. If he can't make a decision, who can? Don't you think he acted in compliance with the library policy? So I find it amusing that you are essentially accusing St. Louis County Public Library Director Charles Pace of censorship for moving "material inappropriate for minors." Do you wish to rephrase anything?
I don't need to rephrase anything. I would consider his moving of the book censorship if he did so based only on his opinion of the material being too explicit. If he moved the book based on and within his library's established policies for how books are cataloged, then I don't consider it censorship.
No, I'm not auditioning for a job with the OIF but I take your comments as a compliment, even if you didn't intend them as such.
Buzymom, Maria, I need more time to answer. Please be patient.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Maria, you are effective in what you are doing, even though we disagree.
Women Turning To their Library Card for Erotic Fulfilment, by Lee Hadden, LISNews, 15 July 2009.
ReplyDelete