ALA inspired policy effectively blocks any meaningful challenge by Parents for materials they don't want their children to see at the public library, even though the law requires it.
.jpeg)
Teenagers in sexual positions in
"It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie H. Harris
with illustrations by Michael Emberley.
Many public libraries in Kansas and most other states have adopted a new policy, guided by the American Library Association (ALA), that limits citizens' and parents' rights to challenge books and materials accessible to minors in libraries and via online downloads.
At Hays Public Library (HPL), key policy elements include:
- "A Citizen’s Request for Reconsideration of a Library Material may only be submitted by residents of Ellis County." However, HPL materials are shared via interlibrary loan, resource sharing, rural outreach, and school support through the Central Kansas Library System (CKLS), serving 17 counties. Citizens and parents in the other 16 counties cannot request reconsideration, despite most checkouts originating outside Ellis County (per the latest Library Board meeting). This restricts parents' rights to guide their children's education when using public libraries.
- "An item reviewed through the reconsideration process is not eligible for review again until 5 years after the date the review is completed." The Library Director does not publicize titles under consideration and can reject new requests by claiming prior objections (even if unresolved).
- "Due to the nature of a consortium and digital collections, content on Sunflower eLibrary cannot be reconsidered if it was purchased and shared by another library. Content on other online resources may also be ineligible for reconsideration depending on how the library subscribes to content on each online resource." Minors can download sexually explicit books unrestricted, eliminating parents' ability to challenge shared digital materials—comprising nearly all titles.
HPL refuses to limit juvenile cardholders to juvenile titles or shield children as young as 5 from viewing sexually explicit print books. All ages access all materials freely, burdening parents to prove obscenity rather than requiring the library to demonstrate child protection.
Librarians, per ALA's Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement, consider no materials obscene for children, ensuring that all ages have access to all materials. Public libraries and the Kansas State Library Handbook follow ALA guidelines, overriding and blocking parental objections.
A key passage from Justice Brennan's majority opinion in , explains parental responsibility: "First of all, constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society. 'It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.' Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166. The legislature could properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for example, who have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility."
This affirms:
- Parents hold a fundamental, constitutionally recognized role as primary directors of their children's upbringing and moral development.
- The state can enact laws (e.g., age restrictions) to support parents' responsibilities, not undermine them.
- Government has a legitimate interest in child welfare, especially limiting third-party exposure to harmful content without parental consent.
Drawing on precedents like and ), the Court emphasized parental primacy in child-rearing, permitting aligned state intervention. reaffirmed that fit parents presumptively act in their children's best interests, curbing state interference in family decisions like education.
The interpretation supports parents' primary responsibility for children's moral and developmental "education" (child-rearing), allowing laws to restrict unsuitable materials without overriding parental choices. This has influenced later parental rights cases in education and upbringing.
HPL's policy protects the library from repeated requests. While reasonable policies are lawful, a 5-year blackout is unreasonable—spanning from 8th grade to adulthood—prioritizing library convenience over parental rights. It fails to uphold laws supporting parents' guidance of children's education.
Thousands of libraries use this policy, treating reconsideration requests as censorship. At HPL, all such requests sought only to relocate sexually explicit books to the adult section for parental review before checkout; none demanded removal (though the director removed low-circulation titles voluntarily).
Adapted from Sunflower eLibrary and ALA policies, it's nationwide, restricting parental rights and exposing millions of elementary-aged children to sexually explicit materials (defended as educational regardless of age) without parental knowledge or recourse (if prior objections exist).
The Library Director suggested another option: forgo a library card or accept the policy.
So either deal with it or get out and stay out.
Yet, taxpayers fund these public institutions.
Does it sound like this policy will withstand legal scrutiny?
.jpeg)
"It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie H. Harris
with illustrations by Michael Emberley.
Does this look like a perfectly normal
children's book to you?
—
Join World Library Association:
WorldLibraryAssociation.org
Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech
.jpeg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.