• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gays and Public Libraries

To Gene:

Indeed, I DO have 'some' say as to what books are ordered.

Just so that we are clear, 'I' use a book's age and condition, to determine if it will be cataloged and shelved.

When I first got here, a book's contents may have kept it off the shelves and out of our system. There was a conserted effort NOT to offend anyone, but the result was that our patrons didn't get access to everything they could have. They limited what everyone could get, to save a few from being offended.

I took the opposite view. If it was new and in good condition, it went on the shelves, even if it was controversial.

Are you suggesting I am 'wrong', for doing so?

If so, what criteria 'should' be used in determining what goes on the shelves.
 
King of the Americas said:
To Gene:

Indeed, I DO have 'some' say as to what books are ordered.

Just so that we are clear, 'I' use a book's age and condition, to determine if it will be cataloged and shelved.

When I first got here, a book's contents may have kept it off the shelves and out of our system. There was a conserted effort NOT to offend anyone, but the result was that our patrons didn't get access to everything they could have. They limited what everyone could get, to save a few from being offended.

I took the opposite view. If it was new and in good condition, it went on the shelves, even if it was controversial.

Are you suggesting I am 'wrong', for doing so?

If so, what criteria 'should' be used in determining what goes on the shelves.
Click to expand...

I think that your earlier post implied that you gave preference to books that would offend, rather than just not trying to not offend.
 
I 'gave preference' to whatever book was new and in good enough physical condition to be displayed...

I didn't care if someone was offended or not.
 
King of the Americas said:
To Gene:

Indeed, I DO have 'some' say as to what books are ordered.

Just so that we are clear, 'I' use a book's age and condition, to determine if it will be cataloged and shelved.

When I first got here, a book's contents may have kept it off the shelves and out of our system. There was a conserted effort NOT to offend anyone, but the result was that our patrons didn't get access to everything they could have. They limited what everyone could get, to save a few from being offended.

I took the opposite view. If it was new and in good condition, it went on the shelves, even if it was controversial.

Are you suggesting I am 'wrong', for doing so?

If so, what criteria 'should' be used in determining what goes on the shelves.
Click to expand...

I do think you're wrong. It seems you're hiding behind what you might call the idealistic belief that

  • I think people deserve ALL the information, not just the stuff they agree with
To justify what you seem to think is the right thing to do
  • Since my arrivial, I have done eveything in my power to put stuff on the shelves that would shock, dismay, and or outright offend local patrons
If it were the right thing to do (to offend people) then that action would need no justification. It could stand on its on merits. I think you're wrong to hide behind what you want to portray as a noble reason.

I'm most certain you crossed the line when you visited your sister

King of the Americas said:
My sister's TV is 'smart', and she can 'lock' channels that she doesn't want her step kids to watch.

For this she had been branded the "Evil Step Mother"...

I find it funny, cause she was the one who would hide her cop of 'Cosmo', and was also the same little girl who got caught with a 'Playgirl' once.

Now, she blocks A&E, FX, VH1, HBO, CINAMAX, SHOWTIME, and MTV.

(*Whenever I visit, I always unlock ALL the channels.)
Click to expand...

You've several times made the point that people are responsible for their children but you deny your sister that right in her own home. You are wrong.

Gene
 
To Gene:

My sister and I are good friends, who like to play practical jokes on each other. I don't 'always' unlock all the channels she has locked, but do on occasion find the need to watch VH1 when I am at her house, so I'll unlock a station or two.

When I do, I always remind her of the 'stuff' she was subjected to, and yet SHE managed to turn out just fine. It is a point of contention between the two of us, and I am always trying to push her lines that she draws.

What happens at my sister's house, between the two of us, is TOTALLY different than what happens at the library. In my sister's house I relent, most of the time, to her wishes for her step kids. Indeed, it IS up to her what they are subjected to, even if I disagree. At the library, it is up to the 'patron' to decide what they look at or view in the library.

I'll conceed that I 'crossed the line' at my sister's, and I think I may even alter that behavior, even though I still plan to give her a hard time about it. ;)

However, in regards to the library, I see NO reason to alter my present stance- that a book's age and condition are the sole determining factors in deciding whether or not is goes and stays on our shelves.
 
King of the Americas said:
Just because YOU have issues with a topic, does NOT give you the right to infringe upon others...
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that you, too, have issues, and you are infringing your sensibilities on others. I am not going to make a judgement here about your sensibilities. I only wish to point out that, like those here you oppose, you have them, and have created a Catch-22.
 
I figure that a public library should have all books shelved and cataloged, no matter what the content. It is a government run facility and shouldn't be in the business of censorship. Banning "gay" books is equivalent of banning "democrat" books or "black interests" books. The government is not supposed to "protect" us from dangerous ideas.
 
steverino:

'I' have issues...?

Sure, okay. I have an 'issue' with censorship.

I don't believe it is MY place to censor stuff, in a public library. My job is to keep new books on the shelves and in good condition. When something gets worn, my job is to replace it.

Personal taste and people's sensibilities never come into factor, and for this I am thankful.

I urge you to keep your sensibilities to yourself, as I will mine. Moreover, please IGNORE other people's reading and or internet library practices, their business is their own, and NOT for your review, unless they volunteer said information.

---

Please describe this "catch-22", that I have created...
 
Last edited:
Marc L said:
I've no issue with providing information, as I mentioned in my post.
Click to expand...

Uh... I have to chime in with those that say, yes you do.

You're right. I was trying to find an analogy, and obviously, it failed. Turning the screen, however, isn't always practical. What do you do, for instance, when the computers are in the center of the room, and there is no "back corner" to hide in?
Click to expand...

Then I have to decide if I mind if people can see what I am watching. Apparently, the library doesn't value my privacy a lot. But setting up the PCs in a way that my screen can be seen by others isn't my responsibility.

Again we run into the issue that I didn't want to get into. The whole, "what about this specific site? what about this one?" Otherwise know as the "where do you draw the line" argument. I don't have a line drawn, and I refuse to draw one for this discussion. For my daughter, I draw a line, after discussion with my wife. That's our responsibility as parents.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Yours, not the library's.

Read my above comment about practicality (in this post). Turning away the screen isn't always practical. Even if there is a back corner, that limits you to one, maybe two computers. People walking by can still see the page you're viewing.
Click to expand...

Not my responsibility, though. Why should it?

By saying, (as I mentioned in the post you replied to) "The library doesn't allow this material to be viewed because it may be objectionable to other patrons," the problem is solved.
Click to expand...

Why should what you do not whish to see be more important than what I want to see?

Granted, there will still be discussion on what should be considered objectionable, and I covered that in my response to Rasmus.
Click to expand...


Yes, you did. But I think I should be allowed to even look at the sites you think are "clear cases". I should be allowed to look at The Kill All the Jews Official Website - why shouldn't I be?

Because you don't like what it has to say? Well, then you shouldn't be allowed to look at ... uh... the Green Party's Website, because I might not like what they have to say.

Because it says "18 or over" anywhere on the page? Uh... no. First of all, I *am* 18 or over, and secondly I am not sure it is a meaningful bit of information as long as the website isn't somehow enforcing this age-limit. And if it is enforcing it, then we're just back towhy the library won't set up the computers in a way that'll prevent other people from looking at my screen.
 
King of the Americas said:
.
However, in regards to the library, I see NO reason to alter my present stance- that a book's age and condition are the sole determining factors in deciding whether or not is goes and stays on our shelves.
Click to expand...

But in terms of ordering, you have previously made statements about trying to shock people. That is somewhat different than the current stance of everything we have in good condition stays on the shelves.
 
steverino said:
It is my opinion that you, too, have issues, and you are infringing your sensibilities on others. I am not going to make a judgement here about your sensibilities. I only wish to point out that, like those here you oppose, you have them, and have created a Catch-22.
Click to expand...

How is making something available infringing on the sensibilities of others, aside from when those sensibilities are censorship?
 
ponderingturtle said:
How is making something available infringing on the sensibilities of others, aside from when those sensibilities are censorship?
Click to expand...

A library cannot contain everything, and therefore some material does not get included. The "Rock-and-Roll McDonalds" in downtown Chicago tried "pizza" on their menu. THAT crappy item should have been censored.
 
Ladewig said:
I imagine the funding structure of libraries in New Zealand is radically different from the funding structure of libraries in the USA. I suspect your nation values education somewhat more than my nation, and thus is more willing to spend money on institutions such as libraries.
Click to expand...

That depends on the region. In the South, for example, books are a rare commodity as is literacy. In the PacNW, however, we have huge libraries and they are very busy.
 
steverino said:
A library cannot contain everything, and therefore some material does not get included. The "Rock-and-Roll McDonalds" in downtown Chicago tried "pizza" on their menu. THAT crappy item should have been censored.
Click to expand...

So who has the ability to tell [rule8] from shineola that can tell what subjects do not belong in the library?
 
steverino said:
You assume that others share your value system. Some may not. Therefore, you are imposing your take on censorship onto others. They in turn feel you are censoring them. Catch-22.
Click to expand...

Steve, do you realize how dumb this arguement is? He might be imposing his values on them, but he is not censoring them, just preventing them from censoring others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom