Libraries and the Culture Wars

[hmaria1609]

Thanks for posting this!  I'll drop you a PM later, apl68.

[dismalist]

Let's get freedom of choice and censorship straight:

-I am for legalized prostitution. That does not mean that everybody has to allow a brothel next door.

-I am for legalization of heroin. That does not mean that everyone has to shoot himself up.

-I am for freedom of expression. That does not mean I need tolerate billboards advertising pornography across my street.

-I am for freedom of the press. That does not mean I have to read or even see all the garbage, nor, most importantly, that my children have to see it.

-I am for freedom of religion. That does not mean I have to abide by any.

-I am for equal civil rights for everybody. That does not mean I have to associate with anybody.

People differ in their tastes.

No boundaries, no freedom.

So? 

---Don't become a john and don't buy a house next to a metallurgic factory, a sawmill, or a brothel, or any other business that would disturb your delicate sensibilities (you are safe anyway----there are zoning laws);
---do not use heroine;
---do not look at the offensive billboard (do as the Duggars do and look at your shoes----but you'll be okay, there are public decency laws);
---do not read stuff you don't want and perform due diligence as a parent (don't expect the government to do your parenting for you----watch what your kids read but leave my books and moves alone);
---don't go to church if you want to stay home and watch football (just don't try to stop other people from going to church because it might imping on your sense personal violation because they do);
---don't hang out with anyone you don't want...just remember you are not so important that you can tell other people where they can or cannot go unless it is your own house.

Respect other people as you want them to respect you.

And none of that has any equivalency to LBGTQ rights.

You messed up who has property rights, precisely what this is about. Amounts to assuming away the problem.

--there are zoning laws. Yeah, who makes them?
--there are public decency laws. Yeah, who makes them? What do they encompass?
--(don't expect the government to do your parenting for you----watch what your kids read but leave my books and moves alone. The government is doing the parenting!
   They are not your books, they are our books. It must be determined which books they are.
--(just don't try to stop other people from going to church. I don't, but the government has been doing the equivalent for decades!
--don't hang out with anyone you don't want. I don't.

LBGTQ rights are rights like any other. Civil rights absolutely. Other rights, see above. Vote on the library committee!

There will be different answers to who owns the rights in different places. We could all segregate by tastes in these things if we let local communities decide for themselves. They may not have the authority, so State level decisions are second-best.

[Parasaurolophus]

In the criminal context, I think it's okay for judges to override jury verdicts to reduce sentences (when and where that's up to a jury). I do not think it is at all okay for them to override a jury to increase a sentence. This seems to me like a perfectly sound harm reduction principle that does not grant too much power to a single individual, and which mitigates harms of excess.

I feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.

A library is not an archive. It routinely purges material for which it anticipates no great future demand. But when the demand is there, it should be serving it--dissenting external voices be damned. I don't think my library should stock The Art of the Deal, but if it did, I trust that the staff know what they're doing, and I accept their judgement. It's their job, after all, and they have a better sense of its goals and their constituency than I do. (I also expect that it will be purged at some point due to lack of interest--and if the interest is there, well, then I guess it should stay, and I need to rethink how I conceive of my community.)

The people making the materials challenges at libraries are acting because they feel they have no choice but to challenge what they see happening in their schools and libraries.

Yes. And, unfortunately, they are in the wrong. I don't think we/you (library staff) should be moved by concerns that boil down to a wish to erase or ignore the existence of entire groups of people based on some characteristic they hold in common. That is transparently wrong, and if it doesn't seem transparently wrong to someone, they need to sit and have a hard think about things.

What you should be moved by is the fact that teens would very much like to read the new Mira Grant/Erin Bowman/whatever novel, just as you're moved by the fact that a lot of people want to read Harlequins, Fifty Shades sequels, etc. (And, really, if what we're squeamish about is sexual content, then we need to have a much harder look at the library catalogue, especially where heterosexual relationships are concerned).

[dismalist]

I feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.

Should, should. So the staff owns the library!

The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)

Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.

[Kron3007]

I feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.

Should, should. So the staff owns the library!

The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)

Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.

Drag Queens pay taxes too...

[marshwiggle]

I live in a city with a big drag queen scene. I wouldn't want to tell someone who didn't like it that their only choice was to move, still, I wouldn't want to tell the drag queens to tone it down because someone might be uncomfortable.

So far no-one has suggested people should be barred from using the library. Similarly, the fact that certain books are in the library, such as religious texts, doesn't mean that having public readings of them is appropriate.

[dismalist]

I feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.

Should, should. So the staff owns the library!

The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)

Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.

Drag Queens pay taxes too...

Sure, that's why it would best be a political decision among voters for each library. Drag Queens absolutely have civil rights. Join the library committee. :-)

[Parasaurolophus]

I live in a city with a big drag queen scene. I wouldn't want to tell someone who didn't like it that their only choice was to move, still, I wouldn't want to tell the drag queens to tone it down because someone might be uncomfortable.

So far no-one has suggested people should be barred from using the library. Similarly, the fact that certain books are in the library, such as religious texts, doesn't mean that having public readings of them is appropriate.

If anyone thinks Tango Makes Three is inappropriate for a public reading, they are simply wrong.

[Kron3007]

I feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.

Should, should. So the staff owns the library!

The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)

Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.

Drag Queens pay taxes too...

Sure, that's why it would best be a political decision among voters for each library. Drag Queens absolutely have civil rights. Join the library committee. :-)

Well, someone obviously voiced their interest in having these books included at local libraries already.  Now, a larger group with political influence seeks to remove them on grounds of moral superiority.  The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority. 

An interesting contrast is that many people morally object to gun culture, but there is no move to ban books about guns or those that glorify violence.  I think the argument for this would be stronger (not that I would support it), but it just dosnt elicit the same panic as homosexuality does in the conservative crowd. 

 

[dismalist]

The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority. 

No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.

[Kron3007]

The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.

No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.

Tell that to the few LGB people living in a small town...

I grew up in a rural area and suppression and discrimination was alive and well.

[jimbogumbo]

I live in a city with a big drag queen scene. I wouldn't want to tell someone who didn't like it that their only choice was to move, still, I wouldn't want to tell the drag queens to tone it down because someone might be uncomfortable.

So far no-one has suggested people should be barred from using the library. Similarly, the fact that certain books are in the library, such as religious texts, doesn't mean that having public readings of them is appropriate.

I don't understand your intent with the above. A story hour is generally (always?) done in a separate space, and you only take your kids in if you want to. A Bible reading would be done in the same setting, and in the Midwest for example they are.

We have at least three separate issues going on here. The story times that are part of the library's offerings, allowing private groups of citizens to meet-read-discuss in a separate space within the library, and the banning of content being housed in the library. The second of those, imo, should be a nearly absolute right.

If the story time is put on by a private group of citizens, it should be in the absolute right to be done category.

[dismalist]

The issue with a majority rules mentality is that the majority can often suppress the interests of the minority.

No kidding! That's dangerous at the national level, and totally innocuous at the local level. Different places will have different majorities and different policies. There is no suppression.

Tell that to the few LGB people living in a small town...

I grew up in a rural area and suppression and discrimination was alive and well.

Look, this thread is about libraries. Get a national law that says LGB material has to be put into libraries. Perhaps prominently, perhaps not. Opt in or opt out for parents?

That would be really terrible. That would be suppression of people who don't want their kids to come near this stuff.

But this will not be a barrier in cities and big towns.

But the public can't pay for my whims to have my own library. That's the "money is free" fallacy.

People differ. The point is to find a way to live together peacefully. Decentralization does not impose.

[Wahoo Redux]

You messed up who has property rights, precisely what this is about. Amounts to assuming away the problem.

--there are zoning laws. Yeah, who makes them?
--there are public decency laws. Yeah, who makes them? What do they encompass?
--(don't expect the government to do your parenting for you----watch what your kids read but leave my books and moves alone. The government is doing the parenting!
   They are not your books, they are our books. It must be determined which books they are.
--(just don't try to stop other people from going to church. I don't, but the government has been doing the equivalent for decades!
--don't hang out with anyone you don't want. I don't.

LBGTQ rights are rights like any other. Civil rights absolutely. Other rights, see above. Vote on the library committee!

There will be different answers to who owns the rights in different places. We could all segregate by tastes in these things if we let local communities decide for themselves. They may not have the authority, so State level decisions are second-best.

Guess that one stung a bit, huh Big-D?

We know who makes the laws, the same government which secures First Amendment rights, establishes federal law, and has protected LGBTQ rights nationwide.

And you are right, they are our books.  And I am glad to see our books supporting LGBTQ rights.

The government does not stop peeps from going to church.  It doesn't even tax churches.  Why do conservatives play the victim card so often?  Why do conservatives default to "the government" whenever there is something that culture accepts but conservatives don't like?  Do y'all have a playbook or something?

Glad you don't hang out with anyone you don't want to.  What is the problem?

[Wahoo Redux]

I feel much the same way about library acquisitions: the public should absolutely be able to request the inclusion of particular materials (the point of a public library, after all, is to serve its public). But removal decisions should be up to library staff alone, and should never be compelled externally (unless stocking some material would violate a criminal code provision). Individual members of the public know what they like and want, but they're not the library's sole constituency, and the library has to serve many different people and interests. The staff are best-placed to know how best to do that, and have access to usage data as well.

Should, should. So the staff owns the library!

The staff are paid for by somebody. The payers should own the library. :-)

Because libraries are local public goods, politics reigns - properly - in determining who owns the library. There is no problem if the decisions are made in a politically decentralized manner as great as possible.

So you support government intervention into what the public has access to?