Mom Checks Out And Keeps Racy Teen Books In Protest

[tropicsgoddess]

This is a wtf-a-thon of the day. This mom checks out these racy teen books and keeps them in protest for how these books were accessible to minors. Here's the link: http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news...teen_book.html

Your thoughts on this?

[Kimmik]

Ummm ummm whiskey tango foxtrot indeed....Let me guess she also wants to pull things like huck finn and the like... people like her should be put in stocks and have rotten tomatoes thrown at them.

Seriously if you dont like it dont read it... dont let your children read it... I dont like romance books but I just dont buy or read them... I dont steal them... way to teach your kids that theft is ok... oy

[Anthony K. S.]

she doesn't want them banned, but she does want the library to put a warning label on the four titles
and make them unavailable to minors

The italicized part is what really gets me. I'm not a parent, but if I was . . .

Suppose that my son or daughter wanted to read those books, and I decided that they were okay.

Who is this woman to dictate what I can and cannot permit my child to read?

The library refused but has agreed to re-shelve them in the adult-reading section.

I cannot believe that the library is actually giving in to this nutcase, even if it's only in a small way.

She is stealing their books, and they're actually trying to compromise with her in order to get back their own property?

That's not good enough for Harden, who said that as a taxpayer she should have a say in which books land on the libraries' shelves. "They're supposed to be public servants," she said.

This woman is not trying to "have a say." She's trying to dictate. There's a difference.

What about all of the other taxpayers in that community who might disagree with her? What makes her so special that her wishes must override theirs?

She says the libraries are "supposed to be public servants," which makes me think one of two things :

(1) She is presuming to think that she can speak for the entire public, and that her actions must necessarily reflecting the wishes of the whole community, which is pretty damned arrogant, or . . .

(2) She is saying, "They're supposed to be public servants, and I'm part of the public, so they're supposed to be serving me."

The latter reminds me of the way that some customers think it's perfectly okay to go into a retail store and totally monopolize 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 40 minutes, or more of an employee's time. If anybody calls them on it, they say, "It's their JOB to serve customers, and I'm a customer!"

It's our job to serve ALL of our customers, not just you. If an employee has to spend half an hour helping you and that leaves much less time for our other customers, that's not fair to them.

Likewise, public servants are supposed to serve the ENTIRE public, not just this one person. She doesn't seem to understand that it isn't fair to other people in her community for a library to obey her wishes at the expense of those who might feel differently.

This whole thing is stupid on eighteen different levels.

[KellyHabersham]

A few of my thoughts on this......


- I don't see how the library would be able to make books "unavailable to minors" in the first place, because ideally, what they'd have to do would have the circulation system set up to where items couldn't be checked out to a particular card if the user is under a certain age.

- the books in question aren't THAT objectionable......I've seen more "inappropriate for minors" material at the library where I work. (spanish photonovelas being a good example)

[MaggieTheCat]

This is absurd. The whole "I'm a taxpayer and I should have a say in what the library does" is especially baffling. As someone already pointed out, other taxpayers might disagree with her completely...and besides, I'm sure there are a lot more reasonable ways to get her point across, like writing a letter to the manager of the library or leaving comments in a comment box, or something else that doesn't involve stealing anything.

[jackfaire]

Quick someone hide the bible before she reads it!

[fireheart17]

I'm actually surprised she didn't aim straight for the Judy Blume books.

The few I can think of that involve racy scenes to some description are:

Forever (Judy Blume-actual sex scenes, not overly explicit, also encourages teenagers to have contrac)
Summer Sisters (Judy Blume-lesbian scenes)
Choices (Dianne Wolfe-the entire story is done in a Sliding Doors fashion-same character, two different lives. One talks about teenage pregnancy and her keeping the baby and the other talks about her having an abortion)
Are You There God? It's Me Margaret (several "taboo" topics, 13-year-olds exploring sexuality and growing up, also lack of an organized religion)
Deenie (Judy Blume-masturbation passages)
Iggie's House (Judy Blume-racism)

Also, most kids can get hold of any romance novel in most libraries-there are no restrictions on them. Most of the Harlequin Romances have quite racy sex scenes in them....

[Skelly]

Simple solution: Kick down her door. Take the books back. Beat her up with a clue by four. Repeat as necessary.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Actually, the solution will just happen regardless. The kids will wonder what all the fuss is about, and therefore want to read those books all the more, even if they weren't really interested before.

When I was at school, there weren't many books that the school library wouldn't stock; one, however, was The Wasp Factory. The moment I found out that the school library would not order that for me (I'd read about it someplace else; I think a magazine or something), I became absolutely determined to read it, when I'd only been lukewarm before.

Remember all that crap about albums having stickers on them warning about explicit lyrics? That spectacularly bombed, cuz the stickers just made teenagers want to listen to them all the more.

[Boozy]

This woman is not trying to "have a say." She's trying to dictate. There's a difference.

What about all of the other taxpayers in that community who might disagree with her? What makes her so special that her wishes must override theirs?

She says the libraries are "supposed to be public servants"...

I agreed with your entire post, and would like to add:

The independence of public libraries and the ability of the library staff to make decisions about their catalogue must be sacrosanct.

Public libraries have to remain politically neutral, and they have to be protected from the tyranny of the few (or of the majority).

The only time a catalogue decision should be questioned is if the political neutrality of the library staff is in question. That is not the case here.