Child protection or censorship? Library employees lose jobs ove...

One Parched Irishman wrote:

Now, let me ask a question of all of you, if I might - Have any of you fair citizens ever visited the Blue Grass State? These ladies took courage from the strength of their convictions and, in full view of the powers that be, did what they thought they should to protect innocents.

At to your question, remember that many of us are in Kentucky despite what locations shows up under our name as that is the location of our ISP. As to what the lady did, I too was behind her when I thought it was only the hands of children she was attempting to keep the novel in question out of. It's become clear that her intent was to keep the book out of circulation entirely because she thought it was inappropriate for everyone.

Sarah D wrote:

"Cook says she never wanted the book taken off the shelves so adults couldn't see it."
But her actions ensured that no adult could see it. She censored the book by her own actions. She had no right to do so.
She mistakenly viewed graphic novels as being "for children". Some indeed are for children. Some are for teens. And some are for adults. There is this view here in the U.S. that graphic novels and animation are for kids. Other countries view graphic novels and animation as simply a medium by which all kinds of content can be expressed.
Instead of suggesting that the section Graphic Novels be broken down and the graphic novels shelved in the appropriate sections, this woman took it upon herself to "parent" the children using the library. She's not a hero. She's stupid. Now she's out of a job and all graphic novels are still shelved together rather than in appropriate age related sections.

Cook tried to have something done by going through proper channels, but the library administration didn't do anything- so she was left between a rock and a hard place. She is not stupid by any means. She is principled, with more character than you will ever have with that attitude. Yeah, just do the easy thing which is nothing. "'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men fail to act" - Neitzche'

25 years ago this would have been a non issue! Oh how far we have fallen. Now we have ssd in schools school shootings, teachers getting beat up, pregnancies, abortions, you name it! The more liberal we have become the worse schools have become and more dangerous!

stackan wrote:

<quoted text> Cook tried to have something done by going through proper channels, but the library administration didn't do anything- so she was left between a rock and a hard place. She is not stupid by any means. She is principled, with more character than you will ever have with that attitude. Yeah, just do the easy thing which is nothing. "'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men fail to act" - Neitzche'

There are no "proper channels" for censorship. I understand why she didn't think a child should have access to the book, but she was trying to keep it from everyone. Therefore, I have no sympathy. Oh, and your quote about evil was made by Edmund Burke, not Neitzche.

stackan wrote:

<quoted text> Cook tried to have something done by going through proper channels, but the library administration didn't do anything- so she was left between a rock and a hard place. She is not stupid by any means. She is principled, with more character than you will ever have with that attitude. Yeah, just do the easy thing which is nothing. "'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men fail to act" - Neitzche'

She was fighting evil in your mind? That's what you think?

Fun with paraphrasing: People that fight imaginary monsters should be careful not to become real ones.

two-cents wrote:

<quoted text>
Again...you are missing the point. I'm not saying that since kids can get porn on the internet that we should plaster pictures of sexual acts on the wall of the library. I'm saying that it is not for the library to decide what our children can and can not read...I'm saying the material should be monitored by the parent. Kids should get their "moral compass" from their parent, obviously, unless you trust the federal government to give them one!
Haha, I think it's funny that people think the government should be responsible for keeping this material from our children, and therefore generating their moral compass...our government has the most f-ed up moral compass of all!

Sorry- I think you are missing the point. If we don't think kids should be exposed to explicit material, what good does it do to have it available at the library? Kids shouldn't be allowed access to alcohol and tobacco. You're saying that stores should be allowed to sell to minors, and that parents are ultimately responsible. NEGATIVE. Just like the prohibition on minors, libraries should be able to deny access of questionable materials to youngsters on a tiered system. This is NOT censorship- if adults are allowed access. Is it a denial of rights to refuse a 13-yr old a driver's license? NO, kids are not adults, and are not accorded full status as citizens. I said nothing about the 'government' providing the moral compass- although I guess community standards could be construed as government. But I did suggest that parents be given control over what their kids could read- the caveat being that they get informed BEFORE the fact. Doesn't do much good to get upset that the library was forced to give your kid porn just cause the kid wanted to see it, and nobody had the common sense to say 'No son, you're too immature for that material right now- come back when you're an adult' What strikes me is the attitudes of most of the comments, saying Cook didn't have the 'right' to do what she did. Well, let me ask this- when someone is convinced they are right, and are left no recourse... what does one do? Most of us take the easy way out and do nothing. But a few brave souls stand up for their principles and take actions unpopular with the rest of us sheep, at least at the time. Look at Muhammed Ali and his stand against the Vietnam war. The vitriol he was subjected to! But he was right, and did what his principles guided- even though it was against the 'law'. I think Cook did the right thing in light of the circumstances. This was a reasoned, thought out decision- not a ' well,I don't like it so nobody else should read it' selfish attitude. The real story here to me is the library administration. They are the knuckleheads that forced Cook to this action, and then fired her. Those are the guys that should be the subject of the article.....

aaaahhhhh wrote:

<quoted text>
She was fighting evil in your mind? That's what you think?
Fun with paraphrasing: People that fight imaginary monsters should be careful not to become real ones.

No, the point here is that the easy recourse is to do nothing. Anyone can do that. But it takes gumption to take an unpopular stand. But I guess I could make the argument that the corruption of minors is evil. After all, it is against the law...

tough luck wrote:

<quoted text>
There are no "proper channels" for censorship. I understand why she didn't think a child should have access to the book, but she was trying to keep it from everyone. Therefore, I have no sympathy. Oh, and your quote about evil was made by Edmund Burke, not Neitzche.

Jeez, you're just wrong on EVERYTHING today. She was not trying to keep the book from everybody, just minors. She states IN THE ARTICLE that she is against censorship! But her only course of action to keep the book out of immature hands was to check it out indefinitely.(or ruin it) That's not what she WANTED to do, it's what she HAD to do. And I believe I am correct in attributing the quote. Edmund Burke did NOT make this statement.

In the Herald Leader article it states she kept the book in question out of circulation by continuously checking it out. It was only after the child placed it on hold that the issue came to light. Otherwise, we would all, adult and child alike, been prevented from being able to check the book out. This is censorship.
She had already made her objections known and then took matters into her own hands.
http://www.kentucky.com/1084/story/1016495.ht...

As for your quote,
http://www.great-quotes.com/cgi-bin/viewquote...

So it seems you're the one who has gone 0 for 2 today!

STACKAN _ Since there are so many misstatements and wrong-headed thoughts in your post I will respond to each in turn….

Sorry- I think you are missing the point. If we don't think kids should be exposed to explicit material, what good does it do to have it available at the library?

You are the one missing the point! The problem with this statement is that this woman DOES NOT have the RIGHT to decide for me or my children what is explicit. The book is considered a literary and artistic achievement by many! It is not up to you, the library, or anyone else to decide otherwise. Neither you nor this woman have the right to determine what moral standard the rest of us must adhere to! They have a name for that...it is called censorship.)

Kids shouldn't be allowed access to alcohol and tobacco. You're saying that stores should be allowed to sell to minors, and that parents are ultimately responsible. NEGATIVE. Just like the prohibition on minors, libraries should be able to deny access of questionable materials to youngsters on a tiered system.

This is a fallacy argument....you are not comparing like items. These things are ingested substances which have an effect on the human body and are restricted for use because they can negatively impact health and welfare. Books and images while having the effect of provoking thought do not have a discernable effect on the overall health.

This is NOT censorship- if adults are allowed access.

Sorry. But this is exactly censorship. Anytime a person other than the viewer decides what they are viewing it is censorship. We tolerate a certain amount of censorship because some images are so repugnant that they are deemed to be obscene. That is not the case with this book. While it contains some graphic images the overall presentation is not deemed to be obscene. There are many great works of literature and art whether written or visual which contain images that are just as explicit. If we set a standard as to what is allowed and not then many great works of art and literature are going to be the collateral damage of the rules

Is it a denial of rights to refuse a 13-yr old a driver's license? NO, kids are not adults, and are not accorded full status as citizens.

Since our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people then yes -community standards are the government - Again you have a fallacy argument here. Driving is not a "right" it is a "privilege". Therefore you must obtain a license and abide by the rules or your "privilege can be revoked. The government is not allowed to interfere with rights and could not revoke licenses if it was a right

I said nothing about the 'government' providing the moral compass- although I guess community standards could be construed as government. But I did suggest that parents be given control over what their kids could read- the caveat being that they get informed BEFORE the fact. Doesn't do much good to get upset that the library was forced to give your kid porn just cause the kid wanted to see it, and nobody had the common sense to say 'No son, you're too immature for that material right now- come back when you're an adult' What strikes me is the attitudes of most of the comments, saying Cook didn't have the 'right' to do what she did. Well, let me ask this- when someone is convinced they are right, and are left no recourse... what does one do?

CONTINUED
They take moment.....remember that they do not have the right to make a moral judgment for another individual - no matter how young - and do what they are legally obligated to do. An atheist can deem that it is wrong for churches to teach the bible to young children. They may feel a moral imperative to stop this from happening. But they do not have the right to burn the church down. They don't have the "right" to decide what is right for someone else!
Most of us take the easy way out and do nothing. But a few brave souls stand up for their principles and take actions unpopular with the rest of us sheep, at least at the time.
The bravest souls were our founding fathers who realized that "true freedom" stems from the right of each individual to decide what is right for themselves, to believe as they would believe, and to not have a morality imposed by the government. The greatest threat to freedom is the imposition of any rule by the government which impedes the right of any individual to believe as they choose.
Look at Muhammed Ali and his stand against the Vietnam war. The vitriol he was subjected to! But he was right, and did what his principles guided- even though it was against the 'law'.
Who says he was right? That is a judgment call based upon your own beliefs. I personally agree…. but there are plenty who do not.
I think Cook did the right thing in light of the circumstances. This was a reasoned, thought out decision- not a ' well, I don't like it so nobody else should read it' selfish attitude. The real story here to me is the library administration. They are the knuckleheads that forced Cook to this action, and then fired her. Those are the guys that should be the subject of the article.....
But her action was illegal and she was fired as a result. She had the "right" to make her stand, she had the "right" to believe as she did, she had the "right" to take the actions she took, and she has the "right" to accept the consequences or fight them if she chooses. The library had the "obligation" to protect one of its central tenants and it acted appropriately. They are the ones who acted heroically in defense of my rights and I agree that they should be the subject of the article... let the title be "LIBRARY ADMIN MAKES DIFFICULT DECISION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS"

tough luck wrote:

In the Herald Leader article it states she kept the book in question out of circulation by continuously checking it out. It was only after the child placed it on hold that the issue came to light. Otherwise, we would all, adult and child alike, been prevented from being able to check the book out. This is censorship.
She had already made her objections known and then took matters into her own hands.
http://www.kentucky.com/1084/story/1016495.ht...
As for your quote,
http://www.great-quotes.com/cgi-bin/viewquote...
So it seems you're the one who has gone 0 for 2 today!

My goodness. Yes, I UNDERSTAND that the course of action she took was IN EFFECT censorship because no one had access to the book. At the same time, it was IN EFFECT the protection of minors. What the problem is, is that the library board did not respond to her entreaties, doing nothing- not even allowing dialog with local parents. Cook was forced to her action by her conviction to protect children, this was the ONLY course of action left to her (other than destroying the book). I believe her when she states she is against censorship, and made this decision with reluctance, rather than ruin the book. What we have here is a clash of two ideals- mutually exclusive- and I think Cook made the right decision with her limited choices. Do something or do nothing. It's the library board that was the cause of the problem for doing nothing. This could all have been avoided if they had, for example, held a forum for the community to discuss the issue. Since they took the easy way out and did NOTHING, I applaud Cook for standing up for her convictions. Try this analogy- a loved one of yours has a serious accident and needs medical attention IMMEDIATELY. You now have a choice, follow the speeding laws and drive sedately to the hospital- or drive quickly breaking the law but in order to save a life. The choice is mutually exclusive. You drive slow, the beloved dies. In such a case you would willingly break the law to achieve a greater good. Did you speed? Technically yes, but it was not frivolous and should be forgiven. Did Cook practice censorship? Technically yes, but not because she WANTED to, she had a higher goal in sight. She wants the book to be available for adults, just not children!

PS http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_ 'Evil_will_prevail_when_good_m en_do_nothing' The Quote has been misattributed to Burke.

The Mindless American wrote:

CONTINUED
They take moment.....remember that they do not have the right to make a moral judgment for another individual - no matter how young - and do what they are legally obligated to do. An atheist can deem that it is wrong for churches to teach the bible to young children. They may feel a moral imperative to stop this from happening. But they do not have the right to burn the church down. They don't have the "right" to decide what is right for someone else!
Most of us take the easy way out and do nothing. But a few brave souls stand up for their principles and take actions unpopular with the rest of us sheep, at least at the time.
The bravest souls were our founding fathers who realized that "true freedom" stems from the right of each individual to decide what is right for themselves, to believe as they would believe, and to not have a morality imposed by the government. The greatest threat to freedom is the imposition of any rule by the government which impedes the right of any individual to believe as they choose.
Look at Muhammed Ali and his stand against the Vietnam war. The vitriol he was subjected to! But he was right, and did what his principles guided- even though it was against the 'law'.
Who says he was right? That is a judgment call based upon your own beliefs. I personally agree…. but there are plenty who do not.
I think Cook did the right thing in light of the circumstances. This was a reasoned, thought out decision- not a ' well, I don't like it so nobody else should read it' selfish attitude. The real story here to me is the library administration. They are the knuckleheads that forced Cook to this action, and then fired her. Those are the guys that should be the subject of the article.....
But her action was illegal and she was fired as a result. She had the "right" to make her stand, she had the "right" to believe as she did, she had the "right" to take the actions she took, and she has the "right" to accept the consequences or fight them if she chooses. The library had the "obligation" to protect one of its central tenants and it acted appropriately. They are the ones who acted heroically in defense of my rights and I agree that they should be the subject of the article... let the title be "LIBRARY ADMIN MAKES DIFFICULT DECISION TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS"

Well, I guess you chose the right moniker! Let me put this in simpler terms for you. Children are NOT adults. They don't enjoy the same 'rights' as adults in America. This is by design, so that we try and protect them until they mature and THEN they are allowed to make bad decisions . If an adult has access to something, but a child does not, it is NOT CENSORSHIP. It is child protection. The library board did nothing, thereby possibly being in violation of the law vis-a-vis child protection. Cook does not want censorship, she does want to protect children. The library board did NOTHING- not even dialog with local citizens. Faced with a choice of protecting children, or doing nothing, Cook acted in the best way she could (check out the book indefinitely or destroy it) She chose to preserve the work of art, while protecting children. I applaud her, and denounce the aloof library board.

stackan wrote:

<quoted text> Well, I guess you chose the right moniker! Let me put this in simpler terms for you. Children are NOT adults. They don't enjoy the same 'rights' as adults in America. This is by design, so that we try and protect them until they mature and THEN they are allowed to make bad decisions . If an adult has access to something, but a child does not, it is NOT CENSORSHIP. It is child protection. The library board did nothing, thereby possibly being in violation of the law vis-a-vis child protection. Cook does not want censorship, she does want to protect children. The library board did NOTHING- not even dialog with local citizens. Faced with a choice of protecting children, or doing nothing, Cook acted in the best way she could (check out the book indefinitely or destroy it) She chose to preserve the work of art, while protecting children. I applaud her, and denounce the aloof library board.

Again you have failed to see the point...Let me say it simply for you. NEITHER SHE NOR THE LIBRARY IS PERMITTED TO MAKE THIS CHOICE FOR ANYONE REGARDLESS OF AGE!! I for one don't want you, her, or any other entity deciding what is right for me and my children. Tend to your own....I will tend to mine!

stackan wrote:

<quoted text> Well, I guess you chose the right moniker! Let me put this in simpler terms for you. Children are NOT adults. They don't enjoy the same 'rights' as adults in America. This is by design, so that we try and protect them until they mature and THEN they are allowed to make bad decisions . If an adult has access to something, but a child does not, it is NOT CENSORSHIP. It is child protection. The library board did nothing, thereby possibly being in violation of the law vis-a-vis child protection. Cook does not want censorship, she does want to protect children. The library board did NOTHING- not even dialog with local citizens. Faced with a choice of protecting children, or doing nothing, Cook acted in the best way she could (check out the book indefinitely or destroy it) She chose to preserve the work of art, while protecting children. I applaud her, and denounce the aloof library board.

I am sorry that you cannot reason this out for yourself or make any arguments which are not based in the fallacious belief that you or anyone else gets the right to make a decision about what my child reads. I am sorry that free speech and free press only matter to most people when they agree with the content. I am sorry that you don't get to sculpt society to match your view point but mostly I am sad that so many people in this country fail to see that every freedom we surrender under the guise of "protection of children or defense of freedom" makes us a little less free. When we willingly surrender any right we effectively are committing an act of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America. I know that in your mind this is only one book and that it shouldn't be available to children but what about others...Say for instance "Tropic of Capricorn, The Canterbury Tales, Rabbit Run....

and what about art?

Shall we also ban most renaissance artwork which depicts nudity...

You have a very strong emotional reaction to this.... now you need to give some logical consideration....

Give us the guidelines by which this matter is to be decided...

1. What types of words and images shall require approval by a parent for a child to read or view?
2. What system of ratings shall we apply?
3. How will the library
A. Insure adherence to your new ratings guidelines;
B. Insure the age of the person checking out the materials;and;
C. Insure parental consent prior to allowing the child to check out the material.
4. How do we designate between literary quality and smut?
5. Who decides on the ratings for any book?
6. What criteria will be used to determine what rating is appropriate for specified age groups?
7. Are there books that may not be checked out by a child even with parentla consent?
8. Is there a process by which an artist may appeal a ratings assignment?
A. Whom does the appeal go to?
B. Who is the governing body that will determine whether the author's appeal shall be upheld or denied?
C. If an author is already deceased may another indiviual bring the challenge to a rating?

Do I need to continue? Or are you starting to see that while saying that a certain book should not be allowed in the hands of a child is a fairly easy thing to do. Putting that statement into practice is very very difficult and very very dangerous.

If you can't answer these questions then please stop talking like you know what should be done.

My, my, MY!! Stacken and Mindless American - Might I suggest that you attend any Jessamine County Library Board meetings that are open to public comment? And, if you do decide to attend, do you plan to sell tickets so that I might attend (a great fund raising concept)?? Reserve a seat for me, ring-side, front row. I'm giving three to one on Stacken merely for the passion shown - Two to one on Mindless American for attention to detail...

May I wager on myself and is there a limit to the bet i may place?

Wager as you see fit, boy-o - no limit as to the value of the wager as long as the book has enough funding to sponsor a pint (or two)for the belligerents - lets hope and pray that the local pubs have seen fit to include malted beverages that could qualify as a stout - otherwise, call the whole t'ing off....

One other thought from one of my countrymen, sadly no longer with us, but none the less valued for his wisdom:

"I have never come across anyone in whom the moral sense was DOMINANT who was not heartless, cruel, vindictive, log-stupid and entirely lacking in the smallest sense of humanity." Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

P.S.- The quote isn't an observation regarding any comments made regarding the issue at hand OR those that made them - it's merely food for thought. Erin Go Bragh...

The Mindless American wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you have failed to see the point...Let me say it simply for you. NEITHER SHE NOR THE LIBRARY IS PERMITTED TO MAKE THIS CHOICE FOR ANYONE REGARDLESS OF AGE!! I for one don't want you, her, or any other entity deciding what is right for me and my children. Tend to your own....I will tend to mine!

Look you knucklehead, no one is saying these books should not be available. As I suggested in my first post, perhaps making a restricted list of controversial books THAT PARENTS COULD GIVE THEIR OWN CHILDREN PERMISSION TO READ would be a good solution. Ergo, all the 'rights' screamers could allow their children access and wouldn't feel violated in any way. Good points about selecting which books- I agree that it would be difficult. But that could be left up to individual libraries. After all, even the supreme court couldn't define pornography. This might surprise you, but I am a firm believer in individual rights. In fact, I think everything should be legal-drugs,et al- as long as your imbibing doesn't interfere with MY rights. But I also believe we need to do a better job as a nation raising our kids. An 'anything goes' mentality has crept into our culture, to our detriment as a society. Parents cannot do it all, all the time. There has to be a sense of community, where certain behaviors are not tolerated, and deviant behavior can be corrected no matter the parents are not around. If my kid was misbehaving in public, I'd EXPECT an adult to jump in and say hey! stop that nonsense and straighten up. Or is that censorship of behavior, and thus against the kid's rights? See, to me this is not about censorship at all. It's about protecting children.