Library board hears complaints about books/Decision scheduled for Oct. 11 meetingThursday, October 5, 2006By Zach Sims/Staff writer
Marshall just recently held a hearing to hear public opinion on two books that were being challenged. The books were being challenged on the basis that the pictures were sexually questionable. Louise Mills, the woman who is challenging the books stated, "We may as well purchase the porn shop down at the junction and move it to Eastwood. Some day this library will be drawing the same clientele," Mills said. "I sincerely hope the board will listen to the community. Let's not contribute to the delinquency of minors." This statement is just silly. I have viewed the pictures that are in question and in my opinion, there are far from pornography. Her comment about drawing clientele from the porn shop is, at least, discriminatory. Not only does she want to decide what books are allowed in the library, she wants to decide who is allowed in the library.
Louise Mills was not the only person that questioned the type of people these books would draw in. Another resident named Sarah Aulgur stated something similar to Mills, "I don't want seedy people coming into the library and moving into our community." Public libraries are just that, public. Everyone has the right to go to the library even if they are pornography supporters. It seems the main focus of these arguments are not based on the books themselves, but the on the people who may read them.
There were a few members of that community that spoke against the removal of the books. "The library's purpose is to provide a broad sweep of information, if you have only things that you like in a library then it is a private library," Wilson said. "I find myself defending something that I find repugnant, but I feel it needs to be provided." I can relate to this statement. It does acknowledge that the books may have some questionable material, but that does not mean that they have to be completely removed. Who wants to go to the library and only be able to read what is acceptable according to someone elses opinion of the material.
Another member of the community said, "I do not see this material as obscene or pornographic," Dave Riley said. "The big city is here, the world is here, you're not going to keep it out. I understand everybody wants to live here and live in their little fantasy world and think we're somehow protected from that, we're not," Riley said. "Everyone has said up to this point that it is pornographic and obscene, it may be offensive, I agree, some people will be offended by it, I'm not. I just want you to know there are some people who don't share your opinion ... I do not see it as pornographic material and I'm not offended by it." Dave’s comments prove that not everyone agrees that the books are pornographic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can we have an opinion if the books are taken off the shelf.
Link to full article
Marshall just recently held a hearing to hear public opinion on two books that were being challenged. The books were being challenged on the basis that the pictures were sexually questionable. Louise Mills, the woman who is challenging the books stated, "We may as well purchase the porn shop down at the junction and move it to Eastwood. Some day this library will be drawing the same clientele," Mills said. "I sincerely hope the board will listen to the community. Let's not contribute to the delinquency of minors." This statement is just silly. I have viewed the pictures that are in question and in my opinion, there are far from pornography. Her comment about drawing clientele from the porn shop is, at least, discriminatory. Not only does she want to decide what books are allowed in the library, she wants to decide who is allowed in the library.
Louise Mills was not the only person that questioned the type of people these books would draw in. Another resident named Sarah Aulgur stated something similar to Mills, "I don't want seedy people coming into the library and moving into our community." Public libraries are just that, public. Everyone has the right to go to the library even if they are pornography supporters. It seems the main focus of these arguments are not based on the books themselves, but the on the people who may read them.
There were a few members of that community that spoke against the removal of the books. "The library's purpose is to provide a broad sweep of information, if you have only things that you like in a library then it is a private library," Wilson said. "I find myself defending something that I find repugnant, but I feel it needs to be provided." I can relate to this statement. It does acknowledge that the books may have some questionable material, but that does not mean that they have to be completely removed. Who wants to go to the library and only be able to read what is acceptable according to someone elses opinion of the material.
Another member of the community said, "I do not see this material as obscene or pornographic," Dave Riley said. "The big city is here, the world is here, you're not going to keep it out. I understand everybody wants to live here and live in their little fantasy world and think we're somehow protected from that, we're not," Riley said. "Everyone has said up to this point that it is pornographic and obscene, it may be offensive, I agree, some people will be offended by it, I'm not. I just want you to know there are some people who don't share your opinion ... I do not see it as pornographic material and I'm not offended by it." Dave’s comments prove that not everyone agrees that the books are pornographic. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can we have an opinion if the books are taken off the shelf.
Link to full article
posted by Marianne at 7:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home