Family Friendly Libraries Awards

Denise Varenhorst writes "Family Friendly Libraries, a national grassroots organization dedicated to increasing awareness of the need to protect children from harmful materials in public libraries, has granted two Awards of Recognition to libraries which meet the organizations Standards for Public Libraries.

The two libraries that have earned this award are the Gwinnett County Public Library in suburban Atlanta, Georgia, and the Manhattan Public Library in eastern Kansas. 'Both of these libraries meet all seven of our Standards for Public Libraries and deserve to be commended,' Varenhorst said. These standards include the utilization of Internet filters in compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act, allowing parents to limit their minor child's borrowing privileges, and providing a separate area for materials parents may wish to pre-screen for their children.

In addition to receiving award certificates and letters of commendation, award winners are listed on the Family Friendly Libraries website www.fflibraries.org. "

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Those two libraries hold up

as great examples of PRO-CENSORSHIP libraries, which is what the true name of "Family Friendly Libraries" should be. Or ANTI-FIRST AMENDMENT libraries. Great if you want to be prevented from obtaining constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges.

Re:Those two libraries hold up

I disagree with birdie. These are not "PRO-CENSORSHIP libraries." Rather, the libraries are awarded in part for adhering to CIPA, the Children's Internet Protection Act. In 2003, the US Supreme Court found in US v. ALA that such filters were NOT censorship. Birdie is therefore legally wrong as well as factually wrong. Congratulations to the winning libraries for obtaining recognition from an organization the adheres to the law of the land instead of the agenda of the losing party.

Re:Those two libraries hold up

Birdie…libraries for years complied with the same common sense standards that FFL is trying to re-establish for the safety and benefit of minors. You have the freedom to buy whatever material (porn etc.) to your liking, but tax payers should NOT be forced to purchase it for you at local libraries.

Re:Those two libraries hold up

I agree. The whole reason SafeLibraries is alive is that the ALA at the very highest levels forced the community of Oak Lawn, IL to maintain its Playboy magazine subscription and the access to it that the library provides to children of all ages. Children, yes, you read that correctly.Complaints by people made no difference, neither did hundreds of signatures, or an independent survey showing the people wanted it out by an overwhelming majority, or even the town government itself requesting the library remove it.The ALA Council (thanks in part to the library director's being a member), the ALA President, and the ALA leader of the Office for Intellectual Freedom got directly involved in the case to ensure children maintained access to Playboy magazine. Local control was literally impossible.Claims that libraries are subject to local control are totally false, and that's the ILA's main argument against HB1727: HB 1727 is not needed, the ILA says, because libraries should have local control.

Re:Those two libraries hold up

Embedded in the "Library Bill of Rights" is an unconstitutional proposition: full access to children. There is an overwhelming amount of First Amendment and parental rights case law negating this absurd form of free speech "absolutism." I happen to be a free speech "absolutist" - but not for anything that meets the Supreme Court definition of obscenity and certainly not for the notion that libraries should give children unfettered access to materials selected for adults.Maybe the ideologue librarians pushing for porn in libraries don't have children themselves, and therefore they both do not understand the need for protection nor the fierce, nonnegotiable antipathy of parents to this evil nonsense. Concerning the latter, especially, what else can explain the willingness of public librarians to totally destroy the credibility (and future funding) of libraries by insisting on the "First Amendment right" to view pornography ("but we provide privacy shields!") in a place frequented by children and paid for by taxes?It must be an absolutist ideology that drives people to such madness that they would rather see their institutions gutted than to give up their false belief that access to pornography for children - or adults - is a constitutional right.

not about porn

You folks know that the anti-filtering librarians aren't pro-porn, don't you?I know our absolutism makes it seem that way sometimes.But we are concerned with breast cancer, sex education, info for gay teenagers, political information, sites that use the word "witch", medical information and hundreds of other important, non-porn sites that get blocked by internet filters.We don't believe that it's ok to just pretend that whole parts of our world don't exist or aren't important just because people won't find a better solution.If you feel that our use of words like "freedom" and "First Amendment" is a dodge then I think your side's stampeding past the censorship of important, non-offensive information and saying "you want kids to have porn, you love porn" is just as dishonest and evasive.

Re:not about porn

Well, again, there is a terrifying disconnect in what you seem to be saying. You seem to be arguing that, on balance , we have to make libraries pornography-friendly places that are unsafe for children, because otherwise there will be an unintended limit on legitimate searches (and let's be real - these are very minor limitations - not wholesale blocking of "breast cancer" web sites, for Pete's sake). I have to tell you that parents of young children will never, ever, accept your point of view that this is somehow an acceptable trade off. Never.And anyway, who said there aren't librarians in favor of children viewing internet porn in libraries?"We should, to put it bluntly, be sex-positive, in favor of sex education, of providing information about abortion and alternatives and about family planning. We should not make children ashamed of their sexual curiosity on the internet or in literature. Is that what's bad for children? NO!" -- Mark Rosenzweig

Re:not about porn

On balance, neither librarians nor parents of young children should be telling adults what they can or can't search, what is acceptable for parents to allow their children to see, or what is or is not constitutionally protected speech. They have a say in those.

Re:Those two libraries hold up

When they say it's not about porn, you can bet it's about porn. The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment was never meant to sanctify or condone pornography, and even if it did, "anti-censorship" does not impel the purchasing or stocking of pornography using the funds of any level of government; that would be misappropriation and misuse of public funds. Note the distinction between an adult's possession of "adult" pornography and the illiegalty of child pornography. Furnishing of or availing pornography to children and youth is abjectly evil or morally reprehensible on its face. I knew an athiest lady years ago (professional with an earned doctorate in a science field) who married, got pregnant, and was looking to the birth of her firstborn. Some of our group were discussing the care of children and she remarked, "You know, when you really get to know some of those people who are so anxious to indoctrinate our children into sex, you find out that they are really weird." I have never forgotten that. The leadership of the ALA and much of its constituency -- irrespective of religion or traditional morality of the Judeo-Christian ehtic, are "really weird" and want to debauch our children, under the guise of "free speech." Period. Why does this even need debate? Is it not patently clear?

Feminists applaud working moms, but when those moms complain about library porn, the not-quite-Marian-the librarians say "PulEEZE! It's YOUR job to monitor your what your child reads!" Such ALAers just make sure it's available, even often stocking salacious materials close to the children's reading areas. In the right cause, of course! Eww! Such vulgar duplicity!

So beautiful I nearly cried

"The leadership of the ALA and much of its constituency -- irrespective of religion or traditional morality of the Judeo-Christian ethic, are "really weird" and want to debauch our children, under the guise of "free speech." Period. Why does this even need debate?"I'm having this embroidered on a large floor pillow for my basement, where Nancy Pelosi and I indoctrinate children into making drug-fueled, Marxist, Brecht-style porn movies with Mexican Muslim converts who hate America and, possibly, Jesus.Wow. "Debauch" as a verb. My hat's off to you.Did you know you are a non-librarian trolling a librarian's discussion board? Does that not seem strange to you?

Re:not about porn

As I stated you are free to buy all the smut as well as your own computer to watch and look at in the privacy of your home. You should not be able to take my money and purchase it through the public library anywhere, and expose innocent children to it as they visit the library.

Re:So beautiful I nearly cried

Chuck! Attack of the "Straw Men!"And it doesn't matter. Because the fact of the matter is that ideologically driven public libraries that offer legally obscene materials are going to lose their tax-funded budgets.Deng Xioping left a message on the answering machine while you and Nancy were rolling around on the basement floor:"Seek Truth From Facts."Especially the stubborn ones brought up by furious, voting parents like me (MLS KSU 1982) and the troll.

Re:not about porn

You are free to buy all the bibles you want on your own computer and watch and look from the privacy of your home. You should not be able to take my money and purchase it through the public library anywhere, and expose innocent children to it as they visit the library.

Re:not about porn

I challenge you to a tit for tat. There is one Bible to 100 inappropriate sexually graphic materials available to the youngest patron in my library. You research yours and I dare say…your conclusion will be the same.

Now it’s statistically well known that 80% Americans declare themselves to be Christians. Why then isn’t that reflected in the shelved material in America’s libraries?

Why must Christians fund your perversion?

here's why

We find that the Bibles don't circulate and the sexually explicit stuff just FLIES off the shelves.

Re:here's why

If you want children sexually active- continue giving them this material. If you want children to steal, drink, do drugs, rape others, commit suicide, molest their children, etc. keep teaching them how to do it?

If you just think back when this material was kept in the adult section… we had better behaved children. I believe you will see how the statistics have climbed.

Don’t give me the… “It starts at home.†I have talked to soooo many parents that have NO idea that librarians are handing this trash to their minor children. Parents at one time trusted librarians to protect their children from inappropriate material. And at one time they DID!

Government school systems have played a huge, but similar role with their non-directive method of teaching. They put all the information they can about sex, drugs, alcohol etc. into the minds of the children and expect them to decide what is right in their own eyes.

There are still absolutes in this world and …this is ABSOLUTELY wrong!

Re:here's why

If you want children sexually active- continue giving them this material.

ROFLMAO!

First off, children don't stay children, they grow up and become young adults. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of young adults are going to become sexually active no matter how much the ultra-right wing nuts scream hysterically about how they cannot be permitted to. Even those bullshit chastity pledges were only effective for an average of 18 months. And those who took those pledges paid a price for it:

In a recent analysis of the massive National Longitudal Study of Adolescent Health, Columbia University sociologist Peter Bearman looked at the success of "chastity pledges." The pledges, usually taken publicly as part of a Christian fundamentalist virginity movement, have indeed given several million teens the gumption and peer support to postpone intercourse -- on average eighteen months longer than nonpledgers. But in the end, such pledges are counterproductive to developing habits
of lifetime sexual responsibility. When they broke the promise, as almost all did, these fallen angels were less effective contraceptors than their peers who had become active earlier. --Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors, pg 113

Yeah, there are absolutes in the world, but foaming at the brain religious lunatics aren't in any position to identify any of them.

Re:not about porn

Why must Christians fund your perversion?

For three reasons.

1: It is not a perversion to look at material which offends the hypersensitivies of simple-minded idiots that do not know and will not learn the difference between pornography and something they just don't like.

2: Christians are not the only ones who pay the taxes that fund those purchases, and they don't get to say how the taxes get spent that were paid by Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Wiccans, and Pagans.

3: Not all Christians (or etc.) are hypersensitive, knee-jerk reactionary pin-heads who buy into the bullshit "It's all pornography" propaganda.

Re:here's why

You are the only one here that has mentioned the word ban (means: stop somebody from doing something: to forbid somebody from doing something or going somewhere) Encarta ® World English Dictionary Why does that term ALWAYS spew from the mouth of the liberal leftist?

Let‘s begin again…you have every right to purchase, view or read the trash in your home, but you DO NOT have the right to corrupt minor children with it… and to use the Christian tax dollars without a protest from Christians! And for those that go to the public library’s computer system to look at porn…they should be in jail. Sex is meant for the bedroom between a married man and woman.

Voyeurism usually ends in the violation of an innocent person, it cannot be condoned in a public place where children frequent.

As for teenagers postponing sexual activity…think that to be a wise decision for them with aids and the numerous STD’s rampant in our communities. But when you see stories about 5th and 6th graders engaging in sexual activity in their classrooms…you can’t help but land on the idea that the source is at their fingertips in their public and school libraries. Most Christian parents monitor what their children watch in their homes, but as I stated most Christians aren’t aware that such trash is available to their child, because they themselves was protected from it.

My question is still on the table... Why the lack of Christian material in public and school libraries- when the majority of those tax dollars belong to Christians?

Re:here's why

As I mentioned elsewhere: filtering computers reserved for adults on the premise of "protecting" children is censorship, and it does nothing whatever to "protect" children. Filtering is not about about denying access to porn to children. From the get-go, it has been about putting ultra-right-wing-developed-and-sanctioned censorware on every computer giving public access to the internet regardless of the demographic to which a computer might be dedicated. Anti-filtering, btw, is not about providing or guaranteeing unmonitored access for children. It's primarily about demanding that parents curb their own brats instead of relying on society to do it for them. In simple terms: He's your punk-ass kid, you look after him.

And if you want to be a whiny cry-baby about how tax dollars are spent: those are everybody else's tax dollars too and they have just as must right to demand that they be spent protecting the access of adults instead of degrading that access. And pursuant to the above, I certainly don't think my tax dollars should be spent to turn public institutions into babysitting services for a juvenile delinquent that you won't even raise yourself.

And why is it that the ultra-right wing nut will scream "pornography" over everything, including material such as Where's Waldo?

Re:not about porn

Chuck, Well said, but you are misinformed. We only want what the US Supreme Court says is legal. We don't want to throw out what the US Supreme Court said then reargue the same issues in community after community as if US v. ALA doesn't exist. Further, we want people to stop the misinformation about breast cancer and how the filters do not work. They work about 95% well, and they no longer filter out breast cancer, and the ACLU said this and the court agreed in the recent (March 2007) COPA case of ACLU v. Gonzales, E.D. Penn. People who claim filters don't work and filter out breast cancer are either wrong or knowingly misleading. We don't need MoveOn.org to tell you to move on, breast cancer is no longer filtered out and US v. ALA exists and makes filters perfectly legal as described in the case. It's time everyone stop misleading people about the truth. Read US v. ALA and read the recent COPA decision yourself. Bd of Education v. Pico from 1982 wouldn't hurt either.

Re:here's why

Fang you‘re NOT HEARING ME! Librarians have done that very thing for years prior to ALA’s take over of the library system. How does your child understand why you must be with them at all times in the library. Makes for a long stay especially if you have several children of different ages. Your motive removes the privilege for children -- with responsible parent -- to freely browse; because those parents know what is lurking on the shelves.

There are laws against minors having sex, smoking, drinking, drugs, and pornography…do you realize that you are advocating for the breaking of laws?

Raising a child is far more difficult these days with the liberal progressive movement pulling strings in public schools(NEA). School children are told Not to do as your parents do, but figure things out yourself. What’s the chances that the teen don’t let his parent know when he is going to the library? “Hey… mom and dad I’m going to the movie with Jimmy.†Yet he spent the evening at the porn shop (library).

There is cross-over materials that grade school children borrow from the YA section, and YA from the children section. How do you justify a 9-10 year old picking up a book that recommends a three-way sex act, oral sex, or the homosexual propaganda that pervades the teen section?

I am NOT in favor of tracking devices, so don’t go there. My point stands-- generations of parents have trusted generations of librarians to segregate the appropriate material to the appropriate departments. It would not be an experiment- it’s an empirical method (derived solely from experience: rather than from the application of logic Encarta ® World English Dictionary) . It works…so stop abusing the innocence of children!

Re:not about porn

Looks like your mama forgot to wash your mouth out with soap.

Do not tell me that the majority of people believe that children should be reading about sex and using the kind of language, you feel free to use here. I would bet that your library has a policy that states: No foul language permitted on the premise. That's called a rule of decency. Yet the teens shelves are literally lined with it. What message is the teen to understand from that kind of nonsense? If you don't want children to use foul language --then get it off their shelf...or revise your policy!

Re:here's why

Your child needs for you to be with him or her at all time. Mine didn't, because I brought her up to be able to deal with social issues on her own. The problem with all those screaming hysterics is that they are raising children. Those of us who know better raise adults.

And the difficult about raising "children" is a plaint that is common to every generation since population pressure moved humanity beyond the hunter/gatherer stage. Your parents said it about you, your grandparents said it about them, and your great-grandparents said about your grandparents. And it is not at all true.

Unfortunately, only those of who raise adults, the underwhelming minority, understand that.

And your hysterical screaming about how I'm not hearing you does not validate your bankrupt philosophies.

Re:here's why

Fang… Sorry…I didn’t want my cap key to scream - just put a little more emphasis where needed. You said people with your laxity -anything goes attitude about life- is raising adults. Are you saying that children just need to learn by experience, and not lesson or example from parents? Experience life for themselves? So what I hear you saying is... a parent sees a car coming down the street and their child is about to cross that same street; you should allow that child to learn a life lesson by HOPEFULLY experiencing a close call, or should your child survive being hit by the car - a life lesson...maybe the will look the next time?

The above example of allowing your child to experience life freely, can also be equated to permitting your 10 year old to explore his sexual freedom. The consequences coming down the street can be just as deadly- aids, sterility, cancer from STDs and abortions. People can live without sex, but not without a healthy immune system, so it’s wiser to protect them as long as possible from the on-coming traffic. Do a search on the free spirit found in the Netherlands. They have made the abortion pill available to their teens, over-the-counter, taught them all there is about sexuality. Look at the rates of their STDs.
Look what they wrote:
In these nations, societal openness and comfort in dealing with sexuality, including teen sexuality, and pragmatic governmental policies create greater, easier access to sexual health information and services for all people, including teens. Easy access to sexual health information and services leads to better sexual health outcomes for French, German, and Dutch teens when compared to U.S. teens.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/fact sheet/fsest.htm

Now look at this and ask yourself…is this really what I what for America?

Western Europe, 2 France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece and the United Kingdom reported an increase in rates of gonorrhoea. Between 1995 and 2000, gonorrhoea rose by 102% in England and Wales and 154% in Sweden. New cases of anorectal gonorrhoea have increased markedly in Amsterdam since 1998. Multiple outbreaks of syphilis were also recorded in England, Wales, the Netherlands, Ireland, France and Norway. In the Netherlands, syphilis cases have increased by 182% in 2002. 3
http://www.icn.ch/matters_sti.htm

Re:here's why

The way you twist arguments to mean what they don't, you'll have to be screwed into your casket.

Loved your statistics, by the way; they look to me like the type that were made up. The reason is, there was a part of the source material you didn't quote that renders what you did out of context:

An increase in high-risk sexual behaviour and low condom use are key factors to the rising incidents of STIs in Europe. Social, - behavioural and economic factors such as intravenous drug use, increased travel and migration, changes in cultural norms and values, poverty and unemployment also contribute to the high rates of STI infections.

In some countries, STI prevention and education programmes are not reaching the public.

So it is ignorance, not exposure to sexuality information that is deadly, and the source you cited specifically mentioned "older teenagers". That's young adults. Not children. Here are some statistics to refute yours.

Lest you consider my approach peculiar or irresponsible, I remind you that in Western Europe whether and when aren't the burning questions either. Sex education in those countries begins with the assumption that young people will carry on a number of sexual relationships during their teen years and initiate sex play short of intercourse long before that (which they do) and that sexual expression is a healthy and happy part of growing up. The goal of sex ed, which grows out of a
generally more relaxed attitude toward sexuality, is to make sure that this sexual expression is healthy and happy, by teaching children and teens the values of responsibility and the techniques of safety and even pleasure. --Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors, introduction, pg xxxii

I don't mean to imply that if adults would just quit trying to suppress youthful sex, everything would be hunky-dory in American teen's bedrooms and automobile back seats. Homophobia and misogyny are as robust in the suburban middle-school hallway as in Jesse Helms's office or a gansta' rap studio; dating violence is rampant. In part of this youthful bigotry, anecdotal evidence indicates that many kids, especially girls, are having sex they don't want or do not enjoy. [...]

Harmful to Minors says sex is not in itself harmful to minors. Rather, the real potential for harm lies in the circumstances under which some children and teens have sex, circumstances that pre-dispose them to what the public-health people call "unwanted outcomes," such as unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, not to mention what I'd also consider an unwanted outcome: plain old bad sex. --Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors, introduction, pg xxxiii

In one way, the wide support for abstinence makes sense. Americans are still convinced that teen pregnancy is pandemic, and in the time of sex-borne death, containing the exchange of adolescent body fluids is an attractive notion to parents, educators, and even the kids themselves.

In another way, however, it is senseless, and for the simplest of reasons: Comprehensive, nonabstinence sex education works. And abstinence education does not. --Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors, pg 101

In many European countries, where teens have as much sex as in America, sex ed starts in the earliest grades. It is informed by no-nonsense, even enthusiastic, attitude toward the sexual; it is explicit; and it doesn't teach abstinence. Rates of unwanted teen pregnancy, abortion, and AIDS in every Western European country are a fraction of our own; the average age of first intercourse is about the same as in the United States. --Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors, pg 101/102

Re:here's why

Fang, you’re wrong again. Do a search on the sex education of Netherlands students. They give it ALL to their teens…very open with information. Your free-sex mentality is actually frightening. You might consider a move to the Netherlands. How did you look at that report and NOT see the dangers…blinders maybe? STDs are exploding…abortions are falsely represented as the abortion pill is destroying the embryo before pregnancy is identified, therefore the abortion rate is really exploding! Do you have children of your own?

Why do you believe that children should be having sex? Sex is NOT meant for pleasure only…God knew what he was doing…he said multiply, take dominion. The pleasure is the off-shot of procreation. Sure their are couples that are barren, but they still can enjoy the opportunity to express their love through pleasuring their mate. He never said he created it for recreation -- NEVER! You have the right to do what you wish with your sexuality, BUT you don’t have the right to indoctrinate grade school children with your distorted view.

Just because hormones are raging- does not mean they must be satisfied. They are also tempted to steal, kill, lie, whatever --does that mean they should try it? Even though Virginia Tech’s - Cho experienced killing. Sex outside of marriage is sin! The consequences are far to dangerous!

Judith Levine is also wrong…Netherlands is proof!!!! Judith wrote: In many European countries, where teens have as much sex as in America, sex ed starts in the earliest grades. It is informed by no-nonsense, even enthusiastic, attitude toward the sexual; it is explicit; and it doesn't teach abstinence. Rates of unwanted teen pregnancy, abortion, and AIDS in every Western European country are a fraction of our own; the average age of first intercourse is about the same as in the United States.
--Judith Levine, Harmful to Minors, pg 101/102
If children are given access to the morning after pill- take it after they have sex…then of course the pregnancy and abortion rates would be lower. The skyrocketing STDs are the true indicators here.

For health sake, children need to remain children. In adulthood - then and only then -should they even consider a life partner for sex (Marriage).

It is SO wrong for libraries to take our money to indoctrinate children to believe differently!

Re:here's why

Just because you're a screaming ultra-right wing "religionist" doesn't mean that anybody else has to live by your rules. For that matter, your rules have been used since the 11th century on down to commit the most reprehensible and horrific tortures and mass murders and genocides. Anywhere from 30,000 to seven milliion in the withchunts of the 15th through 18th centuries. Untold numbers of Jews in the First Crusade (who were being shit on under biblical "command" since the 4th century), and probably every other one. Even Hitler espoused the so-called "christian" dogma in many ways. And, as usual for the ultra-right winger, you have tried to twist my statements to mean what they don't.

I believe in God my own way, and you may rest assured that he is not the fascistic, bloody-handed and blood-lusting, foaming at the brain, easily offended and afraid of everything, crazed lunatic yours is.

Re:here's why

Fang wrote: I believe in God my own way, and you may rest assured that he is not the fascistic, bloody-handed and blood-lusting, foaming at the brain, easily offended and afraid of everything, crazed lunatic yours is.

Fang you better look at the end of the story. Rev. 19: 11, And I saw heaven opened, and behold a Whitehorse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Rev. 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

My God is also a WRATHFUL GOD…He makes war! What about the temple scene?…He turned tables over and chased out the moneychangers, used a whip I believe. Mt. 21:12 and Mark 11:15

Librarians will very likely be wishing for a millstone before the Lord is done with them! Because of Mat. 18:6 Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Perverting the minds of children…especially Christian children. Fang I pray that won’t be you!

Re:here's why

He was filled with wroth for hypocrites. Ultra-conservative, biblical-literalist types. It's another indication of your basic intolerance, by the way, that you choose to focus on the vengeful and blood-lusting aspects. Try the Beatitudes. They are diametrically opposed to your mind-set, but they are supposed to be the words of Christ Himself.

Re:here's why

Oh, and something I forgot to mention. Children -- actual, real children -- don't go in much for sex. The kind of alleged children to whom you are referring are young adults. Legally, still minors, but of child-bearing years nonetheless. Human beings stop being children de facto at the onset of menses or nocturnal emissions; depending on their sex. Pre-pubescent children still have a right to know what's going to happen to them when they become young adults, however. Before it happens.

Re:here's why

Fang you don’t know what your talking about. Fifth graders are children- that’s grade school. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/national /main2645702.shtml There’s another story about sixth graders having sex in their classroom- http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6180780 that’s grade school in my local school.

You are personally going to answer to God for sexualizing these children. You are endorsing the ALA’s policies and therefore accountability lands in your lap. Sexual information should never be free for minors to access…NEVER!

Re:here's why

Well, defender, at least the playing field is level, because you are going to answer to God personally for perverting his religion and turning it into a political movement in violation of Christ's mandating of a seperation of church and state: Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's, for my Father's kingdom is not a kingdom of this earth, it is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Establishmentarianism is a false doctrine; by definition: a heresy.

Aside from which, He gave every person free will. Establishmentarianism is a direct attempt to violate every person's God-given free will by subverting will to the ideology of the religio-fanatic.

Re:So beautiful I nearly cried

Fascinating. You're correct that libraries that offer obscene materials will be in trouble. But that's a straw man itself. Pornography is not equal to obscenity. Luckily, although you play a role in its definition you are not the arbiter of that distinction.

Re:So beautiful I nearly cried

If you happened upon a mother bear and her cub out in the woods and made a threatening move toward the bearcub (of course, "threatening" is not equal to "violent," and it is unfair that so many mother bears can't or won't make that distinction), would the mother bear "play a role," or would she do her best to be an "arbiter?"I'm a parent of young children. Listening to the local library director explain the difference between obscenity and pornography and why one of the two is being paid for with my taxes is just going to make me work tirelessly - I mean that - to divest the library either of the danger or of its funding. And that is a...fact.

Re:So beautiful I nearly cried

As is your right. It's also other's rights to make sure that you don't get to make that choice for everyone.
That is also a fact.

Your bear analogy is interesting. Are saying that you view certain types of speech as harmful to your child, so you're going to make sure that your child is not exposed to that speech?

This isn't just an argument about what constitutes obscenity. This is also an argument over what taxpayer dollars fund. This is also an argument over selection. This is also an argument about majority/minority views and protections. This is also an argument over how to best raise children. This is also an argument over who gets to decide how to best raise children, or if that's even possible.

Syndicate content