library patron loses privileges after tearing magazine

Here's A Follow Up on John Callaghan.
His decision to rip the cover off a gay and lesbian news magazine has cost him his borrowing privileges for a month, the Williamsburg Regional Library director said today.

"Everyone is deeply concerned about this issue and is concerned that library policy, as well as Virginia Code, was violated," said library director John Moorman. "It's an issue I think of tolerance and respect for the wide variety of individuals that live in our community."

Callaghan, a resident of Ford's Colony, said he won't contest the library's decision.

"If that's what they wish to do, that's their business. It's their library," he said. "I've made a point and I'm not a rabble-rouser. I'm not trying to cause trouble. I did what I thought was right."


Personally, I think he should be required to pay for a replacement magazine. The idea of buying such 'offensive' material would probably be more galling and prevent a repeat of the incident. None of the quotes I've read seem to indicate that he felt any sort of remorse or saw anything wrong with his actions. I'm not sure suspending priveleges for a month is in any way going to make a difference. Having to buy the Advocate--especially if he has to personally get it from a newstand--might. But that's just my 2 cents' worth. :)

It's amazing to me how two faced these people can be when they're against something, anything, that doesn't agree with their standard of morals. He didn't want to cause trouble. Yet he knowlingly and willingly destroyed property not belonging to him. Library property is public property so I don't think he should only lose his privileges for a while, but also be charged with destruction of public property.

I could really care less that he's against gays and lesbians. He's got plenty of company in this country where you're free to be who you want to be; as long as it doesn't offend the sensibilites of our puritan founders or the morality set forth by an invisible man who lives in the sky. (Or in my case, an invisible man and woman who live in the sky. My religion is just as good and illogical as everyone else's when you get right down to it.) So even though it's my belief that you have the right to have sex with whichever gender you please, or both if you're bi, there's millions out there who disagree with that notion.

But let's back up a sec. I, for one, cannot STAND National Review magazine. I hate the conservative stance it takes. I hate the way it bashes those who disagree with its views. I hate the layout. And most of the writing sucks. (I say most. Every now and then they screw up and get a good writer.) I really don't like anything about National Review, including the colour of blue they picked to frame the cover. But ya know something? I'm not going to rip it apart. Why? 3 reasons:

1.) I'd get fired.
2.) It's not mine.
3.) Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I have the right to destroy it.

I really hate stupid people.

I actually wondered when I read the original story--was he more offended by the two men kissing or was it because one was black and one was white? Could be both, I suppose.

I really dislike the light punishment this jerk is receiving--it's over the holidays when he is likely to have other things to do anyway. He even gets to return over the Christmas break with the grandkids if he wants. This idiot was boasting publicly about having done it for pity's sake, so why are they letting him off so lightly?

I'd go farther than the last suggestion and make him pay to subcribe to the magazine for a year if he didn't want to face criminal charges, though I do like the "buy it at the newstand" concept a lot. *laugh*

This guy is showing no remorse whatsoever and is totally convinced he is right and it seems wrong to just essentially give him a "time out" like some little kid rather than make him pay for destroying property.

It also sends a lovely message to the local self-righteous censor types--they can go destroy things in the library with no fear of real punishment--most of them probably don't read a lot to begin with, a month's banning won't mean a thing to them.

"It also sends a lovely message to the local self-righteous censor types--they can go destroy things in the library with no fear of real punishment--most of them probably don't read a lot to begin with, a month's banning won't mean a thing to them."

Boy oh boy, I'd almost enjoy if such a person came to this library. I don't hesitate to call the police when I see someone destroying library property. While I don't have any control over who gets banned or for how long, I at least take a twisted pleasure in the fact that the rat bastard is going to have yet another mark on his rap sheet. Part of it stems from the fact that I believe in the preservation of materials. Another part comes from my belief that wanton destruction of public property is just short of treason. But mostly it comes the fact that I'm a real ass when it comes to destroying library property. I know how much that stuff costs, and by goddess they're going to pay.

Yah, but if it is not destroyed, but only defaced, or defecated upon, as the Mad Pooper or Kettering Ohio did.......

Subscribe to Comments for "library patron loses privileges after tearing magazine"