A Rocky Creek (Tampa area) man wants to have a film he regards as pornographic removed from the shelves of the Town ‘N Country Regional Public Library.
Frank DeAngelis, a former police officer and retired sociology professor, said he didn’t know what to expect when he checked out “The Films of James Broughton.” DeAngelis said he was shocked to see naked men engaging in various sexual acts. In one the collection’s films, “Devotions,” two men dress up like nuns and embrace and kiss.
But what really concerned DeAngelis is that naked children are shown, albeit in nonsexual situations.
“Why would they put little children in there to infer pornography?” DeAngelis said. “They crossed the line with the little children.” Story continued here.
“The DVD that DeAngelis
“The DVD that DeAngelis borrowed was not rated but had a warning on the back cover saying it was for “mature audiences.” The front cover shows a man sitting on the floor, filming a dancing man who appears to be naked.”
I’m always surprised when someone has missed all the obvious clues about the content of an item.
florida, it’s always florida
“Hey, it didn’t say ‘dirty’ or ‘porn’ on the cover of ‘Red Hot All-Male Gym Class’. What gives?”
And he was a cop? Aren’t cops a little, um, savvier than this?
Can we seal the border at Georgia and have a Naval blockade?
I’m continuously amused by
I’m continuously amused by the general “Won’t someone please think of the children?!” argument, and the people who use it.
A library, while a nice place, is not a babysitter and has no responsibility towards your snot nosed darling little next generation. Think of it as letting your children wander through Borders on their own. If they stumbled across a book that had material that you thought was inappropriate, that would be your mistake as a parent, for allowing someone small and impressionable access to it and for not properly supervising them.
Also, the idea that these children are going to be so traumatized by seeing the cover of a DVD that has a man filming another man; I never quite understand how these parents don’t get that there are places where your child will be exposed to actual pornography– your living room.
You have the internet. Your child more than likely has greater browsing skills than you do. And rule 34 states that there’s probably porn about it.
This whole argument, no matter how many times it pops up, seems to me to be entirely based on the negligence of parents who assume that since libraries give away things for free, they offer complimentary babysitting services as well, and feel as though this somehow negates their responsibility as spawners.
How dare you have content that I disagree with when I’m trusting you random strangers who are working full-time at a real job to watch my darling precious without informing you, asking you, paying you, or helping you? It’s like leaving your child with the guy on the park bench: grow up and grow a brain before you decide to grow another littler version of ignorant old you.
Why not do what the “smart” people do?
Most people who really object to items like this at libraries check them out and simply “lose” them. (instead, you could steal it so you don’t have to pay the fine, but most people have moral issues with stealing) If the library buys it again, repeat until they don’t.
Hunh
In some jurisdictions, you’d get charged with stealing either way.
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F
Very hard
>In some jurisdictions, you’d get charged with stealing either way.
Can you back this up? Have a cite, newspaper article, something?
Maybe you would be charged but if the person has always said they “lost it” it would be difficult to get a conviction. Remember to get a conviction you would have to prove that they did not lose it “beyond a reasonable doubt’. Being the most careless person in the world is not a crime. To prove that they are not would be difficult.
Something popped up previously
We had a story on such within the past couple months. I cannot recall where but if memory serves it was in Wisconsin. It’ll take me a little while to dig it up and check.
As somebody who has actually sat on a jury in a federal criminal trial on Medicare fraud I can say I understand quite well what “beyond reasonable doubt” means. We acquitted the doctor that was on trial in Cleveland in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. I would imagine it would be actually kinda difficult to say that making a library item disappear through never returning it would be carelessness let alone acting in good faith.
________________________
Stephen Michael Kellat, Host, LISTen
PGP KeyID: 899C131F
It is in certain jursidictions…
It is in certain jurisdications illegal per se to not return library materials or to fail to reimburese the library. So StephenK is correct in that you may be charged with theft either if you knowingly take it, or simply claim you lost it and not pay for it.
In such cases there need be no scienter. However if you ask me not returing library books, no matter how objectionalbe is malum in se (wrong just because it is wrong).
I could look up a specific statute, but since anonymous was the person to disagree, I think I will go perfect my Wassail, or perhaps a nice Tom and Jerry although it may be a bit warm here for that.