The “R” is for Urbandale

mcbride says:

Policy?
Unfortunately, this type of poor policy is what generates the distrust of public libraries in caring about children. I mean, can they be honest that they didn’t know this was a problem? Sure, I remember watching some pretty borderline movies with my father when I was young (Taxi Driver for one!), but I wouldn’t expect it to be handed to me without question from my library.

‘Library Board of Trustees will discuss the movie policy…’ Hmmmm….let’s agree that ratings on movies often err on the side of conservative, but they do reflect the fact that ‘R’ is too much for most every child without supervision.

Some librarians say a restrictive policy violates the core values of libraries to give all patrons full access to informative materials.

“There’s a perception somehow you can protect children by preventing access to information,” said Gina Millsap, former president of the Iowa Library Association.

She said she opposes restrictions to movies based on age.

Sorry, but as a father, this is one reason why I will continue to distrust public libraries/librarians that state that children have rights that trump those of their parents to raise them. It’s just wrong. Sure, some R-rated films are informative, many are not in any sense of the word. Plain wrong. Even so, do you want your 8-year-old to see an informative movie like Schindler’s List (rated R) without parental supervision? I’d doubt it. And I don’t give a flying hoot that Gina Millsap believes that restrictions based on age shouldn’t matter, because they do. I hope her local 7-11 owner doesn’t feel analogous about cigarettes and beer when her teenage daughter/son visits the store with friends.

mcbride says:

Re:Policy?
That’s good your library (and librarians) have a better policy and show care, but its also still part of the problem. Just like Charles Barkley claiming that he’s “not a role model”, librarians are increasingly claiming that they are not responsible for raising children and supporting parents in raising their children. Always under the guise of ‘free access to information’. Well, I’ll bet that every library has some patrons whose access has been revoked or suspended for failure to comply with the rules, therefore freedom can be modified based on the circumstances.

There are PG-13 movies with crude language, sexual innuendo, and immorality that some parents would view as inappropriate. Let’s change the perspective. What if a known devout Muslim or Orthodox Jewish child asked the library to let them check out a PG-13 movie with some scenes obviously offensive to their religion? The expected backlash from those parents would most definitely cause the library to consider not allowing the movie to be checked out.

Is a library a day-care or a parent? No. But it is a part of the community that IS responsible for helping parents raise and educate their children, not as a vehicle to subvert that effort. Everytime a library ignores its role towards children by falling back on the ‘free access’ argument it is slowly degrading its own perception in the public eye.

mcbride says:

Re:Restrictions
Good points, which I agree with whole heartedly. All the more reason to signup for a LISNews account so people know who you are (unless you are worried about backlash from comments).

mcbride says:

Re:Three points …
If I keep posting on this I’ll look like a reactionary, but it’s an important subject to me…

Illegal or not, that doesn’t stop a library from classifying movies as adult or children. The law does not limit them from withholding access to certain movies without getting permission. Its only those who believe the ALA Library Bill of Rights is the word from the Creator hold fast to this idea. Or am I off here?

> Policies which set minimum age limits for access to videotapes and/or other audiovisual materials and equipment, with or without parental permission, abridge library use for minors.

Well, in your point #3 I agree. However ALA does not. Access is granted regardless, without any recourse for parents. It’s a child’s right.

Certainly, the analogy I used is not valid, but I’d like to see a good argument for giving unrestricted access to R-rated movies to children without parental notice. In this case, it’s not as if “Oops, there’s a loophole in our policies here that we didn’t know about!”. Nope, they know, and they don’t care. They subscribe to the ALA view.

Library Director Sara Peterson said, “Parents – not librarians – must police what children bring home.” That’s right, hands-off, not my problem. ALA says it’s a violation of that child’s rights…so, as my favorite cartoon character says, “What, me worry?” What a load. I police my child, and I will do it until the day I die. But if you don’t expect to help, then you’re just asking for everyone to only look out for themselves.

mcbride says:

Re:Restrictions
> The “responsible thing” is for parents to be with their kids at the library and help them make selections.

Unfortunately, kids are not chained in the home. And if they go to the library alone, they have full reign of the resources regardless if a parent doesn’t want them there to view/use certain materials.

From ALA Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights…
> The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries do not authorize librarians or governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents or legal guardians.

Of course, it also provides no recourse or resources for parents to control access, beyond threatening their children. According to the strict interpretation by ALA, any library that limits access is violating the rights of the user. If a parent wants his/her child’s privileges revoked, too bad according to ALA. Many libraries will help, others won’t.