My Photo

Feeds and more

  • [ BadgerLink logo ]
Blog powered by Typepad

Stats

Uppity Wisconsin - Progressive Webmasters

« A Conservative, and Sometimes Even Liberal Contradiction | Main | Jealousy Over The Week in Review - Missing A Great Discusssion »

June 25, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

germantown_kid

Smoglin, it's comforting to learn that you are a faithful listener of Belling. Too bad none of his common sense has soaked thru your thick skull.

Mark

Paul:

Leave it to you to totally take comments out of context. Where did Belling EVER write that the book should be censored?

The crux of this issue is the placement of the book in a children's section. The people in question don't want the book banned, they simply asked for it to be moved to a more appropriate section.

Yet that doesn't work as well as your writing about "right-wing fanatics burning books" does it?

I looked at Amazon, and read the reviews. It says for ages 12 and up. So you think this book belongs next to Dr. Seuss?

And the more important question, about the library board attempting to subvert open records requests, are hiring outside counsel? Don't you think that's the REAL issue?

Glenn Loos-Austin

>The people in question don't want the book banned, they simply asked for it to be moved to a more appropriate section.

No, they asked for it to be moved to the adult section, which is almost exactly the opposite of the appropriate section for a book targeting the 12 and up crowd.

Misfiling a book is pretty close to banning it, after all. How are people supposed to find things in a library if they're routinely placed in the wrong sections?

(Suppose PETA managed to get all the cookbooks dealing with preparation of meat moved out of the cookbook section and into the shelves holding the books on wars. "In this book they talk about chopping up animals, with passages so disgusting one couldn't even read them on the air. All we're asking is for the books to be appropriately filed with other books about violence.")

Vis-a-vis the open record request: Perhaps it is correct that they should be sharing the records. I tend to think they should be, but I'm an open records kind of guy. However, they don't seem to think so, effectively putting them in dispute over a point of law. When one has a dispute over a point of law, one hires a lawyer. They can't very well use the city lawyer for this, since that's whom the dispute is with, thus outside counsel is really their only option, isn't it? Lawyers need to be paid, so they're paying him or her. That's in fact how it is supposed to work, and the overblown indignation over that aspect of this issue rings kind of ridiculous and false.

Mark

Adult section is the wrong place? Why not? Can't 12-year-olds find books in the library?

ANd last I checked, they used a FILING SYSTEM to look up things in the library. I know Dewey Decimal is old, but I'm pretty sure they have computers to look books up. I assume that you go into a library and just start looking for a single book by your comment.

Don't get me started about your PETA comment, they certainly want that done.

And finally, correspondence between government bodies are subject to an open records request. Serve on ANY village group and it's spelled out. The library board thinks they are above this law, and they're not. It will get struck down, and all the money will be wasted to lawyers instead of on the library.

Glenn Loos-Austin

> I assume that you go into a library and just start looking for a single book by your comment.

Of course not. I go into a library, then head for the section that has the kind of book I want, and look on the shelves until I find something I'm interested in. It works because the books are grouped in the right sections of the library. If some external group manages to induce the library to put the book in the wrong section, I'll never see it, and thus won't read it. Exactly the situation that people are trying to achieve here. They don't want 12 year olds to read the book, so they're trying to force the library to hide it in the wrong section. The fact that it could still be found if you were looking for it in specific is immaterial.

In short, the interests in play here are trying to game the system. They know that they can't get the library to remove the book, so they're trying for an easier target that will have the same effective result. I call shenanigans.

> Don't get me started about your PETA comment, they certainly want that done.

I know. It's idiotic. And by the logic you're applying to this, we should let them, right?

The comments to this entry are closed.