I personally am OK with the fact this information is not available in the stacks at the public library. It doesn't matter what race or religion you are, universally it is not good for children to have access to the joys of gay sex. When readily accessible to children, this information can only be used for mocking and teasing and mortifying the kids who hadn't previously been exposed to carnal knowledge. I'm happy to know that there is a panel of 5 people who are in charge, who aren't afraid to use common "sense"-orship. If an adult has questions about subjects of a mature nature, than they have the irrevocable right to find it online or at a bookstore that chooses to sell it. If a child can check it out at the library, along with their Nancy Drew book, then we as a society are failing the next generation. I think we as a community need to do our part in protecting our children. GOOD JUDGMENT IS NOT CENSORSHIP. Let the library remain a safe place for kids.

I see why some people support the book restrictions, and like the idea of the library making it tough for their children to have access to that type of material. Although I see where they are coming from, in regards to not wanting their children to be able to openly view sexually explicit materials in public, but I think they're OVER LOOKING a couple of points:

1. None of the books under consideration have sexually explicit imagery on the cover.

2. What makes these four titles any different from the hundreds of others that contain racey imagery or content - where would they draw the line?

3. These books weren't exactly located in an area of the library that's consider high-traffic or high-access for children. They were in the adults area, in the health section. It's been a dozen years since I was in junior high, but the adult health section was not one that I hung out by.

I think this particular issue MUST be viewed from a bigger-picture standpoint. This is setting a precedent for a very slippery slope of appropriate/not appropriate. Like I mentioned above, where will they draw the line? What if just banning the health books is no longer enough. Will they move to the fine arts section as well? Before you know it, we've literally got hundreds of books only available upon request.

Also, consider how this looks to the rest of the world, in regards to the way Topeka values equality, tolerance and free access to information for people of all walks of life. We're already working with the black-eye that is the Phelps family, and the backwoods thinking they attempt to spread throughout the world. This will only feed into that sentiment, as inaccurate as it is, and further strengthen the perception that Topeka's not a progressive-thinking city that young professionals should embrace and move to.

This particular decision has me very disappointed. I hope that all of Topeka will step back and consider the bigger picture. Let's think about where we want our city to go, and what we want it to be known for. Please keep all of this in mind as you go to the voting booths to cast your ballot for the upcoming City Elections. The people we vote into those positions of authority are the same ones that get to hand-select the board. So ultimately the power lies in our hands.

I think that more and more parents these days are relying on other people to do their parenting for them. Don't like what your kid is looking at on the internet? Get it banned. What about TV? Get it banned. Don't like this book? Get it banned. When are parents going to wake up and realize that it isn't everyone else's responsibility to make sure your child isn't exposed to things you think are inappropriate.

The children's area in the library is VERY clearly marked and set apart from other areas of the library by doors and/or hallways on all sides. If you're even occasionally checking on your child to make sure they are where they're supposed to be, it's not likely that they'll end up anywhere near these "damaging" books. And most kids don't have any reason to go to that section in the first place (although now that we've made it a big deal that there are naked people in the books, they might).

The fact is, once you've moved four, you've opened the door to remove more. And I imagine that in the health section, at least half of the books have explicit illustrations in there somewhere. And if I someday need to get some information from one of them, I don't want to be made to feel like some kind of deviant. Which is exactly the sort of feeling people are going to get if they have to go to some special area and request the book.

And really, who's to say they'll stop at books with explicit pictures. The ruling removed the books because they were "offensive." How long before books about witchcraft are removed for being offensive? Or how about books about Christianity? People seem pretty offended by Christians these days. It's a slippery slope and the library board just kicked us onto it.

I understand wanting to protect children, but in the end, we as a society need to stop blaming other people for letting our kids see things. As a parent, it is MY responsibility to make sure that my daughter doesn't see things on TV that I don't approve of. It is MY responsibility to make sure that when she's old enough to get on the internet, she's not being exposed to things I don't approve of. It is MY responsibility to make sure that she isn't reading books that cover topics beyond her age level. It's not the library's responsibility to do those things. It is their responsibility to provide access to information. That is a library's job. If I wouldn't let my daughter go to the mall or a friend's house without parental supervision, I shouldn't be leaving her at the library without parental supervision either. And the fact is, until she's old enough to get a car and drive herself there, she won't be going any of those places without a parent or other responsible adult supervising. And if every parent was half as active in monitoring what their children are exposed to, we wouldn't even be talking about this. It wouldn't be an issue.

I'd also like to point out that this entire issue started because a GROWN WOMAN was offended by the books. There was no incident of children reading them, showing them off, or anything. As far as the information I have seen, there's no knowledge of any children ever reading or checking out those books at the library. Though they are wildly popular currently and they couldn't keep them on the shelf even if they were allowed to.

A couple of questions/points, devil's advocate-style. First, if the speakers had been 14 in favor of restricting access to the books, and 2 in favor of not restricting, would the author yield to the expressed wishes of the majority? I suspect not, and with good reason. If one has an argument to make based on the moral/legal/ethical merits of an issue, that should stand alone. Relying on "the majority" as a reason when you agree with them implicitly means that you agree you should not have a voice at the table when you are not a member of that majority. To paraphrase something I read a while back, just because a majority supports a thing does not make it a good thing. The corollary to that is that just because a minority supports a thing does not make it a bad thing.

Second, a vote to restrict access is not a vote for censorship. The Random House dictionary defines the verb "censor" as "to delete (a word or passage of text)in one's capacity as a censor." The same source defines the noun "censor" as "an official who examines books...etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable...."

In this case, nothing was deleted, although a reasonable argument could be made that "suppress" and "restrict" are essentially the same thing. However, suppress (again referring to Random House) has a denotation of doing away with, putting an end to, withholding from disclosure. Restrict, on the other hand, has a definition of "to confine or keep within limits."

Using these definitions, restriction represents a reasonable middle ground between the all-or-nothing approach of censorship vs. unfettered access. It also allows the TSCPL staff to exercise their judgment and common sense in deciding who should be allowed to have access to the materials. Clearly, there will always be some dispute over whose judgment should prevail, what materials should be restricted, etc. However, we elect public officials to exercise their judgment, not cater blindly to the whim of the majority. This should extend to the appointees of those elected officials.

"It doesn’t matter what race or religion you are, universally it is not good for children to have access to the joys of gay sex"

Let me tell you, those kids could be missing out. ;).

On a more serious note, the problem actually goes so far as to make the point that even if one person had been arguing against censorship, then it presents a minority that would be ignored. Fundamentally it comes down to trying to hide and obfuscate information. Hiding open information about a lot of these topics leads to them being taboo and inappropriate and perpetrates this stupid moral, sex-deprived, prudish backwater conservative sex culture in America.

Not from Topeka - saw the post on Twitter. What books were they?

Should they ban Greys Anotomy because it shows nekkid peeple?

Will,
The 4 books that the board restricted are: The Joy of Sex, The Joy of Gay Sex, The Lesbian Kama Sutra, and Sex for Busy People.
Shay

The first issue for me is that because tax dollars are used by the library, it should not in any way appear to violate The United States Constitution. Restricting books has been found by courts to violate the First Amendment. The rule of law is the rule of law. Just because Kansas has a law (and I don't want to get into a State's right argument) does not mean that the law trumps The United States Constitution.

The other issue I have is that I can walk in and pick up 5 other versions of The Kama Sutra, but the board is restricting The Lesbian Kama Sutra. Why just the 4 books? Why not the other versions of the Kama Sutra?

In trying to see the other side, I must state that I am not a parent. I cannot begin to understand how much of an uphill battle it must be to protect your children from information that they are not ready to fully comprehend. That being said, I feel that there are a lot of people out there who place reliance on others to protect their children from this information. Kids get curious, and their curiosity is going to be satisfied regardless of how many restrictions you are able to put into place. It all comes down to personal responsibility and more parents need to take responsibility for ensuring their children only see material they deem appropriate.

It looks like a few have figured out how to use a proxy site to vote multiple times as guest. I've reset the numbers to how they where before these proxy votes had taken place and closed this poll for guest voting. We will only allow registered members to vote from now on.

We welcome you to comment and let your voice heard. :)

How do you know the guests were not just voting their conscience? How do you know they were using proxy sites? Is this another example of censorship?

I am registered and it will still not take my vote.

Before anyone gives too strong of an opinion, perhaps they should see what is in these books. Here is a link to an excerpt from one of the books:

http://www.harpercollinsebooks.com/6EC01930-4C3...

With chapter titles like Anus, Barebacking, Blow job, Bondage, Booze and Highs, Cock Size, Daddy/Son Fantasies, Fisting, F**k Buddies, Sex with Animals, Sit on My Face, etc., you can get a pretty good idea that young children should not be reading this book. Add to that the UNCENSORED graphic illustrations of two and three men engaged in sex acts, and who in their right mind would want children to be able to access this?

There's a big difference between banning books and just using common sense in what we let our children have acess to.

Should the library not be a place where kids can safely go without a parent? If parents can't feel their children are safe at the public library, where CAN they feel safe?

I cannot vote either while logged-in. For some reason the option to vote is no longer available.

Instead of arguing the common sense of whether kids should or should not have access to graphic sexual content. I would like everyone to consider the fact that the library itself is an inappropriate entity, and here are my reasons.

1. The only reason the library exists is because money is stolen from taxpayers because a majority said it was okay. Stealing is never, ever acceptable...common sense should tell everyone that. If two of my neighbors thinks it is okay to take half of my food, it should be okay because they are a majority? Anybody here okay with that?

2. Private bookstores are seriously damaged by public libraries, because books are readily available for check out without a user fee. This hurts our economy by taking away fair and reasonable revenues. So what could be a net positive for our economy, the library actually makes it a negative. (Just for the record I buy every book I read, my wife will attest to this. I support the arts with my pocketbook, reading books at the library is not supporting the arts. Supporting artists directly is supporting the arts.)

3. Authors lose money because their intellectual property is being circulated essentially for free in every city around the country. How many people would have had to buy a book if there wasn't a library to hand them out? (There is a possibility that the libraries pay an annual fee for the rights to distribute the books, I do not know. If someone does know this, please correct my assumption.)

4. Why does this socialist concept only apply to a trade good such as media (books/CD's...etc) and nothing else? Just because the majority says it is ok? That doesn't make it right. Why not a public cell phone trade association? We can tax everybody enough to buy 1000's of cell phones, that way people who can't afford them can have access to one whenever they need one. Or clothes, or radios, or computers... etc.

My argument is that we are arguing on the 4th or 5th level down of a layer of wrongness, we do this all the time in this country. We rarely focus on the root problem. I don't want to pay for the library, yet I have no say because the majority says it is okay to steal my money. I, on the other hand, don't think it is okay to steal my money. Who is fighting for me? Who is arguing for my rights?

Remember 51% of the population oppresses the other 49% in a democracy. Democracy is just two wolves and a sheep getting together to decide what is for dinner.

Hi lhartman,

This isn't "another form of censorship" it's not allowing people to cheat on the polls. I have scripts that I can track everything that deals with my websites. I could see 50 request from proxy sites that where aimed directly at the post that had the poll at the time. I've been doing web stuff for years, I know what proxy traffic looks like. :)

Hi Travis,
Since this poll was started by tracking cookies as to who voted, it may of picked of Shay's vote or someone else in the office, if someone had voted already on that network.

The next poll should work fine for everyone, sorry for the inconvenience.

No, the library should not be a place where an unattended child should be able to roam unattended. The Public Library is a place for the collection of all sorts of materials that hopefully will be of all kinds some of which will naturally be unsuitable for children. The library is not a place that should be made suitable for eight year olds.

The Public Library is not a Chucky Cheese.

I wish people would get off of the library putting a few books back behind the desk. it is not like they are burning, them or saying that you can not check them out, they are just being careful that no young people get them. all of you book stores have to put these kinds of books up on the top shel in brown wrapped paper and have to ask the age of any buyer so why should the library be any different? they have a responsability to the public also.

I love free speech.
I don't care whether or not people look at porn.

BUT...

I think that in a democracy, the people have a right to have a say in how tax dollars are spent, and how public institutions are used.

If the vote were put to me, I would say to let the books stay on the shelves. But I think the desires of the public are more important than my own personal views.

BrilliantPleaasure Looking At Your Site Guys,