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.

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.

The Public Library is not a Chucky Cheese.

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.

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.

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/6EC01930-4C33-4D16-BEDF-7D060ECBCCAD/10/133/en/FreeExcerpt.htm?ID=608B09AE-43D1-4597-B25C-0A3A0C7AFA66

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?

We welcome you to comment and let your voice heard.