Hey kids, want to see a R-rated movie? What’s that? Your parents won’t take you to see and the video clerk won’t rent it to you because you’re under age? No problem. Just get the movie from your local librarian.
Libraries in Johnson County will let anyone, regardless of age, check out an R-rated movie. This news surprised Sally O'Rear. She found out the hard way. She saw her 13-year-old daughter with the movie.
O”Rear said, “I want people to know you can go out there to the library and check these out. I want to be that voice to say, 'Hey parents wake up. Look this is what's going on.'"
For O'Rear, it is not so much that the movies are available. She wants the staff to help monitor what kids are doing inside the library. She said, “I feel the parents should keep an eye also, but I feel the library needs to put up notification."
North Liberty library’s assistant director Jennie Garner said, “We can't be baby sitters. We can't monitor everyone's age." Library staff will tell you blocking kids from any material at the library is unconstitutional.
Garner said, “Anyone, including minors, has the right to access any materials under the First amendment."
The American Library Association's website offers a "sample answer" that librarians can give when parents ask about such policies:
Kids can't rent R-rated movies at the video store, or buy Playboy at the newsstand. Why won't you use the same common sense restrictions at my public library?* Those types of rating systems are voluntary, and libraries make them available to assist parents and others in making decisions for their families and themselves. As librarians, we strongly encourage parents to take an active role in monitoring what their children see and view, but as public employees, it's not appropriate for librarians to make those decisions for them.
Comments (10)
I think the ALA is correct in their interpretation of First Amendment law.
Parents need to be aware of this and supervise their children appropriately.
What do you suggest the libraries do? What kind of notice could the library put up?
February 20, 2007 1:02 PM | Comment Permalink
Unfortunately, it is starting to go beyond simply renting R rated movies. I referenced a WorldNet Daily story about a library which decided against restricting the viewing of online porn (check the PDF for the 1/25/07 agenda, and reference starting at page 184).
February 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Comment Permalink
John What do you suggest the libraries do?
Libraries could do what video rental stores do in these situations -- require parental permission to rent such movies when they issue a library card.
February 20, 2007 2:43 PM | Comment Permalink
I don't disagree you Joe, but it seems clear from the case law that that is unconstitutional.
I may be wrong, and I wouldn't mind if I am, but a libary must respect the First Amendment; rental stores, being private, fo not.
February 20, 2007 2:58 PM | Comment Permalink
In legal terms... I dont know if libraries must supply all speech to all people under the first ammendment, no exceptions, but im fairly confident there is nothing that legally demands they enforce any age restrictions.
There is also the purely practical aspect of any form of cencorship in the name of decency. Noone knows what pornography is. Courts have tried to define 'legally obscene' a few times, but the attempts have always been very vague and subjective. It would be time-consuming and expensive for every librarian to have to be a mini-court, considering every case, some of which will be extremally complicated - naked humans with clearly visible genitals are seen in a number of documentory programs on biology. Should the library classify this as X-rated? If it doesn't, what happens when a conservative parent comes in to sue the library for damaging their child? How about a biology textbook? What about explicit fiction? No pornographic images in there, but the words... And what one person considers a harmless mention of sex could have another in a fit of outrage - and there is the way obscenity has been used as an excuse to ban books disliked for other reasons.
February 21, 2007 9:24 AM | Comment Permalink
True, Raven, but I think Mr. Carter's point was that least the libraries could (if legally permitted) enforce the standards that do exist.
I'm no fan of the rating system as it now stands, because a national standard like the rating system used in the US ignores regional differnences in standards of decency. (Unlike Canada, which uses Provincial ratings, after all, what is appropriate in Quebec is not appropriate in Alberta).
But, if the library were to demand parental permission, at least I could decide.
February 21, 2007 10:05 AM | Comment Permalink
Hmm... better, at least. But if libraries were to volontarily follow any form of decency standard, then they would be effectively relinquishing their claimed first-ammendment protection. This would open them up to demands and potential legal action from all sorts of groups, each trying to have their pet hate removed from the shelves or restricted. If the library were to claim it was obliged to supply all speech, the cencors could just point out that if the library will restrict access to 16+ rated materials, why cant it restrict access to other things?
February 22, 2007 10:32 AM | Comment Permalink
If I were king and I could decide the compromise, I would simply give access to all materials to kids over 16. Those younger would have to have parental appoval.
I realize it's messy, but if you believe that it takes a village to raise a child, then you have sacrifice some parental control to the government.
I don't like that; I prefer to kep the government out of my business, but I know I am swimming against the tide.
February 22, 2007 11:45 AM | Comment Permalink
I would allow access to everything, for everyone - and if the parent wants to regulate their child's reading, they should accompany them to the library and watch as they browse.
For a while back in school, I was reading at a level *far* in advance of my age. These was a complicated situation* that resulted in me (and the rest of my class plus some others) being banned from the school library, so we instead walked down to the public library in small groups. The teachers had an arbitary rule though - children were *never* to be allowed to enter the adult sections of the library, only the childrens' section. This was because they couldn't spare the time to judge every book that might be taken off a shelf or to ask every parent to define limits, so they went with the most conservative rather than risk an incident. This annoyed me greatly - not because I was being denied access to anything specific, but because it limited my easy access to reading materials to nothing more complicated than a paperback childrens' novel. I wanted much longer, more complicated books that I would not be able to complete in a day or less.
The librarian had nothing to do with that situation, it was a policy set by the class teacher.
* Screaming, rioting, vandals made up large part of my class, and the school library doubled as a classroom often. Visits would have been too disruptive to the other students.
February 24, 2007 11:52 AM | Comment Permalink
I think we all agree that is the parents who should decide what is appropriate for their minor children.
I think the issue raised by Mr. Carter is whether it should be opt-in or opt-out.
Personally, it matters not one whit to me, because I am the kind of parent that is always aware of what my chidren are reading and viewing, and I don't object if my children read or view material that is contrary to my worldview. I use those occasions as way to teach my children that our values will be challenged, and I believe my values are useless if they can't withstand the pressure of popular culture.
February 26, 2007 12:17 PM | Comment Permalink