Publisher's Weekly's Heidi MacDonald, who has been covering the Jessamine County Library League of Extraodinary Gentleman controversy, reports that a heated library board meeting that took place yesterday in which pro-censorship and pro-1st amendment folks faced off. A traveling evangelist held up a copy of the Alan Moore comic book and shouted: "If this is not pornography, what is?"
The library board heard speakers — limited to two minutes each — on both sides of the case, which involves two library workers who felt that LOEG: BLACK DOSSIER should not fall into the hands of an 11-year-old girl and took it upon themselves to remove the book from circulation, thereby violating library policy and getting themselves fired. Although the traveling evangelist, a homeschooling mother and over 200 kids who signed a petition begging for books to be censored all seemed to think that others should decide what they can read, the other half of the speakers felt, as Bobbi Stout, herself the daughter of a preacher, that “It’s dangerous to democracy when an interest group imposes its views on another,” she said. “Stand up for the Constitution.”Evangelist: If Alan Moore isn’t porno, what is?
RSS Feed
What is pornography?
I was looking at the cover of Herb Alpert's "Whipped Cream and Other Delights" LP recently. When I was a 13-year old boy that cover really got my blood moving (especially to certain parts of my body), now I look at it and get no kick from it. Did I just get old, or is it that society has changed (it's far less risque most magazine covers), or what? Was that LP cover ever considered pornography? I haven't real the Alan Moore comic, but from what I know of him I suspect any nudity/adult situations are not purely for titillation; I'm sure there is a PLOT and the sexy parts are in the service of the plot (and not the other way around like in a porno flick).
>If Alan Moore isn’t porno, what is?
Hold up a bible and yell back this is...
I don't think the evangelist's question is valid.
If he had asked about the book itself, 'If this is not pornography, what is IT,' he would have asked an answerable question. Instead, he asked about pornography, which is sometimes defined as "I can't explain, but I'll know it when I see it."
"It’s dangerous to democracy when an interest group imposes its views on another" -- Tell, me, is this about how religious people define their morals as 'the' morals that every one else is answerable to? Is religion dangerous to a democracy composed of differences?
No one ever defends pornography. They argue that their art is not pornography without questioning the assertion that pornography is intrinsically bad.
Oh, for Pete's sake! Are people still engaging in this regressive behavior?
Anybody on a "library board" that entertains the notion of banning books needs to be booted off the board and have their library card revoked.
Likewise, any member of the community who suggests banning books should have their library card confiscated.
Hey, I don't steal the Left Behind books from my library and destroy them. Hell, I don't even vandalize them.
Although I'm no fan of religion, organized or otherwise, dogma is the real danger. Whether it be on a political, scientific, or religious basis, anything that isn't open to debate is dangerous to democracy.
200 kids signed a petition IN FAVOUR of censorship? Wowzers. Those little tykes have a bright future of being huge losers ahead of them.
I think this is indicative of the culture of fear we are currently steeped in. Don't look! Dirty pictures will destroy your soul! Don't let the President speak to my children, he'll brainwash them! Don't mess with healthcare, it will lead to death panels! Don't put alleged terrorists on trial, they will escape and kill us! It's all about fear. So few people stop to ponder the simple truth that such a culture is emotionally draining to the individual as well as being an assiduous high for those few who feed off paranoia.
It's a book. Lines on paper. It won't eat you, even if it has drawings of naked humans. Step away from the fear.
At what point do we remind each other that this is not a question of a certified Librarian with a masters degree in Library Sciences censoring things, but the equivalent of a grocery store checkout worker saying: Caffeine is legal but I believe Tantrum cola has too much and is bad for young people, therefore I will hide all of the Tantrum in my house so that no one will be able to buy it.
This is a good thing. No really, it's a very good thing.
You want to let these folks be heard in a public forum. Let them speak and beg that the library stop allowing free access to books. Let them shake their fists and make their wildly exaggerated statements and present their lists of "dangerous" books and so on.
And then, ultimately, decide that the people of the community are better off with free access to materials than without, and that sensible policies about children and library cards are...well...sensible and thanks everyone for their opinions, ill-informed and ridiculous as they are, and call it a night.
As much as it irritates, grates and simply ticks me off to hear this sort of nonsense, I'd rather let it be heard and move on than allow some deluded fellow to be able to set themselves up as a victim of the big terrible library and it's oppressive overlords.
There is room for every kind of thought at the public library.
We just file some under fiction.
I think this is pretty ridiculous, but not that ridiculous.
If it actually were a Penthouse, for instance, would we be ok for kids to take the porno mag from the library? Would we be saying "Anybody on a 'library board' that entertains the notion of banning [porno mags] needs to be booted off the board and have their library card revoked?"
Probably we can agree that people who request that actual porno mags not be available to everyone at the town library aren't completely unreasonable.
Ok, so what if it were a "graphic novel" that was just an ink tracing of a porno mag. Would that be ok? Identical to Penthouse, but copied in ink?
Clearly at some point there is a fuzzy gray area where I might say something isn't porno and others might say it is. Are the people who say that that such a work in this gray are is porno not "standing up for the constitution?"
Now, clearly in this case we have people who have a very wide view of what might constitute "porno" (I haven't actually read the book myself), but our working definition of "porno" is very vague. I don't quite see that they are the monsters we're making them out to be just because their definition is a little more expansive.
Someone should make her watch "2 Girls 1 Cup," then see if Alan Moore still offends her.
As an addendum to my above comment:
What if, instead of being Alan Moore's work, it were that of Milo Manara? (Google image search link slightly NSFW, more so if SafeSearch is off.)
Milo Manara's graphic novels are the kinds of things I devoured as a teenager, but probably wouldn't want in my local library. It's basically pure, uncensored graphic porn.
Sam,
This isn't about the issue of who gets to decide definitions of literature - it's about a single individual taking it upon themselves to censor material that they feel is objectionable from a public library for which the work.
The book was shelved after review by "The System". She took umbrage with that descision, complained and was denied.
She then decided that she "knew better" and broke the trust of her employment by banning the book through denial of service, as it were.
I'll point it out here, as it hasn't been already, although it was pointed out on the linked site.
“…two library workers who felt that LOEG: BLACK DOSSIER should not fall into the hands of an 11-year-old girl and took it upon themselves to remove the book from circulation…”
It wasn't removed to stop it falling into the hands of children, it was removed to stop it falling into the hands of anyone AT ALL.
It was merely found out when an 11 year old asked for the book to be put on hold.
Man that would have been awesome if someone had brought a Hustler and held it up after he said that.
If they realy want to have an argument over Alan Moore's works as pornography, how about they argue over Lost Girls which IS pornography?
Good point. This was my thought when reading the post. Who's to say that pornography is bad? There are many views I'd be at odds with within a library, but no one should assert a claim over another's views. Including pornography! Including religion! I'd like to point out nature SEEMS to rather endorse the liking of sex btw, despite humanity constantly trying to make an evil out of it.
If an evangelist thinks Alan Moore's work is pornography, they're clearly NOT familiar with Carrie Prejean's oeuvre. . .
http://allieiswired.com/archives/2009/11/donald-trump-tells-carrie-prejean-to-do-porn/
I disagree -- we have to disagree over others' views. How else are those 200 kids going to learn? How else was I supposed to learn that organized religion was stupid?
>If Alan Moore isn’t porno, what is?
Not for YOU to decide, preacher man
One of the most interesting facets of this is the 200 children who have signed the petition begging for books to be censored. It kind of proves the point that children are able to decide for themselves and make their own choices.
Alan Moore doesn't make pornography, he makes magic. I love this video clip of him claiming to be a magician:
http://exocentrick.blogspot.com/2009/11/alan-moore-states-that-art-is-magic.html
Back in High School at the start of one class, the teacher pulled a copy of Heavy Metal out of the garbage and said "I caught one of the kids in an earlier class with this. If I see you with it, I'll take it and throw it in the trash too!"
That very day I went downtown and bought my first Heavy Metal. So censorship works.
the fact that kids signed a petition does nothing to prove anything. how old were these kids? did they know what they were signing? what were they told before they signed? had they ever been given the opportunity to read an alan moore book and actually decide for themselves?
when i was in 5th grade, around 1990, i thought rush limbaugh was cool. why? because i was vaguely aware that some adults, who i thought were cool, listened to him. i hadn't the vaguest idea what he was really spewing, or whether the previously mentioned adults actually agreed with him. kids are pretty easily influenced, whether you are intending to or not.
Or, it means they've been thoroughly brainwashed and prodded by their narrow-minded parent/religion into doing so.
Maybe I'm just a lustful lecherous left-libertarian libertine, but why shouldn't libraries stock pornography? I mean, yeah, some people think it's gross, but that's not a reason it oughtn't be studied. If it's truly the purpose of a library (or, the sum of all libraries) to gather all the information in the world in an accessible, public format, then pornography's got to be included.
Restricting access to that porn for kids (without parental approval?) is probably appropriate, but adults ought to have access without a doubt.
As Mark Twain reputedly said when he was told that the Boston Public Library had banned Huckleberry Finn, "Well, that ought to sell another 50,000 copies."
THEY GOT FIRED - what's the beef? There are always gonna be Yes it is/No it isn't arguments.
One thing I'd like to point out is that while the library hasn't commented on the firings, the two workers who were fired have. From what I've read from various news sources they weren't fired for refusing to lend the book to an 11 year old girl, but instead were fired for violations of library policy. In particular, unauthorized access of the lending and patron databases.
The only way they found out the cardholder in question was 11 years old was by accessing the library's patron database in a way they were not permitted to do. Unauthorized access of computer data is a crime in Kentucky, even if it isn't done for the purposes of fraud, and doesn't cause any damage, see: Ky. Rev. Stat. § 434.853, http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13494
- Mark.
I think of my Milo Manara collection as erotic, not pornographic. It's that awkward problem of defining pornography - if you aren't offended by human sexuality you don't find depictions of it offensive.
I find depictions of bigoted violence, like say a opticaly guided bombs point of view while being dropped on a village somehwere much more offemsive than the healthy exercise of human intercourse.
This is a good place to recommend Alan's recent book 25,000 Years of Erotic Freedom, which is an expanded version of his excellent Arthur magazine column on the same subject. It's an entertaining, informative and, yes, illustrated history of erotica / porn (take your pick) and would be an excellent gift for anyone as confused as the travelling preacher mentioned above seems to be:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/25-000-Years-Erotic-Freedom/dp/081094846X/
And here's a source for the original and rather more colourfully-titled Arthur article:
http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/01/14/bog-venus-vs-nazi-cock-ring/
I'm not sure that that is the issue. The people getting fired was what started this, but the question at the meeting appears to be whether Alan Moore's book should be allowed in the library.
I'm saying it's a gray area. If it were a graphic novel by Milo Manara (see my link above), I expect a lot more people here would be of the opinion that maybe it shouldn't be allowed in libraries, or maybe allowed but not for kids without parental permission.
If it had been an 11 year old hacking the library database to ALLOW access to this book, she would be facing criminal charges.
These people were fired for "unauthorized use" (weasel words) of a library database to PREVENT access to a book.
They too should face hacking charges.
It's only ironic if you believe not allowing someone the right to control your life is the same thing as controlling their life. (e.g. they can tell you TV is evil and you should not be allowed to watch it, but if you mention that they are perfectly allowed to not watch TV, but some people like it, you are officially oppressing them)
Of course, a lot of people in this country seem to believe that for some reason.
Didn't you know? Freedom of Speech/Thought/Conscience and the like only apply to things that the Popular Majority agrees with. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, you see, only protects the "right" people, not the nebulous "them".
No, I don't understand it either.