|
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:00:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: pubyac-digest@nysernet.org
Subject: pubyac V1 #829
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:39:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Elizabeth Thomsen <libmgmt@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Harry Potter
Chuck Schacht wrote:
"Next time such a patron starts giving you grief, presumeably because
their version of Christianity has no room for the occult, try reminding
them that there's a substantial occult presence in the Bible, what with
witches, demon possesion etc. "
There are many people who have problems with books that deal with
witchcraft, even books like Strega Nona that most of us would hardly think
of as "occult material." Some are conservative Christians and others
are
Wiccans, who have an entirely different set of issues.
I think we should respect the religious beliefs of all people, and I can't
imagine arguing with people to prove that their beliefs are wrong or
logically inconsistent. The only issue that librarians should have here
is to make sure that patrons understand that we need to make popular
material available for other people's children, even though they choose
not to allow their children to read it.
- ---
Elizabeth B. Thomsen
http://members.tripod.com/ethomsen/
"Rethinking Reference: A Reference Librarian's Practical Guide to
Surviving Constant Change" Neal-Schuman, Fall, 1999
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kirsten Edwards <kirstedw@kcls.org>
Subject: Re: Harry Potter
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Charles Schacht wrote:
> Next time such a patron starts giving you grief, presumeably because their
> version of Christianity has no room for the occult, try reminding them that
> there's a substantial occult presence in the Bible, what with witches,
demon
> possesion etc. Tends to make that argument a litttle harder to make. I'm a
> pastor's husband myself, but I've got no problem with old Harry.
Er, Chuck, as a private citizen, I have no problem explaining to anyone
who asks why their ideas are irrational & wrongheaded [1] but on the job
it seems unreasonable. As good readers advisory I try to understand what
limitations people want to place on themselves/their children (i.e. "when
you say, "occult" what do you mean?") so that, say THE LION THE
WITCH &
THE WARDROBE isn't ruled out simply because of the title. But there are
Christians for whom even that book is too occult, just as there are
vegetarians for whom even free-range chicken eggs are too exploitive.
We've got to honor their requests when we're on the job.
Yours,
Kirsten A. Edwards "It's 1999, of course they have a list of
Young Adults' Librarian them on the Web, everything's on the Web
Duvall & Skykomish Libraries these days, when I was in school we would
PO Box 339 have had to WALK to the LIBRARY, find a
Duvall, WA 98019 bunch of DEAD TREES glued together on a
kirstedw@kcls.org DUSTY SHELF, and it would have been OUT
(425) 788-1173 OF DATE ANYWAY!" - Christopher K. Davis
[1] Why I'm soooo popular at parties <g>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:32:07 -0400
From: "Minkel, Walter (Cahners -NYC)" <WMinkel@cahners.com>
Subject: RE: Children, porn, and the First Amendment
James Asbury said:
> Therefore, the question becomes:
> Do children have a First Amendment right to pornography?
I notice that he asks the question but doesn't attempt to answer it. It's
not an easy question to deal with because there are a couple of things going
on (one being that pornography does _not_ have a strict legal definition)--
1) I believe that in some states and communities, it _is_ illegal for those
under 18 to "possess" or "view" pornography. However, in
_most_ places it is
not illegal. Many Seven-Elevens and such, when they keep _Hustler_ & similar
publications behind the counter, do so because they don't want complaints
from adults, not because it's illegal.
2) Too many adults have immediate, visceral responses to such a
question--Eek! How can you even suggest such a thing!--to discuss it calmly.
Also, few adults know the laws that affect both their community and the
country.
3) Libraries are welcome to set any policies they like, such as that those
under 18 may not look at pornography in the building. However, they must
then both _define_ pornography & determine whether such policies are
consistent with the Library Bill of Rights, if they choose to use the LBR as
their touchstone.
4) _Public_ library staff (as opposed to school employees) do not serve _in
loco parentis_; they simply enforce the library's policies, whatever those
are.
The non-inflammatory answer, then is: Yes, young people have the right to
look at anything _legal_ on the Net they like. [Which means no local laws
forbid it. I know that laws forbid looking at child pornography anywhere.]
However, some local library policies may forbid them from looking at it.
- --W (I'm representing only myself, & I'm looking for the
"correct" answer to
this question as much as anyone. I believe that any young person who really
_wants_ to find sex stuff will, & I'd rather see us teaching kids why
pornography exists than trying to forbid kids from seeing it & thereby
making it more attractive to them.)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Minkel * Technology Editor, School Library Journal * www.slj.com
wminkel@cahners.com * (212) 463-6721 * fax (212) 463-6689
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:40:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kirsten Edwards <kirstedw@kcls.org>
Subject: Re: Children, porn, and the First Amendment
(snipped) "Do children have a first ammendment right to pornography?"
Hi James,
First rate argument (best I've seen on the list, ever.) I wish I had an
answer. I know that the average response would be an adamant "Yes!" or
"No" and reason, "Because-!". Perhaps it would be useful to
consider
under what circumstances children's rights are abridged, and which of
these most reasonable people consider to be legitimately so & why, and
which not, and why.
Neccessary corollaries will be, of course, definitions of pornography and
of children - these being nice Wittgensteinian terms.
Kirsten Edwards
kirstedw@kcls.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kirsten Edwards <kirstedw@kcls.org>
Subject: Re: Juvenile Nonfiction Circ
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Mary K. Chelton wrote:
> I have been hearing anecdotally for over a year that since kids
> prefer, or are referred to, electronic reference sources, including
> Internet, for assignments, that children's and YA nonfiction
> circulation has dropped precipitously because nobody can convince
> kids to take the books anymore. I would appreciate hearing about
> your experiences with this, and also about any juvenile and YA
> nonfiction that kids will take voluntarily when assignments are not
First off, since I frequently booktalk nonfiction, I have quite a bit on
my YA section shelves. It circulates.
Secondly, my motto when talking to teens who need help with assignments
is, "Just because they're making you do this, is no reason you can't have
fun with it". We have regular biography assignments, for example, so I
try to have a variety of YA-interest titles of various reading levels on
hand, as well as a ready-to-go biography booktalk ("The good, the bad and
the truly strange"). I have neither a huge budget nor lots of space so
when I buy nonfiction for teens I try to be sure it's not only useful but
well-written and interesting to read.
Lastly, we have time-limits on the electronic resources for everyone,
including teens, nor do all teens have dial-in access. Nor do they always
want to spend 30 minutes searching for 5 minutes worth of useful info. A
good anecdotal example is the young man who wanted global warming info -
pro and con - and wanted to use the internet to find it. I set him up,
walked over to 300/OPP & walked back with the Opposing Viewpoints title.
Once he saw what it contained he was quite pleased.
I think teens like the one-stop-shopping aspect of using the computer - I
know I do - but whenever I, as a reference librarian, can replace that
feature in my own person, I've found the teens more than willing to check
out the nonfiction.
HTH
Kirsten A. Edwards "It's 1999, of course they have a list of them
kirstedw@kcls.org on the Web, everything's on the Web these days,
when I was in school, we would have had to walk
to the LIBRARY and find a bunch of DEAD TREES
glued together on a DUSTY SHELF, and it would
have been OUT OF DATE ANYWAY!" - C.K. Davis
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 14:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kirsten Edwards <kirstedw@kcls.org>
Subject: Re: Harry Potter
On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Simpson wrote:
> My daughter's best friend got Harry Potter #1 for her birthday and loved
> it. Her mom, who is super-religious Catholic and censors EVERYTHING,
> banned her from reading any others. As I speak, the girl is upstairs in
> my daughter's bedroom finishing Harry Potter #2.
> Does this make me a bad mother ? (Or merely a subversive?)
Yikes. I wouldn't want this one. On the one hand, the anti-Potter mom is
wrong and you're supporting the pro-Potter daughter's reasonable choice.
On the other hand, you're helping a child to defy her parent and
encouraging her to sneak around behind her back. Bad example for the
child in question and your own daughter. How in the world are you going
to solve this one-?
Curious,
Kirsten A. Edwards "It's 1999, of course they have a list of them
kirstedw@kcls.org on the Web, everything's on the Web these days,
when I was in school, we would have had to walk
to the LIBRARY and find a bunch of DEAD TREES
glued together on a DUSTY SHELF, and it would
have been OUT OF DATE ANYWAY!" - C.K. Davis
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:27:00 -0500
From: Jeffie Williams <jeffie@d0gz.net>
Subject: Teen Open House Thanks! and Pokemon?
I have gotten some fantastic ideas for the teen open house. On another
note, I was thinking about suggesting that the library hold a Pokemon trade
day in the meeting room. Maybe get someone to come talk about how to tell
phoney cards from the real ones, etc. Has anyone else done this?
Did anyone see the article about the kids who are suing Nintendo now
because they became "addicted" to buying the Pokemon cards. They say
that
trading the cards is an act of gambling. They're suing under some law
originally created and used to bust mobsters for gambling. I told my
fiance, "Great now I can be a purveyor of porn to children and get them
addicted to gambling." :)
I think it would be fun, which is all that matters to me. Anyway, if
anyone has, I'd appreciate knowing how it went. They seem to be very
popular right now.
Jeffie Williams
Williamson County Public Library
Franklin, TN
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:47:31 -0500
From: James Asbury <jamesasbury@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Children, porn, and the First Amendment
Kirsten Edwards wrote:
>
> (snipped) "Do children have a first ammendment right to
pornography?"
>
> Hi James,
>
> First rate argument (best I've seen on the list, ever.)
Thanks. It's just something I've been kicking around in my head.
>I wish I had an
> answer. I know that the average response would be an adamant
"Yes!" or
> "No" and reason, "Because-!". Perhaps it would be
useful to consider
> under what circumstances children's rights are abridged, and which of
> these most reasonable people consider to be legitimately so & why, and
> which not, and why.
>
> Neccessary corollaries will be, of course, definitions of pornography and
> of children - these being nice Wittgensteinian terms.
Fair questions. The first paragraph is the thornier one. I suppose that
it depends on the community, and what the courts have said about the
issues. For instance, it is possible to protect children's right to free
speech, and that goes a long way, while at the same time restricting
their access to certain forms of speech, such as pornography.
Ironically, "most reasonable people" appears to be a favorite phrase
of
the courts when dealing with this issue. My primary argument here is
that limiting children's access to porn is at least permissible,
according to the laws and Constitution of the United States.
The definitions, contrary to popular belief, are a bit easier to tackle.
I have my own answers for them, preferring to concentrate on shielding
the youngest of children (12 and under) but to tell the truth, a library
may use any of the several definitions from federal or state laws that
have been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. Follows is an
excerpt of a New York statute that passed muster with both the New York
Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court.
1. Definitions. As used in this section:
(a) "Minor" means any person under the age of seventeen years.
(b) "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals,
pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the
showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of
any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of
covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. [390 U.S. 629, 646]
(c) "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual
intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed
genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.
(d) "Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female
genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.
(e) "Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon
a
person clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the
condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on
the part of one so clothed.
(f) "Harmful to minors" means that quality of any description or
representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual
excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, when it:
(i) predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid
interest of minors, and
(ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult
community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for
minors, and
(iii) is utterly without redeeming social importance for minors.
These are definitions that could be used in forming a constitutionally
sound policy. Not to say I would, but a library could.
- --
James Asbury
jamesasbury@yahoo.com
Source:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=390&invol=629
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 02:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Drema Jude <dremaju@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: food for thought:violence in the media
- --- Dana Estes <de2345@tds.net> wrote:
> Kirsten,
> Once again, I must agree with your statement. Also,
> I would like to add
> that people seem to use the term Christian as if
> that entitles them a life
> of no wrong-doing. But I must be frank, let's all
> be honest with each
> other. Christians are still human beings and they
> continue to tell lies,
> hurt others, make bad choices and yes they do look
> at pornography. They
> just don't make it known that they do. You would be
> surprised at how many
> of God's people watch X-rated films or read Hustler.
> We must not assume
> things when we really have not viewed the whole
> picture.
> Dana Estes
> I would like to respond to this. I have read so much
about so called Christians and what they do. First, I
am a Christian and no I do not tell lies. Second I do
not view pornography. If one is truly a child of God
then they should not have these desires. This does
not entitle me to a life of no wrong doing. However,
we must strive to be perfect as Christ is perfect. A
Christain knows right from wrong and will not partake
of things that are of the world and willfully sin
against our Heavenly Father. I am not writing this to
be quarrelsome, but to say what God would want me to
say. Yes, I believe because I do know the Love of God
and what he had done for me and my family and friends.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:44:02 -0400
From: "Earl and Kirsten Martindale" <earlmart@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: 40s ideas
I'm so sorry...I've had several requests for the ideas from the 1940's, and
thought I posted this to the list last week, when I really sent it only to
one person. Thanks to all of you who sent ideas!
Kirsten Martindale
Buford, GA
> (Cut and Paste postings from PUBYAC):
>
>
> Aside from World War 2, here are some interesting things that were
> developed or invented or happened during that decade
>
> 1940 Automatic dishwasher invented
> 1942 Beginning of Bebop music with Dizzie Gillespie
> 1945 UN founded
> 1945 First prepared frozen meals
> 1947 microwave oven invented,
> 1947 frozen orange juice concentrate introduced
> 1947 LP records introduced--have kids bring in some of parents or
> grandparents old ones
> 1947 Jackie Robinson joined the Brooklyn Dodgers--first black in major
> leagues
> 1947 Silly putty discovered
> 1948 polaroid camera introduced
> 1948 Scrabble introduced
> 1948 Frisbee invented by Yale students using aluminum pie pans
> 1948 Transistor radio invented
>
>
>
> Kirsten...I saw you letter asking for activities for the forties, and had
a
> jolt of nostalgia! I was IN first grade in the forties! Two suggestions:
> children in the 40's spent a lot of time helping "The War
Effort". We
> collected tin foil, tin cans, paper, etc, which your kids could do in the
> interest of re-cycling. We also played games that seem defunct now, like
> marbles and jacks. The second idea is looking at the "Soup" books
by
> Robert Peck, which take place during that time, to see what kids were
> doing. We also (just remembered) wrote letters to servicemen overseas...I
> remember having a marine pen pal on Guadalcanal. The war pretty much
> dominated the decade, and we -even kids- read the papers every day to find
> out what was going on. We also listened to the radio a lot...especially
> 4:30-6:00 PM, to hear Tom Mix, Jack Armstrong, little orphan annie, etc.
> Another good book set in the 40's is "Who was that Masked Man?"
by Avi.
> Since this is the decade of World War II, try the "Molly" books
from the
> American Girl series. There are craft and cooking books as well as the
> stories. Another book about this period (47 p.) is "The Home
Front" by
> Conrad Stein, part of the "World at War" series. Longer, but on
the same
> topic, is "V is for Victory: America Remembers World War II" by
Kathleen
> Krull. Could you find tape recordings with the voices of FDR and Harry
> Truman?
> Another big event from the 1940's was the integration of baseball with
> Jackie Robinson. There are a number of children's books about this, such
> as "First in the Field" by Derek Dingle. You could always look at
children's
> books published in the 40's (Caldecott and Newbery winners would be a
place
> to start) and at popular movies and songs. Just as few ideas
>
> You could try the back of the American Girl Molly books as they are placed
> in the 40's . Also, Howdy Doody may be of interest. It started in 47.
> They may also like to hear some old Radio Shows. (Great Scott - No TV)
>
> I saw your posting to PUBYAC and had a suggestion. I had an American Girl
> party and the character Molly was from this decade. For her time period,
we
> talked about patriotism and did things like sing _My Country 'Tis of Thee_
> and
> said the pledge of allegience (excuse the spelling.) There were lots of
> other
> ideas in _The American Girls Party Book_ if you can get a copy. We also
> talked
> about swing dancing and heard a little Glenn Miller. It is stretching the
> decade a little but the children and their parents got a kick out of it.
------------------------------
End of pubyac V1 #829
*********************
|