Censorship? Or Reining in Chuckleheaded Librarians

I'm inclined to think the latter.

There are 2 bills in TN to allow more community control over public library activities. Together, the two bills would place parental oversight boards to control the content of materials - books and other media - that would be available to minors. Any content that a member of the community questions would be brought before the board. Any decisions by the board (selected by elected politicians) would be final.

ONE of the parts that librarians are in a hissy fit about, is that acting contrary to the decision of the board would be a misdemeanor, and carry a fine. Continued action contrary to board decisions could lead to revoked funding by the state.

Might such decisions by these boards result in less sexually-explicit materials being available to children?

Yep.

Might those decisions also reduce pro-gay youth and pro-trans materials reaching vulnerable children?

Again, yep. That's the point.

Too many librarians have forgotten THEY work for the PUBLIC, not that they are the public's masters. They have chosen to use their job as a way of forcing their moral and ethical standards on the rest of us.

Not happening. Not in Missouri, nor in Tennessee. The adults in the room are pushing back. That pushback is intended to remove financial support for library staff choosing to substitute their judgement for the parents. Frankly, this would not have been necessary if they hadn't taken a giant step over the line. Extremely explicit material (inappropriate for minors), Drag Queen Story Hours, and Planned Parenthood sponsored "educational" events are just a few of the situations involving libraries that parents have previously objected to.

The librarian's response?

Supercilious refusal to accept input from those rubes that have actual responsibility for the care and upbringing of those minors.

It's long past time for this correction. It will NOT prevent people from getting access to that information, but it WILL keep unwary parents from facilitating the staff's pushing it on the kids.

For an entertaining look at how one mom, with the assistance of her gay friend, managed to take on a library system that facilitated patrons watching explicit porn on library computers, read Shut Up! The Bizarre War that One Public Library Waged Against the First Amendment. You won't regret it.

I'm generally not pro-porn. I don't read it - don't even read the relatively tame descriptions of sex acts in romance novels - reading about it bores me. I don't watch it. I'd rather HAVE sex, than watch/read it. Sex at a remove is just - meh.

I don't care what others do, in general, as long as their partners are willing and not minors. For those whose delight is in watching others, as long as the performers are in control of the situation, have at it. Just don't involve me.

Might I judge them?

Of course, should I find out about it. However, again, unless they break actual laws, my response is - Ick! - and to walk away, averting my eyes.

But, in the case of the states taking action against idiocy by libraries - well, they brought that on themselves. On the public dime. Take your lumps, ladies (and gents, and whatevers).

Don't like the possibility that you could lose your job?

Then, lose the attitude. And, rein in your inner freak, at least on company time.

[UPDATE: I made a common error in the headline - Reigning rather than Reining. Not sure whether it was me or the spell-checker. Nonetheless, I accept responsibility for the error. And, I apologize, Fran - I know that those types of error cause you to experience acute pain.]

[UPDATE 2: Thank you, Linda. If it weren't for your timely response and the availability of plenty of Harvey's Bristol Cream Sherry, I daresay life would no longer be worth living! -- FWP]