Open Like Denny's
In the mornings I usually hit the road from the Auburn parents to work in the Kent Valley at about nine o'clock, which means I get to hear most of the Newsline AM program on KOMO (97.7 FM or 1000 AM if you're in Pugetopia and want to listen.) Anyhow, yesterday the host had on Julie Brand, a Community Relations Director for King County Library Services. The current topic was that the local libraries have an "open and free access" policy when it comes to kids checking out adult materials. That is to say if a child wants to check out an R- or NC-17 rated movie, or an "adult" book or magazine, the library will not throw up a roadblock, and will only inform the parents what has been checked out after-the-fact.
This really shouldn't even be a question. If a kid can't rent an R-rated movie from a Blockbuster (you kids in the back asking "What's a Blockbuster?" sit down.) or buy cigarettes, or alcohol. They're not allowed. So why can't the library impose the same sort of restriction on what content a minor can borrow? That's not to say that a parent couldn't rent an R-rated movie and watch with kids; ain't nothin' you can do about that. But no one with a room temperature or higher IQ would argue that it is a bad idea to keep adult content out of the hands of kids who shouldn't be viewing it.
That's what made the interview so frustrating to listen to. Ms. Brand clung to her line of "free and open access for everyone" and that the library doesn't reserve judgment on who takes out what, that they must remain neutral. On various websites that have carried the story, many commenters say that it isn't the job of the library to police who checks out what content, and that parents have to parent, and they're right to a point. It is undeniable that parents are the ultimate gatekeepers and should be monitoring what their kids are checking out. At the same time I remember plenty of times that Mom or Dad would drop my sister and me off at the local library, we'd roam the stacks for an hour or two and come back with an armful of books with no intervention until we climbed in the car at the end of the day.
Seattle won't allow a strip club within some hundred feet of a school or a "family" place like Safeco Field, or places where children play. Someone made a judgment call there to decide what was OK to be around kids. I happen to think that the judge got it wrong in this case, but that's just me. Why can't the library make that same judgment on what content leaves with what age patron?
This really shouldn't even be a question. If a kid can't rent an R-rated movie from a Blockbuster (you kids in the back asking "What's a Blockbuster?" sit down.) or buy cigarettes, or alcohol. They're not allowed. So why can't the library impose the same sort of restriction on what content a minor can borrow? That's not to say that a parent couldn't rent an R-rated movie and watch with kids; ain't nothin' you can do about that. But no one with a room temperature or higher IQ would argue that it is a bad idea to keep adult content out of the hands of kids who shouldn't be viewing it.
That's what made the interview so frustrating to listen to. Ms. Brand clung to her line of "free and open access for everyone" and that the library doesn't reserve judgment on who takes out what, that they must remain neutral. On various websites that have carried the story, many commenters say that it isn't the job of the library to police who checks out what content, and that parents have to parent, and they're right to a point. It is undeniable that parents are the ultimate gatekeepers and should be monitoring what their kids are checking out. At the same time I remember plenty of times that Mom or Dad would drop my sister and me off at the local library, we'd roam the stacks for an hour or two and come back with an armful of books with no intervention until we climbed in the car at the end of the day.
Seattle won't allow a strip club within some hundred feet of a school or a "family" place like Safeco Field, or places where children play. Someone made a judgment call there to decide what was OK to be around kids. I happen to think that the judge got it wrong in this case, but that's just me. Why can't the library make that same judgment on what content leaves with what age patron?