Same Censorship, Different Day

[neadods]

Alerted by a link on Facebook, I did a little research on the saga of Sharon Cook and the Jessamine County Public Library (KY). The most in-depth local article is this one.

Highlights, with some commentary:

Sharon Cook worked for the Jessamine County Public Library for four years full-time. She is technically not a librarian, as she is not in possession of a library science degree. (This does not challenge her ability to work there - I've worked in libraries and I don't have an MLS - but it does send up the first red flag that she has not had any official training that would have covered legal issues like this one.)

A patron of the Jessamine County Public Library requested that the JCPL purchase a copy of the graphic novel, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume IV: The Black Dossier (aka LXG4, to spare me typing). It was duly ordered after whatever process the JCPL has in place for ordering books and shelved in the JCPL's Graphic Novel section, which is right next to the Young Adult section.

At some point "in fall of 2008" (LXG4 was published in November 2008, so this has got to be close to the time the thing showed up), Ms. Cook discovered that LXG4, like the rest of the LXG series, puts the graphic into graphic novel; it's loaded to the gills with sex and violence. (However, note that throughout the rest of this saga, she's never, ever, going to mention the violence. NEVER. It's apparently just peachy if kids read graphic violence, just not the evil sex!) Legally, creator Alan Moore has walked up to the line but not over it; LXG has never been ruled pornographic. (Judge for yourself: images are up on Flickr. NSFW! Do not open at the office!) Cook's main concern was that Kentucky law prohibits distribution of pornographic material to a child and they are concerned that the Jessamine library could be in felony violation.

Cook challenged the book, taking it off the shelves for months. The challenge was researched, denied, and LXG4 went back on the shelves.

Hilariously (NOT) although Cook is on record saying that adults should have free access to LXG4, "I'm an adult. I do not want you telling me what I can read," she says adamantly when you ask, the next suggested step was defacing it so that it couldn't possibly fall into the wrong reader's hands: "someone suggested we spill a cup of tea on it. Instead I checked it out."

And so she did, renewing it over and over, keeping LXG4 readable... but unread because nobody could get to it.

Until September 21, 2009, when a patron put a hold on it, which denied Cook's ability to keep renewing it herself.

Using her employee privileges, Cook looked up the particulars of the person placing the request and discovered that it was an 11-year-old girl. For the rest of the story Cook and her supporters are going to say that they are nobly protecting children from smut, so I'm going to repeat the REAL crux of this in bold: Using her library employee privileges, Cook looked up the personal information of the person placing the hold on the book and judged for herself without reference to the requester or the requester's family that it was problematic that this patron have access to this book.

September 22, 2009: Cook discusses the problem with friends at JCPL. Cook and Beth Boisvert make the mutual decision to drop the other patron's hold on the book so that Cook could continue to keep it out. Bold again, because this is damned important (and scary as hell): Cook and Boisvert mutually made the decision that Cook would retain indefinite physical possession of the library book and no one could check it out without having their details examined to the personal satisfaction of Cook.

September 23, 2009: The JCPL board fires Cook's and Boisvert's asses. Although the Board has not publicly discussed it, the local paper cites the Employee Manual's possible reasons to terminate employment include "theft or misuse of the Jessamine library's property, [and] breach of confidentiality information," both of which have very clearly happened. (Cook is now being fined a dime a day for continuing to keep the book out.)

October 21: The Board has a public meeting. Although stocked to the gills with people who want to weigh in on the subject (including Cook and Boisvert with a PowerPoint presentation), they are not allowed to speak because it isn't on the agenda. (FAIL, y'all! Cook is completely right that the community should set the community standards. However, I hope that someone somewhere in all of this remembers that the person who requested the library buy the book and the girl who wanted to read it are also community members. I'm just sayin'.) Earliest archived news reference comes out.

October 28: Digital Spy picks up the news.

November 4: The JCLP board sets standards for taking community comment and sets November 18 as the date for public commentary.

November 9-10: The blogosphere starts seriously catching up and covering this. Pro-censorship cites like Safe Libraries continue to hold the position that the former employees were doing their duty to protect children from smut. The ACLU and most commentors are pointing out that the library followed the system and rules already in place and that it's a parent's job to do any censoring deemed necessary.

Nobody is dwelling on the part that creeps me out the most: that Cook blithely looked up personal information. Weren't librarians going to jail a few years ago to keep the FBI from doing the same thing at their libraries?


ETA, because people keep asking: this is all public information in an unlocked post; if you want to link, you don't need my permission. Consider it given.

Comments

[persiflage-1.livejournal.com]

Dear gods above... That *is* scary!!

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I didn't think I'd find a story more appalling than the guy who's trying to drive an Illinois library out of business, but here it is. And plenty of people are still arguing that the end thoroughly justified the means.

[brewsternorth.livejournal.com]

Oy oy oy. So much fail.

[jperceval.livejournal.com]

Wow. Just, wow.

Mind if I have my public alter-ego share this post?

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Go right ahead - it's all public information and an unlocked post.

[shadowcat]

Oh my gods.

Do you mind if I link to this from my journal?


Also, off topic, I *love* your icon. I'm in love with that musical and finally bought the DVD.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

It's mscongeniality's icon and open for the taking as long as she's credited.

Link away - it's all public information and an unlocked post.

[gonzai55.livejournal.com]

*face desk*

My mother will be glad she retired when she sees this. And my father will probably be glad he's dead. (Both librarians.)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

My aunt's a librarian, and if she knows she's got to be fit to be tied.

[wendymr.livejournal.com]

Unbelievable.

Though not really, reading some of the things Cook is quoted as saying in that newspaper article. Take this:

She then went through the proper procedure of challenging the book, something any patron can do. That required a committee, including Cook, to read the book.

"People prayed over me while I was reading it because I did not want those images in my head," she says.

and "we are a conservative community" - read 'conservative religious community'.

Which means, apparently, that this gives her the right to decide what other people can and cannot do. And to access confidential information and then make further decisions affecting other people without their knowledge.

Yes, she deserved to be fired - but the library also needs to improve its employee training significantly if Cook thought it was okay to look up a user's personal details and Boisville thought it was okay to take it on herself to remove a book from hold based on her own decision about what someone else should be allowed to do.

Though it's refreshing to see so many comments on the WTQV site upholding the library's position - I assume word got out among the professional librarian community and they're all posting to show support.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

and "we are a conservative community" - read 'conservative religious community'.

Believe me, I know; this rings a LOT of "enforcing one person's religious dictates" bells. It's far from the first time I've seen the advice to simply check out a book so nobody else can get it when a ban fails - it's keeping it under personal lock and key and using privileges to check personal details that launches this from "random minor censorship issue #4475398765982" to Orwellian territory.

I don't see anything in the articles I've read that the library policy said that this was okay - this seems to be a personal crusade of Cook's more than anything, and a splashy way of being a martyr.

[scarlettgirl.livejournal.com]

As a library board member I would have so fired their asses. You DO NOT dip your fingers into personal information for any reason other than sending out library notices. To have that trust violated is absolutely appalling. ,

(Then again, our library is rather proud of its Quaker legacy and of having a librarian nearly thrown in jail and black-listed back in the 50's for refusing to release patron history during the McCarthy-hearing hysteria. You don't fuck with a Quaker, man.)

[lagilman]

Nope, you don't. A friend of mine (who was a Friend) once opined that if, instead of soldiers, we sent a handful of pissed-off Quakers to scold our enemies, we'd have things settled much more swiftly, and without as much bloodshed.

I still think he had a valid point.

[jennetj.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I've forwarded it on to roomie for her opinion.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'd be curious to hear it.

[steviesun.livejournal.com]

If I look at personal details of customers at work I best have a damned good BUSINESS need/reason for doing so. Cook did so out of curiosity and not due to a business need.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

As far as I can tell, she did it for the specific purpose of feeling that she had a right to override library policy on the matter.

And then made a decision about a minor that in no way involved discussing the issue with the minor's parents. That's 2x kinds of legal fail.

[daemonnoire.livejournal.com]

What I find really interesting is all of the people who keep screaming "Where are the parents?!?" and blaming them for not "protecting" their precious baby from the pr0n. Who's to say that the parents didn't know their kid was checking this book out? An 11 year old female isn't your typical market for this particular series. Maybe her parents are fans of graphic novels, and have shared their hobby with their daughter. I know I read things when I was 11 that my teachers didn't approve of, but my parents were perfectly okay with. And because my parents were okay with it, my teachers never bugged me about it beyond that first "Are you really reading that?"

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Where in this were the parents even given an option? That's one of the things that gets me. We don't know what the parents think of their kid trying to check it out because Cook never contacted them with her concerns. She just went ahead and made *their* decision for them and expects to be lauded for it.

[elizawrites.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this! I'm in a class about censorship that meets tonight and I'm definitely going to bring this up.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

It's nice and fresh. I hope some googleable source covers the November 18 meeting, because now I'm curious.

[zinelady.livejournal.com]

Since they fired the basic trouble makers, why not order another copy and charge Cook for it? If she doesn't pay it, then throw her ass in jail for unpaid fines, meanwhile ban her from the library so she can't steal the book. With this much publicity, it will get checked out...hopefully by someone that will return it, rather than keep it hostage so young impressible minds can't be sullied.

The last thing Cook needs is a public forum so that she can spread her illness.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

At the library where I grew up, once the fines = price of the book, you were automatically billed for the new copy in lieu of more fines.

I rather like the banning idea.

There are a lot of groups who support Cook - I refuse to give them the hits of a link, but Safe Libraries (an anti-ACLU organization) is solidly on the "she saved the child from teh pr0n!" side and completely ignores the privacy violations. The violations of ACLU policy are a bonus as far as they're concerned.

[platypus]

If we looked at the personal details of someone placing a hold and decided they shouldn't have the book, we would be in deep, deep shit.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

THIS is the heart of the issue, as far as I'm concerned. If I were a parent, I can't say I'd want my 11-year-old reading LXG... but I'd want the library to discuss it with ME when a librarian saw my kid pick it up, not violate my kid's privacy and decide without discussing it with me.

[fabricdragon.livejournal.com]

1. that book is not suitable for children, and the library certainly can restrict it to adults only... within their rights i believe....

2. what she did, taking it out so as to block others from getting access to it... is in CLEAR violation of the entire principles of a free library

3. looking up a patrons information is beyond the scope of her "clearance" and her duties
3A. if the patron showed up to pick up the book, and was visually determined to be a child, it could have been refused as "adult material" at that point.

everyone involved in this dmn straight should have been fired.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

that book is not suitable for children

I'm actually with you on that. I'm an adult and parts of LXG shock me.

But how she did it, and why she did it, and that she did it without ever discussing her concerns with the family in question - miles and miles and miles beyond the pale.

ganking this

[fabricdragon.livejournal.com]

i wish to post this in my Thorninthefoot journal. since you have stated to others it is unlocked and postable, i am presuming permission? if its not ok, just let me know....

Re: ganking this

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Blanket permission given.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

That is the biggest invasion of privacy I have seen in a long time.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Gobsmacking, isn't it? And yet quite a few people seem to be arguing that the ends - keeping it out of the hands of a kid - not only justified the means, but demanded them.

[severely-lupine.livejournal.com]

Sounds like this all could have been avoided by having some kind of guidelines in place for what the library would and wouldn't buy, and then have someone actually do the research to find out what it was they were buying. It doesn't take that long to google something to find out if it's especially graphic or whatever. And if they want to label some things as only available to be checked out by adults, they could have an adult only section. People still have to pick things up in person, don't they? They could have seen she was 11 at that time, and then denied her the book if it went against some existing rule.

I agree, though, it was very uncool that they looked up personal info and took things into their own hands like that.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

this all could have been avoided by having some kind of guidelines in place for what the library would and wouldn't buy

I've never known a library that didn't have those guidelines because there's never enough money to go around. Certainly they knew *exactly* what they had on their hands after the challenge and still decided that it merited space in the stacks with apparently no limitations. Whether you agree with their assessment (I don't, actually; I don't think a pre-teen should be reading LXG) they had already judged it by community merits and decided against Ms. Cook... who then went on to decide that her opinion overruled the Board's, so if she couldn't get her way by fair means, she'd try foul.

[fourzoas.livejournal.com]

Wow. As a person who read all sorts of things she ought not to have thanks to her local childhood library, I'm so glad this woman was nowhere near me when I was growing up.

Totally agree regarding the violation of privacy and the just WTF-ery of this woman. Can't quite get over the fact that instead of just moving the graphic novels away from the YA section--an act clearly in the librarian's purview--this crazy course was taken. My take? This woman is entirely NOT concerned about the children, but about Making A Point.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

NOT concerned about the children, but about Making A Point

Making a Point and Being a Martyr. Two! Two! Two great awful decisions in one! (Although I'm not sure if the martyrdom was planned as much as a comforting place to flee when she couldn't get her employment record expunged.)

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

I've read The Black Dossier. It is full of violence and sex -- but it's not Lost Girls.

JCPL's Graphic Novel section, which is right next to the Young Adult section.

*This* is perhaps a planning flaw on the part of the library. At least in my local public libraries they have a YA Graphic Novel section and another section in the Adult Fiction. Guess where Alan Moore's books get shelved.

[vcmw]

This case was much reported and discussed on youth library listservs recently, but I'm interested to note that none of the early discussions I saw went in to the back story of the challenge and the continued checkouts by this employee - most commenters were assuming that she had been unaware of the book, seen it for the first time when it went on hold, and then pulled it.

The story as you tell it, with more details, bothers me even more.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

It's the details that make it horrifying, especially the lengths she was willing to go to.