Same Censorship, Different Day
Nov. 11th, 2009 09:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsAlerted 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 05:08 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 07:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 11:30 pm (UTC)