Library fines: Banning books in Cheshire won't make the tragedy go away

[XanaDUer]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24642

It seemed like such a simple request. The town where I live, Cheshire, Conn., was the scene of one of the most publicized acts of brutality in recent years — the July 2007 home invasion and murders of a mother and two daughters. Some residents, still traumatized by the crime, asked the town library to ban from its collection a recent "true crime" recounting of the killings.

That's always how these things start, isn't it? Simply.

Not so long ago, because 18 fanatics with box cutters hijacked four planes and flew them into buildings, we were told that we no longer possessed the freedoms of assembly and speech, the right to privacy on our phone or e-mail, nor the freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention and torture. We were told, simply, that this was for "national security." And we, simply, did away with two centuries' worth of rights without much of a whimper or wail.

On a quieter level, the same process is going on in my town. But, instead of having a partisan hack as attorney general and an embedded press corps that didn't think the rescinding of civil liberties was a big enough story to cover, my town has a librarian, Ramona Harten, with a backbone. She has refused to ban the book. Harten said that she does not endorse the book or even plan to read it, but she's received requests for it from patrons. For standing on principle, she is under fire from a group of hysterical residents.

[virgogal]

1. These "hysterical residents" pay her salary.

[MineralMan]

2. As do the residents who want to read the book.

Which ones win? The ones who wouldn't read the book anyhow, or the ones who want to read it? Answer that question and you have the correct answer. Keeping some people from reading a book because you do not like that book is wrong. If you will not read the book, it cannot harm you.

Banning books from public libraries is wrong. Period. Full stop.

[virgogal]

5. Certain books are banned from public libraries all the time.

[Jennicut]

7. I bet my old neighbors were some of these hysterical idiots.

My Mom's friend once asked why the black people were at a bus stop in the main part of town. She wanted to know if they were going to jail. It is an isolated, wealthy, snobby town and thankfully not like most of CT. Banning books won't do the people there any good. I am lucky I got to read Catcher in the Rye in 12th grade at Cheshire High School.

[MineralMan]

18. What books would those be?

Librarians, as a group, oppose banning books, as they should. They realize that not everyone has the same taste in reading and try to supply books that suit all tastes.

One group of unhappy patrons don't get to dictate what books are available or not available. You did not address my point regarding those wanting to read this book also paying the librarian's salary. Why should one group of taxpayers be able to dictate what books are permissible in the public library?

[bobbolink]

4. Those hysterical residents need a refresher course in the Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

Something that librarian already understands, and is defending.

[XanaDUer]

17. The librarian didn't call them hysterical

the article's author did.

[busybl]

3. slippery slope

Our library has a book by that creep that did the sweat lodge that killed people.
I was torn between not believing in censorship and not wanting any more people sucked into his web.
I went with the no censorship. There are books I wish people didn't read, but hey, it isn't up to me.

[Jennicut]

6. I grew in Cheshire and the murders happened down the street from my parent's house.

They still live there.
I used to go trick or treating in that same neighborhood as a kid, right on Sorghum Mill Drive. I had a best friend in high school who lived there and hung out there during my early teens. I went to the same Stop and Shop that the two thugs followed Mrs. Petit home from. It creeped me out...even at 33 and not having lived in that town for 9 years it still hit me hard.

Cheshire was always considered a fairly wealthy, upper middle class to rich town. I got out as soon as I could. It was overrun with Rethugs.
What happened to the Petit family is still incredibly sad. But not admitting it happened makes it even worse. I am glad I moved to Terryville. I remember going to college and people were shocked when I told them I was from Cheshire. "But you are not a snob!" Or a right leaning loser. Indeed.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

10. It hit close to home for me too since I work in Wallingford and

several of my coworkers live on Sorghum Hill Road and knew the girls and Mrs Petit

However, I don't believe in banning books. I don't think this one should be promoted or spotlighted in the Cheshire library, but if a patron wants to read it they should be able to

[Jennicut]

11. I worked in Wallingford after college for a few years at Profitec on Barnes Rd.

I miss it there but left to have my daughter, been 5 years already.

What happened to the Petit family was such a sad thing but really, censorship won't take back what happened. I believe in free speech though I would not read this book.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

12. I think its better that people who want to read it borrow it

from the library rather than buying it. Less money for the author. I don't think it was a great idea to write it/publish it now since its causing problems with the trials of these 2.

[Jennicut]

14. I know the author interviewed Komisarjevsky and then the police would not

let the author back in the jail to see him after 4 times. It is pretty sickening and it seems like someone looking to make a quick buck but many of these true crime novels are like that. I prefer not to know all the horrible details of the deaths of the poor woman and girls.

[mrbarber]

8. Good for the librarian.

Banning books-any books-is something that disturbs me greatly.

[immoderate]

9. Librarians are the first line of defense of democracy!

There are many library heroes who stood up to the Bush administration.

--imm

[havocmom]

13. 50,000 'National Security' Letters to librarians in one year, and they couldn't tell anyone

They could not tell family, only the attorneys they may have hired. And the spooks working for bush/cheney told congress that NO letters had gone out to libraries or librarians when they went to have the Patriot Act renewed. They fucking lied, while serving warrants and presenting NSLs to 50,000 librarians/libraries a year.

A library consortium in CT was served. The gentlemen involved wanted to be able to testify to congress that libraries WERE being served letters & warrants. They wanted to testify while congress was considering the renewal of the Patriot Act and the bush/cheney administration was lying. They were under the gag order that went with the letters. They sued, and they won, but only after the Patriot act was renewed.

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/december2005ab/downsaward.cfm

http://www.wku.edu/~bryan.carson/articles/legallyspeakingsept06.pdf

http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/090905JCH.DoeOP.pdf

Librarians across the nation changed programming of public computers so they would dump history daily. They changed the record keeping practices on automated systems to not hold check out history on material once it was returned.

They worked to inform patrons that they needed to be concerned with protecting their own privacy in libraries, because library staff could have warrants served and not be able to tell anyone.

Trying to allow patrons to read what they want to without censorship is just a small part of how they help defend privacy, and intellectual freedom.

[immoderate]

15. Thanks.

I didn't have the details. But that's what I meant.

I do training with county employees. I always acknowledge the library people.

--imm

[XanaDUer]

16. Kick

[XanaDUer]

19. Kick for the night crew

nt.