Saline County Library

I have not updated this blog in ages. Since 2016, to be exact. I received an email response from a Saline County JP regarding the current library controversy, and I wanted to post my response to him here: Thank you for your response, and I enjoyed meeting you the other night.

 I wanted to address your observations about the library situation: About objectionable sexual content in the children's section: Any library worth its salt will have objectionable material. A librarian named Jo Godwin famously said, "A truly great library contains something to offend everyone." As far as sexual content, the complaints I've observed involve books about health/puberty and Young Adult fiction that includes references to sex and/or descriptions of sexual activity. Whether or not these are objectionable will vary from person to person.That's why it's important to make sure we're talking about material that is judicially obscene--according to the Miller test developed through the 1973 Miller vs. California SCOTUS case-rather than simply objectionable. The Miller test has three prongs that test for obscenity, and to my knowledge, the Saline County Library contains no material that could be defined as judicially obscene. Also, the Young Adult section has a lot of books with sexual content. It always has. Some of those books are as old as I am. It's interesting that we're not hearing about those now. I guess they are beyond the SCRW's radar because they involve heterosexual relationships. They've been sitting on the library's shelves for decades, but they are not currently featured on any anti-library billboards or websites. If the Quorum Court wants to go down the rabbit hole of weeding out all of the YA books with sexual content to move them to another section of the library, it will definitely have its work cut out for them, and it will reflect horribly on our county. Many of those books are considered YA classics. I read a number of them in middle school (they were available through the library at my very conservative Christian school). I'm not always a fan of the slippery slope argument, but I believe it would be a legitimate concern in this case. 

About First Amendment rights for children, those matters are better left to someone with extensive understanding in Constitutional Law. Of course it's fine to have opinions about what children should have access to, but our opinions will not hold up against law if any of this results in a lawsuit (which it very well could). About obscene material vs. real-life material, again, sexual content has always been a part of youth sections of libraries, and we have the Miller test to help us determine what is judicially obscene. 

Moving books might not be the same as banning them, but it is definitely a form of censorship if books are moved to a location in the library where their potential audiences cannot access them. If you haven't read up on the current lawsuit against the Crawford County library, it involves exactly this issue. Ms. Hector and the library staff have been put in an impossible position: They can either move the books and face a likely lawsuit, or they can leave them where they are and face what's happening now. It is not fair for the Quorum Court to ask the library to take certain measures that could get the library sued while the Quorum Court would have no such consequences. If the QC wants the library to relocate the books, the QC needs to be willing to be named in any lawsuits that could result. It's only fair. 

Of course the Quorum Court has not suggested defunding the library. That's coming from the Saline County Republican Women and their supporters. That group has been attempting to chip away at the library's financial management credibility since the beginning of this. I'm sure you heard one speaker use the term "fraudulent" at the most recent meeting. Many of us believe this has been the SCRW's ultimate plan all along: to discredit the library's financial management in the public eye so they can accomplish what happened to the Craighead County library here in Saline County. We need to look no further than the fact that the SCRW brought Dan "Book Ban Dan" Sullivan from Craighead County to the first meeting (that nickname is one he embraces, by the way). I know the SCRW does not dictate what the QC does, but so far, I can't blame anyone for thinking that. The SCRW wanted books relocated, and the QC passed that resolution. The SCRW also wants Ms. Hector fired, and it looks like the QC is going to facilitate that, too. The QC might be making these decisions independently of the SCRW, but it doesn't appear that way to the public. 

The Saline County Library has done nothing wrong. They have done what libraries have always done: make information available with policies in place regarding age-appropriate material and adult supervision in children's areas. They also have a reconsideration process for potentially objectionable material. Controversial books have always been there and they have never been forced on anyone. The SCRW's actions are rooted in fear, rage, and outright homophobia (again, it's only YA books that include same-sex sexual content that are being targeted as something children must be protected from). The SCRW and their supporters, while claiming to follow Christian principles, have also stooped to digging up extremely private details about library employees' personal lives and sharing them across social media. This is utterly reprehensible behavior. Again, I understand that the QC is a completely separate entity from the SCRW, but the court is in a position in which they can call out and condemn the SCRW's tactics. If the court would truly like to separate themselves from the SCRW in the public eye, taking this action would help. Please consider it. 

Sincerely,

Deana Nall

Bryant, AR