Mother Steals Gossip Girl Books From Library

Tina Harden‘s daughter brought home a couple young Gossip Girl-inspired novels in 2008. When Tina flipped through the books and saw the bad language and references to sex/drugs, she did what came naturally to her.

She stole the books. She has had them in her possession since the fall of 2008:

Harden owes $85 in fines but hasn’t paid them. She said she is hoping the library will waive the fines.

“It’s not that I lost the books or I didn’t feel like turning them in,” she said. “I want us to work together. Hopefully they have the same goals as I do.”

What. The. Fuck.

She stole library books to make sure no one else could read them.

That’s not ok. Ever.

Hey, guess what? I’m offended by what I see in the Koran and the Bible and the entire Left Behind series. But you don’t see me indefinitely “borrowing” every copy of those books from libraries.

I know better than that.

I don’t support censorship like that.

You know if Harden had it her way, the library would get rid of anything that appears on those Banned Books lists.

Thankfully, people wiser than she came through this week:

After an article about Harden appeared in Thursday’s Orlando Sentinel, a man donated replacement books to the library and several others told the library they planned to send checks or books to replace the ones Harden was keeping.

What does Harden say to that?

Harden does not fault people who have offered to replace the books.

“They’re taking some action in response to something that I’m doing, and that’s what makes our country so great, that we have that freedom,” she said. “I feel like I’m a pretty middle-of-the-road kind of person. I just want children to be safe and not come across material that’s really inappropriate for their age level.”

There are many things that make our country great. Nowhere on that list is the ability to remove books you deem unworthy from a library.

In the past day, I have posted about politics and religion and discrimination against gay people… and yet, this pisses me off more than any of those. Maybe it just seems like this could happen anywhere.

Harden is welcome to shelter her children from reading the books they want or watching TV shows they like. She can send them to a private school, never let them go on dates when they’re older, and isolate them from the rest of the world if she so desires.

But she has no right to take that decision away from anyone else.

(via Jessa Crispin)

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    But what about the children? How else can we teach the children right from wrong without stealing? Next you’ll probably want to teach about monogamy, by reading the old testament and not ignoring all of the plural marriages in the old testament. Or are you going to try to teach kids about honesty by not lying to them? Crazy.

    Noah and the Dinosaurs.

  • http://politicalcartel.org David

    “Harden is welcome to shelter her children from reading the books they want or watching TV shows they like. She can send them to a private school, never let them go on dates when they’re older, and isolate them from the rest of the world if she so desires.”

    Why do we take this right for granted? If it were a fundie mother who wanted to physically or sexually abuse her children, we would never allow it, even if she had sincere religious beliefs about it. Why is it so different when it is social or intellectual abuse motivated by conservative values?

  • http://kdegraaf.net/ Kevin DeGraaf

    This is an outrage.

    I would go a step further and take issue with your statement that “Harden is welcome to shelter her children from reading the books they want [etc. etc.] and isolate them from the rest of the world if she so desires”. That seems like intellectual child abuse to me.

  • plutosdad

    My mother stole books from the library. You know what it taught me? That stealing is ok.

    I feel like we are always only an election away from mass book burning. We just need the religious right (or far left as well) that cater to these types of people who don’t believe in freedom.

  • Bob

    This is from the same drawer as the one dippy mother who keeps trying to get Harry Potter banned, because it teaches our children bad Latin phrases and opens the door to witchcraft and all that stuff.

    The answer is not to bubble-wrap your kids.

    The answer is to educate them and instill in them the ethical values and critical thinking skills you want them to be able to exercise.

    Or, to borrow from a SF novel: “Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to do.”

  • plutosdad

    Why do we take this right for granted?
    it’s not physical abuse and hard to measure. If you can control what she teaches her kids, then she can control what you teach yours, and there are more of them than there are of us.

    That is less about atheism/theism than libertarianism/statism though.

  • Claudia

    I feel sorry for her daughter and any other children she may have. They may end up leaving the house so sheltered that they are totall unprepared for the real world. On the other hand, they may end up acting out and doing unsafe things out of a sheer need for freedom. I see them leaving the house balanced and ready to deal with the world in a level-headed fashion as the least of these posibilities.

  • Bob

    @plutosdad:

    I share that fear. And it’s not particularly unfounded, not when you have people like Sarah Palin the Talibimbo out there spewing ‘our laws should be based on the Ten Commandments …’ crap.

  • http://politicalcartel.org David

    It isn’t about extremes like libertarianism or statism, it is a finesse question of how parental rights should be viewed when in conflict with a legitimate state interest. I know it seems ridiculous now, but it’s only a matter of time before new forms of child abuse (including religious-motivated non-physical abuse) come within the government’s sphere to regulate, and I can’t wait.

  • Canadiannalberta

    O.o

    I wouldn’t want my younger sisters reading Gossip Girl, but I’m not about to go about stealing. I guess I have better ethics/morals then Christians.

    Wait, what?

    Oh, right, they don’t give a heck if what they do is wrong, just as long as its right in the eyes of ‘god’.

  • Bob

    @David:

    That’s why the Bible-thumpers are going full tilt to paint America as a Christian nation, so that government will be THEIR government. You won’t see parents getting busted for teaching the Bible, but you’ll see people getting hauled off for reading Dawkins or playing Dungeons & Dragons.

  • http://politicalcartel.org David

    @Bob, I think we all know roughly what the legal situation is right now in the US. The government can enact laws to protect children from recognizably harmful things like physical abuse. If you are right that there are Bible-thumpers out there trying to push the line so that atheistic materials are considered harmful, that should be opposed. But in opposing that general mindset, why would we resort merely to defending the status quo? Why not push for a little progress?

    I’m not proposing an instant definition whereby all things religious are considered harmful to children and therefore illegal. I think that things that are demonstrably harmful should be made illegal, and religious motivation should not be a valid excuse from compliance. The two positions above are not the same thing.

  • http://riotingmind.blogspot.com/ BeamStalk

    So the Ten Commandments say nothing of cussing or doing drugs, but specifically states stealing. So to support the Bible and the Ten Commandments, she breaks a specific commandment to stop things not specifically mentioned. How does this make sense?

  • Aaron

    If there is one thing I feel is “sacred”, it is books for some reason. I wouldn’t burn any book, even the Twilight series, as I see it as obscene.
    This runs a close second. She should be arrested. Let’s sic judge James Kimmel on her.
    http://www.loweringthebar.net/2010/04/judge-defends-decision-to-issue-warrant-for-overdue-dvd.html

  • Bob

    @David:

    I’m not sure you’re catching my drift. The Bible thumpers want a ‘Christian’ government so that they’re making the rules by way of controlling the legislature, etc. – just as the Christians took over the school board and are rewriting textbooks in Texas.

    As Kipling once wrote, “For Holy People … endeth as Wholly Slave.”

  • fiddler

    Between the conservative parents like this woman and the liberal parents that want books banned like Huck Finn, I’m sincerely surprised that libraries even exist.

  • http://politicalcartel.org David

    @Bob, I don’t disagree that there are some people out there like that. I think this is where we might disagree:

    1) I’m not worried that they will be successful, especially because constitutional law stops their agenda without barring mine. The establishment clause prevents them from enacting laws that prop up Christianity. The free exercise clause doesn’t protect them from laws that prohibit child abuse.

    2) I don’t think that there is any strategic advantage to taking the libertarian position (no government interference in parent rights) rather than the progressive position (those things demonstrably harmful to children should be prohibited, and the appeal to religious tradition should not be viewed as a valid excuse). If you are right, and *we* are up against the crazy Bible-thumpers threatening to take over, do you think *us* taking the libertarian position will help if they succeed in taking over?

  • http://writtenmagic.ca/ pbjeffrey

    I almost don’t agree with the people offering to replace and donate new books – from her comments, this woman is praising the whole issue, essentially saying “It’s okay for me to steal these, because there are no repercussions.” Because these people are replacing the books, the library has less reason to press the issue, instead just wanting to move on. What happens with the next mother who doesn’t like a certain set of books? Will we just rely on generous people to donate them back, or should we be relying on the cops to do something a little more serious about it, even if it’s not a huge offence?

    She’s knowingly and openly admitted to stealing, so charge her a nasty fine, and use the money for education about censorship. No one should be allowed to get away with this, as it just encourages it for other close-minded parents.

  • me

    Ideally, a parent should be able to feel safe letting his or her child go to the library on their own to check out books. It probably makes sense for certain books to require a minimum age to check them out (a la R-rated movies). I think that was a reasonable request that the library should reconsider.

    I don’t support her stealing the books to keep them out of the hands of others. I DO support her stealing books as an act of civil disobedience to encourage the library to act on something she felt is important, and I don’t find particularly “out there.”

  • Bob

    @David:

    I am not advocating a position for non-theists or rationalists other than to be aware that there are an increasing number of Christians who feel it is their God-given duty to dictate morality and laws based on their God and their holy scripture; in their minds, morality in general is ascribed to said book and comes from nowhere else.

    Our First Amendment protections are only workable when we’re being honest about their purpose and intent – to provide and protect the essential freedoms of speech, press, religion, and assembly AS WELL AS an open dialogue with government.

    It’s clear that the Bible-thumpers want a religious government, casting freedom of religion to mean Christianity specifically, and offer no protection to others.

    So in short, you pointed out the usefulness of government intervention in such instances, and I pointed out that the Bible-thumpers’ response is to subsume government.

  • Judith Bandsma

    @bob Libraries are less and less funded…considered an ‘unnecessary’ expense. We’ve lost several branches here and one branch now specializes in nothing but CHRISTIAN titles.

    But, if you come down to it, with our education system the way it stands today, we don’t have to worry about the banning of books for long. You don’t have to ban what nobody can read.

  • hippiefemme

    I learned in my Sociology of the Family class that The Satanic Bible is rarely banned because people are so apt to steal it instead of making a request to ban it. People don’t even try to hide it, much like the woman in the article. They’ll check it out and tell the library technician “I’m not bringing this back,” and there’s not much the library can do except send fine notices.

  • Alan E.

    Why isn’t this quote in bold too?

    I feel like I’m a pretty middle-of-the-road kind of person.

    Theft and censorship are not middle-of-the-road.

  • JT

    @ Alan E.

    It’s middle-of-the-road to crazy town, population: this woman. (Also a vast majority of this country)

    But in all seriousness, if you have a problem with the offerings of the public library, go to a book store and buy the kind of books you approve of your child reading. Just like education, if you want to control the information your child receives, there is a hefty price attached to private schooling. Just because you’re a prude doesn’t mean the whole tax-paying public should bear that burden of reduced range of literature.

  • Milosmom

    This is, surprisingly enough, not all that rare. Most libraries have in place a system for having an item reconsidered, but people ignore the system and instead, see themselves as crusaders, protecting the children.

    It pains me to say there were several librarians who checked out The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen indefinitely for much the same reasons: they disagreed with the content. They circumvented the system to avoid a hold placed by a child, and were fired for it.

    If parents want to make sure their kids don’t check out anything inappropriate from the library, they should keep themselves informed about what’s out there, and keep an eye on what their kids check out. It’s not any parent’s job to keep material they think is inappropriate away from anyone else.

  • turkey

    She kept four library books for two years and $85 is all she owes?? I wish the place where I rent movies had fines like that!

  • Ubi Dubius

    For what it’s worth, she has returned the books now. I don’t think that’s clear in Hemant’s post. I hope that the library does not waive the fines.

  • Vivian

    Jeez… I don’t even hide the Bible from my daughter. I just tell her it is what some people believe. JUST like crazy lady should tell her kids not to believe everything they read.

    Worse case scenario for her kids: they envy glamorous fake people.
    Worse case scenario for my kid: She fears burning in Hell for not believing in Jesus. A bit skewed, I should say.

  • Patrick

    Libraries aren’t for-profit entities. They really just want the items back. It’s likely this woman’s library services were suspended, pending payment of the fine and return of the books.

    As someone else pointed out, there is a system for a patron to challenge a book; too bad she didn’t use it. As for restricting check-out by age – that’s the parent’s decision, not the library’s.

  • Bob

    @Judith:

    I live in a city that is facing bankruptcy and rampant gang violence (amid an unwillingness to break costly contracts with the police/fire depts.) and yet the mayor has time to style the place as the ‘City of God’.

    And this is in the ‘liberal’ San Francisco Bay Area.

  • Bob

    Oh, and may I just add that I love you folks for writing complete, grammatical sentences with proper punctuation and good spelling.

    A welcome difference from the ‘you’re not my mother’ crowd I find on other forums.

  • http://www.lavenderliberal.com/ Buffy

    People like that always annoy me. They think they have the right to determine for everyone what is “appropriate”. Then they go on crusades or even commit crimes to force their views on others.

    Imagine if every “objectionable” book were banned. We’d have no more books. If a person doesn’t approve of a book they have the right to not read it. They don’t have the right to prevent others from doing so.

  • dartigen

    “I just want children to be safe and not come across material that’s really inappropriate for their age level.”

    That would be why those books are either in the ‘young adult’ or ‘adult’ fiction sections, not the ‘children’s books’ section.

    IIRC, my local library is theoretically meant to stop children from checking out books from the Adult Fiction section, but the staff never check, and usually parents are doing the actual borrowing anyway – my local library requires photo ID to get a borrowing card, which most under-16s can’t provide.

  • http://irenedelse.wordpress.com Irene

    Tina Harden: “They’re taking some action in response to something that I’m doing, and that’s what makes our country so great, that we have that freedom”

    It’s disgraceful that someone who obviously thinks herself principled isn’t even able to own up to her own culpability. Hiding instead behind a lot of pseudo-patriotic babble… No, lady, if you steal a book and someone else has to pay for replacement, you’re still a petty thief. No excuses. And if you value freedom so much, please stop messing with how other people conduct their lives!

  • Houndies

    she stole from the library to keep her daughter from having access to books she doesnt agree with. what’s next: borders, barnes & noble, hastings? is she going to remove every single book from every place her daughter frequents? her daughter probably has playgirl and penthouse under her bed anyway.

  • Pony

    I was browsing the evolution science section and I spotted Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box”. I didn’t steal it though. I just refiled it in the religion section.

    Also, thanks for reminding me I have to return some books!

  • muggle

    Why would other people’s generous donations exonerate her? She’s still guilty of theft and still subject to the fine.

    And, hell, it isn’t the library’s job to monitor your kids in the library though most have policies in place to keep them from checking out something like Playboy. However, if you want final approval over what your kid can and cannot check out, there’s only one way to do it. Get up off your lazy, fat butt, actually interact with your child and take them to the library yourself.

    This is the one cudos I will give my fundy nut mother: she did not censor our reading. I was free to roam the library and check out any damned thing I wanted. She didn’t even check to see what I was reading. In fact, she even kept an extensive library at home and was actually pleased that my nose was always in a book. And, no, it wasn’t always “The Children’s Illustrated Bible Stories” I’m reading in my gravatar pic.

    Thank you for that, Ma. It’s the one freaking thing I can thank you for but thank you.

  • Meyli

    Those books are really trashy though, and I think its pretty disappointing that almost the only books preteens are reading are Gossip Girl and Twilight and the like; way to dumb down a generation before they’re even grown up.
    I wouldn’t steal the books; as it is a library, they have just as much of a right to exist there as any other book, but I would never encourage my children or anyone I know to read them :-/

  • Demonhype

    Oh, mother fuck.

    My mom encountered a book I was reading when I was about ten that gave TMA on teens getting to second base and beyond. She ended up photocopying the offending part of the book and got a petition around–no, not to ban the book from the library but to put it in a more appropriate section of the library, because this book was in Juvenile instead of Young Adult or Teen or whatever the designation was there at the time (that was how my mom usually delineated appropriateness of reading material back then–I got to read from YA section at about twelve or thirteen).

    If something is not “age appropriate”, then push to have it re-shelved in a more appropriate part of the library. I can understand the anger at something PG-13 being mis-labeled as a G-rating (which is a helpful gauge for parents to make decisions, though not perfect), but in what universe is it appropriate to simply steal the offending media or have it destroyed?

    This bitch sounds like the whiny women who got Invader Zim off the air–or so I was told, that overly-sensitive mothers found it “disturbing and offensive” and got it cancelled. If that’s true, then WTF? It’s mostly got a teen and adult following, so why not move it to Adult Swim or whatever? Why, because when the tender feelings of overly-sensitive mommies are damaged, the only remedy is to smash the offender with a hammer, I suppose. Even if the story isn’t actually true, it has the ring of truth, because that’s how things go down in so many other “offended mommie” scenarios.

  • http://atheistreadsbible.blogspot.com/ Jude

    As a high school librarian, I can tell you that this happens far more often than you’d think. Most people just don’t claim credit. I, for example, not only have lost all my Gossip Girls books (and they’re pure tripe, folks, appalling, horrible, popular crap), but someone ripped off Joyce Carol Oates’ Sexy. I’m fairly certain I know who did it (she’d expressed dismay at the content), but I could be wrong. I suppose she stole the book to protect the rest of us from it.

  • Katie

    Hopefully they have the same goals as I do.

    I think it’s pretty safe to say they fucking don’t. They’re a library. Librarians, with some sad exceptions, are not generally friends of censorship, and certainly not of having their materials stolen when, there can be little doubt, they’re in a budget crisis with doubtful funding.

    I especially doubt that the graduate-degree trained librarian whose job it is to select books for the library’s collection has “the same goals” as a (self)-righteous crusader trying to supplant and undermine his or her own work.

    What a smug bitch.

  • Miko

    There are many things that make our country great. Nowhere on that list is the ability to remove books you deem unworthy from a library.

    I read her statement as saying that it’s good that people gave the library replacement copies, not that it’s good that she stole it. And I agree with that statement: it is great that we respond to censorship by giving even greater publicity and exposure to that which was censored.

    David:

    Why do we take this right for granted? If it were a fundie mother who wanted to physically or sexually abuse her children, we would never allow it, even if she had sincere religious beliefs about it. Why is it so different when it is social or intellectual abuse motivated by conservative values?

    Classically, law developed upon a foundation of allowing people to live in a harmonious and cooperative environment and as such was focused on 1) preventing actions that would threaten that and 2) providing compensation to those who were harmed (and who would otherwise take things into their own hands and attempt actions prohibited under (1)). Censoring the things that people tell their children doesn’t meet these standards.

    While I think it’s fantastic that you’re so confident in your morality that you want to use the power of the state to force it on everyone else, not everyone shares your epistemic foundations and from their position it makes just as much sense to say that your decision not to baptize your children or not to teach them conservative Christian dogma (and thus doom them to eternal damnation) is child abuse.

    Having an opinion on these issues is great. Debating those who disagree is great. Trying to find common ground, to share views, etc., are all great. Trying to use the force of law to bend others to your will is not great. Besides the fact that it won’t work, it totally underscores your position: after all, if you had a good and persuasive argument, why would you need to use violence to enforce your will?

    I know it seems ridiculous now, but it’s only a matter of time before new forms of child abuse … come within the government’s sphere to regulate, and I can’t wait.

    Seeing as secularists are in the minority, my guess is that when the state gets around to regulating new forms of child ‘abuse,’ the chances are that you won’t like the results as much as you anticipate.

    1) I’m not worried that they will be successful, especially because constitutional law stops their agenda without barring mine. The establishment clause prevents them from enacting laws that prop up Christianity. The free exercise clause doesn’t protect them from laws that prohibit child abuse.

    That’s because child abuse has always been defined as physical abuse. If you try to define certain forms of speech as child abuse (and suggest that the government should have a role in preventing them), your ideas most definitely won’t pass Constitutional muster.

    2) I don’t think that there is any strategic advantage to taking the libertarian position (no government interference in parent rights) rather than the progressive position (those things demonstrably harmful to children should be prohibited, and the appeal to religious tradition should not be viewed as a valid excuse). If you are right, and *we* are up against the crazy Bible-thumpers threatening to take over, do you think *us* taking the libertarian position will help if they succeed in taking over?

    The 1st Amendment is a libertarian position, so your first point already implicitly suggests that it would.

    But more to the point, you’re defining libertarianism too narrowly. Libertarianism is not just about getting the government to agree not to do something, but about removing the capacity of the government to do it. The fear is that the crazy right-wingers will take over and then use the existing governmental apparatus to do things that we lefties won’t like; the easiest and most obvious way to protect against this is to get rid of that apparatus entirely.

  • Miko

    plutosdad:

    If you can control what she teaches her kids, then she can control what you teach yours, and there are more of them than there are of us.

    That is less about atheism/theism than libertarianism/statism though.

    I wouldn’t describe noninterference in this sense as a libertarian position, exactly. Historically, the term “libertarianism” arose out of a debate between the French anarchists Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Joseph Déjacque, with Déjacque disapproving of Proudhon’s anti-feminist positions and suggesting “libertarian” as a broader term for anarchists who oppose not only state hierarchy but private forms of hierarchy as well (oppose by different methods, of course).

    While a libertarian would oppose the use of state power to control what someone teaches her kids, she would also want to do everything within the scope of nonviolent action to 1) persuade the parent to provide her child with a broader education and 2) make sure that the child is nonetheless able to get access to the information that she wants access to, even if her parents don’t want her to.

  • http://politicalcartel.org D. M. Manes

    @Miko, interesting comment.

    Under your legal philosophy, is there room for current anti-child abuse laws? These laws are, after all, state-sponsored intrusions into traditional parental autonomy and are enforced by the state (with “violence”). They probably aren’t necessary to hold society together (especially since they are relatively new).

    Just to be clear, what is the fundamental distinction between harmful physical abuse and harmful psychological/social/intellectual abuse? Is a child’s physical integrity the only thing the state has an interest in protecting? Is that even the thing most worth protecting?

    I am not pushing some abstract moral standard of what parents should and shouldn’t tell their children. I’m not making any specific proposals, really. The point is just that the same justification that supports current physical child abuse and sexual child abuse laws can be expanded to support laws protecting children from other forms of abuse, such as psychological/social/intellectual abuse. The principle is not abstract, nor is it morality-based (whatever that means). It is based on the idea that children thrive under certain conditions and children are harmed in other conditions. When we can objectively identify these conditions, and I see no reason why we should defer to the traditional notion of parental autonomy or religious exceptionalism.

    On the 1) point, I don’t think you were seeing the distinction between those two clauses of the First Amendment that I was drawing, but I don’t know how to phrase it any other way.

    On the 2) point, you seem to think that if you abstain from using the state to protect children that will have some preemptive effect on (boogie man) fundies in the event that they take over the country. It’s an interesting theory, but I doubt that in that scenario they would care about your abstention.

    I think this is the most interesting thing you said, and it perfectly illustrates where we differ:

    Trying to use the force of law to bend others to your will is not great. Besides the fact that it won’t work, it totally underscores your position: after all, if you had a good and persuasive argument, why would you need to use violence to enforce your will?

    I assume you are coming from a pretty hardcore libertarian point of view when you say something like that. It disparages the rule of law as “violence” and “bending others to your will,” while imagining a fantasy world where everyone is reasonable and is convinced by pure rational argument to do what is right. Yes, laws are coercive and are enforced by the state’s police powers. Yes, it would be nice if we could just debate every person on every issue instead of forcing them to live within certain boundaries of action. If there are good, objective, rational reasons to support a law, why would enacting it be a bad thing?

  • Emily the non-Catholic

    I think this is beyond sad…especially the part where she claims she wants them to “work together”. If you read the rest of the article, it says that the library offered to shelve the books in the adult section when she first made her position known. When they wouldn’t censor them further, Harden decides she’ll just keep them forever. What. An. Idiot.

  • Jen

    At my library, I believe that once you return a library book, even if it is super late, you don’t have to pay fines- once you are past the point of getting billed, that is. If this woman stole library books in my town, but did return them, I think she would suffer real consequences other than not getting to check things out for the time she was living as a book outlaw.

    Also, when I was in college there were girls passing these around like candy, and I picked one up and leafed through it, thinking these were going to be delightfully trashy, and all I found in them was catty behavior and really nice clothes. I was disappointed, to say the least.

  • http://www.nutzak.org/ hnutzak

    I concur with Jude. This stuff happens A LOT. I used to work at a public library in a conservative town. Books go missing or get defaced, Queer as Folk DVDs get stuffed behind the browser bin, you name it. The library welcomes suggestions from patrons, and they have numerous forms that patrons can fill out to make acquisition suggestions or raise complaints. The library is charged with developing a catalog that reflects the values and needs of the community while remaining fair and balanced. But even in that uberchristian town, they did not take kindly to censorship of any kind. They would sometimes have “read a banned book” week or the like. As far as I’m aware, they’re still the only library in the state that has not installed Internet filters for their public computer labs.

  • Chrissy

    As a librarian-in-training, this really pisses me off. If this lady doesn’t want her kids reading Gossip Girl, what ever, that’s her call. Sorry if they grow up to be close-minded, but I’m pretty sure they’ll find other ways to access this material. However, she cannot be the judge of what others read and if she can’t respect intellectual freedom, she need to get herself out of the library. I can’t speak for every instance, but so many of the banned and challenged books are attacked by religious people. Many are seen as putting family values into question (as if life in the real world doesn’t do that already…). Might as well take away the t.v., movie theaters, and social life while you’re at it.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X