Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodWallop
What you are suggesting is that every time a panicky and ill-informed parent comes running in sweating about a book they heard an opinion on, but have not yet read (or even seen), be banned, that book must immediately be removed.
|
I suggested no such thing. That is your hyperbole, not mine.
Quote:
|
How about the people they hired to run the library?
|
And that is a reasonable suggestion. But if the people paying for the library don't like the decisions being made by those who work there, what is the next step? Personally, I would say they should fire the library administrators who are not doing what the community wants, and hire new administrators. Maybe they tried that. We don't know. Which is the gist of my comment several posts back, "I imagine there is a lot more behind the majority voting "no" on the funding than this news article is presenting."
Many people contributing to this thread are arguing a viewpoint regarding "Is it right or wrong to ban books that advocate the LGBT lifestyle?" But that's not the question here. The question is "Do the taxpayers who provide the money for the library to operate have a say in what the library does with their money?" These are two separate and distinct questions.
I am arguing that "Yes, the taxpayers have a say." And if you can believe the news report, they have chosen what they want by a strong majority. Twice. I may think those taxpayers have made a decision that is contrary to my beliefs, but I also think that they have a right to make that decision. However shortsighted or self-serving it may be. I could say this same thing about many states in this last election as well. My thoughts may be "Wow, those voters are idiots!" But it's their state, their vote. I can certainly play armchair quarterback, but the reality is, I'm not in the game, I have zero say in how it is played or its outcome. I'm can only express my opinion of how the game was played. But that doesn't change anything. Nor should it.