Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsTuesday, July 1, 2008 5:55 PM CDT
Comments Comments (86) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Patron complains that DVD at Bloomington library is pornographic
Library officials: 'Shortbus' clearly marked as unrated, explicit
By M.K. Guetersloh
mkguetersloh@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

UPDATED 5:15 p.m. BLOOMINGTON -- A DVD available at Bloomington Public Library was called pornographic by one patron, but library officials say they work to balance community standards with the need to provide free access to information.

A Bloomington man complained earlier this week to library Director Georgia Bouda that the 2006 independent film “Shortbus,” written and directed by John Cameron Mitchell, was inappropriate for the library’s collection.

Bouda confirmed the complaint was made, but The Pantagraph has been unable to contact the patron.

Bouda said the film is clearly marked as unrated and containing sexually explicit content. “Shortbus” has been described in reviews as a look at the sex lives of a group of New Yorkers.

“People are responsible for their own choices — that’s what intellectual freedom is about,” Bouda said. “When people sign up for a library card they take responsibility for their choices.”

There are no age restrictions on checking out anything in the library’s collection.

However, Bouda said the library does have a process for reconsidering material if a patron raised a concern. Bouda and a panel of several librarians review the material, research it and then decide whether the material should stay on the shelves or be removed.

It takes about two weeks to complete the process, Bouda said. While the material is under review it is off of the library’s shelves.

“We are not here to legislate taste, but we do take concerns about material seriously,” Bouda said.

In the roughly two years Bouda has served as director, about three pieces of library material have been questioned, and one of those items was pulled, she said.

“Shortbus” was added to the library’s collection by the librarians assigned to that department, Bouda said.

A similar review process is in place at Normal Public Library, said library Director Brian Chase.

“Once we receive a form challenging the material, we review it, see what other libraries have and then make a decision,” Chase said.

He added he was uncertain how often material at the Normal library is questioned because he only started as director earlier this year.

Chase said the foundation of Normal library’s material selection policy is based on the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights.

“Libraries in general feel a responsibility to provide as much information as possible,” said Dane Ward, associate dean for public services at Milner Library at Illinois State University. “Librarians work hard to protect that freedom of information.”

Complaints about material are more common at public libraries than academic libraries such as Milner, Ward said. In his six years at Milner, Ward said he has not received any requests to pull material.

Choosing material also is different for Milner than the other public libraries because they are trying to select material that advances the university’s curriculum or research, Ward said.

“What we are looking for is a little more specific and if anything we get requests for material that we cannot afford to add because of our limited budget,” Ward added.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 86 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

HD wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:52 PM:

" haha, Meh's comments are so hypocritical, this is the same guy who supports anti-religious stuff! "

Homer J. Simpson wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:29 PM:

" I agree with Scapegoat -- anyone who has seen the film would know that there is a lot more to complain about than the "explicit content". The film was awful. "

Townie here... wrote on Jul 14, 2008 6:23 PM:

" Oh Geez! get off it already...as lindini said previously, it's gotta be better than the Saw movies which truly move people to puke...rent it and tell me if I'm wrong.

This was an indie film which the library has full right to carry...it said explicit content, so why did the patron bother if that sort of stuff offends her...plain and simple, get my point? "

Geez! wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:40 PM:

" "Meh" - "the problem with people like Geez is that they believe that the mere existance of something they don't like is the same as rubbing their nose in it. Geez hates pornography and sexuality and the mere existance of ShortBus is the same as tying him to a chair and forcing him and his children to watch."

How in the world do you jump to such asinine conclusions? Your stretch of logic is astounding.

How do you know what I "hate"? If you are so psychic, why have we not heard about your winning the lottery time and again?

The mind boggles at your clairvoyance! "

Meh wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:06 PM:

" Great lesson for your kids, if you don't like something whine about it until it goes away.

Meh's wife. "

Meh wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:30 PM:

" Laura, the problem with people like Geez is that they believe that the mere existance of something they don't like is the same as rubbing their nose in it. Geez hates pornography and sexuality and the mere existance of ShortBus is the same as tying him to a chair and forcing him and his children to watch. Its the same as in the gay marriage debates - from his opposition, you'd think he was being forced to marry another guy at gunpoint. He and his ilk are hardcore busybodies and moralists of the worst type and are more than happy to tell you (or force you) to do as they see fit. Freedom to them is "You're free to do exactly as we say." "

Laura wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:29 AM:

" Geez- I am not putting my beliefs on anyone. I am anot sure what you mean. If she doesn;t like it, don't rent it. There are a lot of things I don't like, such as portraying women badley, like using their bodies to get viewing. So are these people putting their beliefes onto me? No! Some poeple like it, some don't I just don't watch it and wouldn't let my little girl see that. "

Scapegoat wrote on Jul 11, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Have you seen Shortbus? I'd hardly say its primary purpose is to arose. Most of the sex in it is, at least to me, far more disturbing than arosing or sensual. It's a terrible film, but the library has the right to stock it. However, more significant measures need to be taken to keep it out of the hands of children. "

Geez! wrote on Jul 11, 2008 6:02 AM:

" "Laura" - demanding that others are accepting those things that they consider morally offensive is an affront to their personal beliefs, thus you are forcing your personal beliefs on to them.

Becoming that which you hate?

Pornography - "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

"Shortbus" is pornographic. Whether or not pornography should be in a public library is up for debate, apparently. "

prettyblueeyes wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:34 AM:

" Just put an age limit on the ones that need it. If an adult doesn't "like" what they are seeing then...FYI just don't rent it. "

Laura wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:14 AM:

" If this lady does not like the content then why did she rent the video. I do not understand people! If all you are going to do is complain about something, ignore it and move on. Other people might find the video to be educational. Maybe she can compare it to her husband looking at other women. If she doesn't see it, it won't bother her.
Times are changing; people need to be more open. We don't live in a society that is run by religion anymore. Open your mind!!! "

Enlightened wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:58 AM:

" I checked out the film in question and I can't see anything really wrong with it. Although, I have only been able to get 10 minutes into the movie every time. It is a great opening scene. "

c.a.t.s. wrote on Jul 9, 2008 6:23 PM:

" This patron must be the same lady that complained about the guy reading playboy on the airplane.. "

thinkaboutit wrote on Jul 9, 2008 12:50 PM:

" Hey Pantagraph.................

I think you've got a story here! "

Scapegoat wrote on Jul 8, 2008 2:01 PM:

" I have to agree with thinkaboutit. Libraries should defend their right to carry video material of this nature, but its availability needs to be restricted to adults or children with parent/guardian permission. I've seen portions of Shortbus, and though the director went to great lengths to remove the intimacy (part of the point of the film), it's definitely not something I would want a child of mine to watch until I had determined that he or she was old enough to have a mature discussion about it.

This patron seems to be nosey and prudish but may have unintentionally brought to light a procedure that the Bloomington Library needs to seriously review. "

summerh2o wrote on Jul 8, 2008 12:35 PM:

" It's too bad that Bloomington's library doesn't have something in place to stop children from checking out 'adult' or age-inappropriate material. When I lived in Normal, my son and I had different colored library cards which were obviously age-oriented. Also, at the Decatur Public Library, until you are an adult you have a youth card....it had a capital Y (for youth) stamped on it, and the spines of the books I believe have a Y before or after the reference number. The guy needs to get some common sense - for sure. But it sounds like the Bloomington Library needs to review some of it's practices as well. "

Shadow wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:46 AM:

" YAY for Bouda!! Dont bend over for those conservative freaks. Way to go. "

Meh wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:13 AM:

" Archie Goodwin, how exactly do you think families are made? Did a stork bring all of your children to you? LOL. "

ES wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Where can I get this video? It sounds exciting. Whoo-hoo "

PrairieGurl wrote on Jul 7, 2008 10:22 AM:

" I wouldn't want anyone choosing what my kid could check out. That's my decision. "

thinkaboutit wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:39 PM:

" I think "Helen C" and "bnres" hit the more important issue here...... It's not whether the library has some material that some might consider pornographic, and some not.

The fact that young children have the ability to check out materials that are considered pornographic is a more important issue. I think the Blm library needs to seriously reconsider that guideline. Children under 17 cannot go to an R rated movie at a theatre. They cannot check out the same materials from a video store. But, they can get the material at a public library; an institution funded with public money and answerable to the public that supports them. I suspect the vast majority of people that live in our community would support a guideline that prevents children from checking out certain materials unless they had approval from their parents or guardians. "

lindini wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:30 AM:

" You are getting into some slippery territory now. Last time I looked freedom of speech was protected by the constitution. Sexual assault is not. One mans porno is another man's work of art. I hardly want the town of Bloomingitons busy bodies stepping in to tell me which is which and what I can or can not do in the privacy of my home.

Additionally, I notice no one seems to be writting in about the librarys other pornographic movies - Saw I-III. I would far prefer my kids seeing a bit of skin to the horror shown in these jems. Then again that is my choice which is why we don't rent them. Isn't freedom to choose wonderful? "

Josh wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:17 AM:

" To Econodude, you say that he was minding his own business-how do you know what his intent was? I have to agree with both of the other posters. Our community has decided that it's pornographic for a guy to be running down the trail naked. Would you disagree with that statement?

I think the two situations are apples and oranges. Can't really compare them to each other. "

Josh wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:10 AM:

" To Helen C, I echo the comments of bnres, that may be the case at the Bloomington Library, but it's not the case at the Normal Public Library. Why don't you visit the NPL and find out for yourself before you jump to conclusions. "

Econodude wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:41 PM:

" Lindini and bnrunning, you're using a veiwer's ability to freely choose to look at the "lewdness" as the criteria on whether the lewd object/material is acceptable or not: If the object "forces" itself on a member of the public, it's wrong, but if the one freely decides to look at the material, that's OK because the viewer chose to do it. That's not how communities evaluate whether something is pornographic. The community decides what's acceptable taste based upon the content of the material itself, not based upon whether the potential viewer chooses , or is forced, to look at it. Applying your criteria to, drugs, prostitution, or suicide, such acts would not be OK if one is forced to participate in them, but OK if one chose to commit them. That's not the criteria society uses, however. Society decides that such acts are harmful to society irregardless of the choice factor. "

myself wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:46 PM:

" To speakeroftruth: You are right for once. It would not be pornographic if prayers were in school. Then we would all be religious and we all know that priests have never had relations with same sex of different sex children. If I pray maybe and can "be touched" where I don't want to be. What a great idea. Let's all pray we can touch a child. Loser!!! "

lindini wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:15 PM:

" Logic isnt bias. The two situation just are not the same... it is not like they are playing the movie in the library. That maybe you could have a good argument about. The box is quite tame and very clearly says that the movie is explicit. If you CHOOSE to rent it, it is your choice and you have decided you will risk the consequences. How is having someone force you to look at their genitals without your consent even in the same ball park? "

bnres wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:03 PM:

" To Helen C:

Actually that might be the case at the Bloomington Library, but at the Normal Library children can not borrow movies of any kind without a adult renting it for them on the adult card. So the adult would know not to rent this movie for their child, or at least we hope they would read that it is sexually explicit and not rent it for there child. Maybe Bloomington Library should have these same rules as well to keep the children from renting things they shouldn't be seeing. "

Fishpoop wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:38 PM:

" and this guy wasn't clued off as to what the movie was like when the librarian started to snicker as he checked it out...... "

bnrunning wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Econodude, your comparison is not really valid. The person on the Constitution Trail is foisting his "lewdness" upon others. The explicit content in the DVD can only be witnessed if it is checked out and viewed off premises. The library patron makes the choice to view the material...whereas the walkers/runners on the trail don't have control of the streaker exposing himself. "

Truman the Tiger wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:09 PM:

" That's disgusting! Please post the dewey decimal number so I can investigate this problem further! "

Helen C wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:00 PM:

" To Josh (and anyone else who is interested)
Actually, there are no safe guards in place. There were a couple of years ago, but now things have changed, and anyone can check out any item of choice. That means that even a child, with a juvenile card, can check out this movie or any other. That, to me, is the most alarming aspect of all of this. If you don't believe this to be true, call the library, ask for the circulation department, or better yet, call the director, Georgia Bouda, who is quoted in this article. Ask if children can check out this movie and the answer will be Yes. Ironically, those same children cannot attend an R rated movie without a parent, and they can't go to Blockbuster or to Family Video and rent these types of movies because they are under age 17. But they can go to our tax supported public library and borrow it. They can borrow any movie, regardless of its rating, and they do not need parental approval or presence to do so. "

Econodude wrote on Jul 2, 2008 2:48 PM:

" Lindini, you did a careful job of embellishing each situation to fit your bias. Bottom line (no pun intended, well... maybe) is that in both situations people are in a public area and can see something that a number of people feel is inappropriate. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over either of the two situations. I thought I'd just highlight the hypocrisy of the arguments used in the posts here. Have a Happy 4th. "

SpeakerOfTruth wrote on Jul 2, 2008 2:15 PM:

" the explicit scenes in "Shortbus" wouldn't be considered pornagraphic if there was still prayer in schools. "

lindini wrote on Jul 2, 2008 2:00 PM:

" Econodude, your logic is a bit questionable. I think there is quite a difference between choosing to check out a film which clearly states it has mature content and then watching it at your leisure in the privacy of your own home with being approached by a actual man with his business hanging out in a public area against your will. I guess if constitution trail was a nudist trail with signs posted saying as much you might have a slight argument. In this case you have none. "

Candid wrote on Jul 2, 2008 1:42 PM:

" I suspect that the "patron" who objects to sexual content in a DVD he is not forced to watch, is probably gung ho about the Iraq invasion. "

Fishpoop wrote on Jul 2, 2008 1:42 PM:

" this person probably got caught watching it when his wife walked in on him.... "

Econodude wrote on Jul 2, 2008 1:23 PM:

" It's interesting that most folks on these forums on one hand want this material protected, arguing it's natural, you see it on TV anyway, etc. And they chastize the one reporting it.

Yet in the other Pantagraph story online the same folks get incensed there's a guy with his clothes off just minding his own business on the trail. They call him a pervert. Double standard? "

CUB wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:04 PM:

" I haven't been to the library in years. I would go if i knew this stuff was on the shelves!!! "

Ekim wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:11 AM:

" It didn't jump out and make you look at it, or watch it. What is the problem here? Oh yeah a self-righteous idiot who can't control his own actions so he expects society, government, and now the library to do it for him. "

vzbb wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:59 AM:

" Wow whoever reported this needs to stop. What do you see on TV everyday? Half of it is violence or sexual in nature. Geez!! "

hceuterpe wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:36 AM:

" My attitude is if you're going to censor a library, then you might as well not have one.
You have a right to exercise your freedom of choice on what you watch, moron (the person in this story). USE IT.

If you want to burn some books and destroy library materials (extreme censorship), go join Hitler in a book burning in purgatory (or whatever your beliefs are for what happens to bad people after they die). "

isabelle wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:29 AM:

" I think the first ten minutes of Saving Private Ryan are far more disturbing than most scenes of consensual sex. "

pseudo-intellectual wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:21 AM:

" I can't believe that out of all these self-righteous and bored commenters, only Redbeard has made the enlightened observation that by complaining to the library the patron has GUARANTEED that this illicit material will be viewed by MORE PEOPLE than would ever have been the case if he/she had kept his/her MOUTH SHUT. "

*rolls eyes* wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:36 AM:

" These puritan attitudes towards sex are a huge problem for society. You have whole generations of women growing up feeling guilty or dirty for having sex even after they are married. Sex is a *wonderful* thing! The need to protect yournger people who are not ready for it from having sex too soon, needs to be carefully balanced against building unhealthy attitudes towards sex in people. Right now, there are certain religious segements of society that are so repressive of sex that it leaves young women with damaged, unhealthy outlooks on sex that stay with them for the rest of their lives if not dealt with through therapy or hard work by a married couple. "

brandyc wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:33 AM:

" In my opinion, I feel it is kinda sad that this makes the news, but in response to the article, I feel this adult should be wise enough to make adult decisions and be able to tell from the box that is not a film he would enjoy. That is part of being an adult. For a library to carry the film shouldnt be a issue, allowing children to rent this film out probably should be. We know that there are bad parents out there that dont pay attention to what kids check out, so I feel that the library should put an age limit on the film! "

MISSterious wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:21 AM:

" So, about this "library review panel" that will decide.....how can it be that a handful of people are given the huge responsibility of deciding what is in poor taste and what is intellectually stimulating - especially when both are incredibly subjective? And all a person has to do is complain about something, when they have the free will and choice not to watch it in the first place? Doesn't this break some sort of free speech, blah, blah, blah rules? "

Josh wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:16 AM:

" Seems like this guy has a grudge against BPL for some reason and was looking for a reason to make them look bad. All it did was make him look stupid.

To Book lover-the Pantagraph contacts other libraries in the area to see what policies are in place. Get a Clue.

To Ozymandias, there are safeguards in place. Children can't check out DVDs on a juvenile card. The only way they could check it out is with their parent being there. "

3673 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:12 AM:

" As usual, I see alot of "enlightened" people criticizing the library patron for speaking up for his values but I don't see any of you geniuses proposing your own standards. Librarians are public service employees and should only be enforcing public standards (despite what they think). I for one am in favor of removing or restricting minors from checking out/viewing sexually explicit material without the consent of their parents. "

Adam wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:09 AM:

" bnrunning: Perfectly stated! We didn't congiel in a gutter somewhere, we are here because of sex. Suddenly its this horrific thing if someone video tapes it? "

Redbeard wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:05 AM:

" See, this is why the Pantagraph is so useful. I had been wanting to catch that movie when it came out and forgot all about it. Now, thanks to the promotional efforts of the library patron and the Pantagraph, I'm reminded about it and know where to get it. "

chief wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:41 AM:

" so what is the problem that this had to make it to the press? A patron objected to a video, brought it to the attention of the library, who will now follow the process they already have in place to review the video in question. Seems to me like this guy just wanted his 15 minutes of fame, rather than following the process that was already in place, and according to the article, has worked 3 times over the past 2 years. "

cowbella wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:20 AM:

" To Archie Goodwin: So sex between two consenting adults is part of what you consider "disgusting fetishes" and it should be hidden from the entire public? So you are practicing Celebacy? Because if you are not, then you too have these disgusting fetishes and you should stop giving other people a dose of your Hot Air, because that would be all it is. "

memo wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:53 AM:

" To "Archie Goodwin"

No, the point is society has made it acceptable for everyone to find something to complain about or sue about. If this man is so blind by his ignorance that he can't read a DVD box and figure out for himself if he would be offended by it, then so be it. And to compare the library to Medusa's is absolutely absurd! Just because of one DVD. If that is the case, then I hope Medusa's never puts out a copy of To Kill A Mockingbird. Somebody might complain and the pantagraph can write an article about that. "

MonkeySweater wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:41 AM:

" Oh, THANK YOU, anonymous library patron, for saving the B-N area from itself! Now that it's safe to rent movies from the library again, why don't you crusade to get some of those filthy, filthy books out of there? I hear Tom Sawyer has the n-word in it! Better get that off the shelf before someone loses an eye. Pretty soon, the only book in the library will be the Bible...oh, wait...that gets pretty graphic, too. "

branhan wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:06 AM:

" How much you want to bet this guy watched the movie in it's entirety?
Perhaps six or seven times...to make sure it was offensively explicit?
"Vive la Bloomington Library!!!!" "

3838 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:46 AM:

" in some sports if you want to file a complaint you have to first pony up $100.00. what a great solution then we wouldnt have to listen to a bunch of silly opinions. and perjaps the chief would still be in champaign "

greed wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:36 AM:

" Unrated. "Contains sexually explicit material" Just how much warning does this person need. I would venture he was one of the picketers trying to keep The Normal Theatre from screening "Fahrenheit 9-11," in 2004. Most kids, by 9 or ten, already have seen far more than the film contains, especially if they have their own computer. I don’t think knowing about sex at a young age is harmful. "

Archie Goodwin wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:52 AM:

" To "Who Cares"...

The point is, society would like to be able to tell the difference between our public library and Medusa's. If you perverts want to watch this trash, then go to Medusa's to get it. Don't try to hide your disgusting fetishes behind the respectability of a public family institution. "

Candid wrote on Jul 2, 2008 12:16 AM:

" The "patron" needs to mind his own business and not try to play the DVD police. "

Brenstalka wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:36 PM:

" I've seen the movie. It is very explicit, showing pretty much every sexual act. There's a clear warning on the cover and with this being a fairly obscure movie, one would have to be intentionally seeking it. I'm sure the library has many other unrated and NC-17 movies. Many movies of previous decades received X ratings, but the content of those would only be considered R by today's standards. First Amendment... blah blah blah. If you don't like it, don't rent it. "

bnrunning wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:23 PM:

" I saw the film when it was playing in Chicago. As usual the voices critical of this film are focusing on the "explicit nature" of some of the scenes. I find it interesting that the library is chock full of action DVDs that portray killing, torture, beating and other violence yet this man gets upset over a DVD showing consensual sex between adults. Why are we so fearful of sex? "

gjustis wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:08 PM:

" As far as I see it, the folks who take offense at certain content need to take responsibility, along with the folks who don't see a problem, and call an open forum to discuss everyone's definition of "pornography." This can all be done with decorum and intelligence, benefiting the community in innumerable ways.

The Cowboy "

Not so Political wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:04 PM:

" hey book lover - read the whole story and you would know. reading everyother line you will learn nothing. "

BookLover wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:02 PM:

" How did a story about the Bloomington Public Library become a story about the director of Normal's library? "

bloomington girl wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:58 PM:

" wow "

easy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:15 PM:

" Pool Boy wrote in part "Just because someone needs to get a life is no reason to impose minority opinions on the rest of us." Let me think for a moment to what other topic I could apply this very sound logic to.......Oh yeah, that one. But then some people would accuse me of being narrow minded or intolerant or even worse (gasp) a Christian. I guess the validity of that arguement pales beside the very real issue of...you fill in the blank. Assume you know what I'm writing about and initiate your own crap storm. "

normal citizen wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:07 PM:

" Wow by reading the headlines i thought that someone rented a DVD for a child and had pornography on the cd instead of a child's story. Well when reading I see it was just someone renting what the DVD case said and trying to make an issue out of there own mistake. If the case states what was on the cd you should not have checked it out just to turn around and complain. The gall of some people. "

big_guy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:59 PM:

" Get A Life "

Ozymandias wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:46 PM:

" Certainly someone was looking for trouble, but that doesn't change certain facts that have come to light.

If this material is sexually explicit, then there needs to be some safeguards against children accessing it. Just because something is "unrated" does not make it appropriate. Typically, "unrated" versions are the same as "unedited" versions and are too lewd for the "R" rating.

So.. if the library wants to have this material, so be it. If anyone wants to check it out, do so as you wish. But as a public library, please limit the children's access to this material, along with lewd lyrics, pornographic materials, excessively violent video games. "

Li'l Johnny wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:29 PM:

" Oops, I may have said book ILO DVD, sorry, but you get the idea. "

myself wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:29 PM:

" I mean no offense to anyone. This is just an outrageous complaint from someone not in touch with the way the world changes day to day or decade to decade. We all have to be aware that the age of the internet has opened a lot of options to people of all ages, creeds, and whatever else we as the public decide to label the human race as. I'm 34 and lots of my elders think Easyrider is a film of expression. But when it was made, there was nudity in it. Some called it porno then. And this was the era of drugs and sex. One person's complaint should not be a consideration of what is right for the next generation to come. I've seen this film and ones' like it. I don't here anyone here complaining about Pulp Fiction or Trainspotting. They both glorify the use of heroin. So are drugs ok to watch, but not the natural puberty of humans? Whoever complained is not very educated in the term "Independent Film". It's one person's view.Not for all to take a liking to. "

Li'l Johnny wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:28 PM:

" I have a problem with this being news, but anyway. I almost every totalitarian society, one of the first things that happens is the books get burned. Don't bother to read them, just burn them. REALLY SCARY!!! I also agree with the many comments that ask if it was clearly labeled as having sexual content, then why in the h@ll would you rent it and then condemn the library for allowing it on their shelves? Do these people crawl out from under rocks or what? "

floyd wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:22 PM:

" I wonder how many times he watched it until he decided it was bad? 10? lol! "

who cares wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:19 PM:

" it's still we the people right?if you don't want to look at it then don't.that's like walking into Medusa's and complaining of pornographic material. "

BN97 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:16 PM:

" I rented this movie through Netflix not really knowing what it was about. The sex is real between the actors and you see everything. No imagination required. So, explicit doesn't quite cover it, in my opinion. I don't really think the library is the best place for this film to be available. Yes, we should be free. I think if others actually watched the unrated version they would see why this person would feel this way. "

keep-sarcasm-alive wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:16 PM:

" Maybe the library can start their own little "back room" like the video stores. "

wrongway1987 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:14 PM:

" If you don't like it, then don't check it out!! I am so sick of other people trying to make decisions for everyone based on what they think is best. Maybe that person needs to read the back of the box before checking it out, since the box BLATANTLY STATES that it is not a movie of a mundane nature, it is the person's responsiblity to read what they are checking out. It isn't the library's fault this person got an unexpected surprise. If a child rented this, I could see a problem. But as parents it is their responsibility to moniter what they allow the children to check out, so we're back at square one. And back to personal responsibility. You don't like it, then don't watch it, don't let your children watch it, tell your friends not to watch it, but push your closeminded opinions on the rest of the town. "

truthiness wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:55 PM:

" ... and apperantly this unknown person ran with their crazy rantings to the pantagraph, who then deems this news somehow... give me a break. "

The Original JD wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:30 PM:

" "Bouda said the film is clearly marked as unrated and containing sexually explicit content."

So in other words, he is complaining because he did not read the box. Of course, this will have to result in banning movie from the library. After all, people have to be protected from their own stupidity. "

Pool Boy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:19 PM:

" Hold firm library. Just because someone needs to get a life is no reason to impose minority opinions on the rest of us. "

bellringr wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:06 PM:

" What Mellie said - if he's offended by sexual content, then why did he check it out? Sounds to me like he was trying to find a reason to cause trouble. "

Charlemagne wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:42 PM:

" If you don't want to watch it, then don't. "

110100100 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Why would anyone grab a tape that says "explicit content" and then complain about its explicit content? "

Super Grover wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:29 PM:

" If It offends you,Dont look at it.

This is not Russia or Iran,In america we are free to choose. "

melliebunny wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:25 PM:

" Libraries, although quiet, are definitely one of the places activism for our freedoms is the most enforced.

Whether or not this movie is pornographic is irrelevant. Bravo to these librarians for standing up for people's abilities to choose for themselves what is and isn't appropriate. "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy